The problem I always have with stories like this is the context.

1) The writer breathlessly warns that "campuses across the country" are succumbing to mob rule. How many campuses is that? Sure, we "know" from the internet that this problem is rampant, just like we "know" that other hot-button issues such as shooting of unarmed black teens, the incel movement, anchor babies, etc. have reached epidemic proportions. But in many cases as in this article we have no context as to just how common these problems are. Is this happening at 10 percent of campuses, fifty percent, 1/10 of 1%? Is the trendline up in the past year or just the reporting of it?

2) What about the historical context? Colleges have been hotbeds of protest for hundreds of years. Is it really true that something has fundamentally changed, or does it just seem that way because this time groups that we (ymmv) approve of are on the receiving end of the protests? If the issue is free speech, ought we not also compare historical limits on free speech imposed by governments, college donors and churches? Perhaps students have gained power because some of those prior actors have lost power, and if so, maybe that is not a bad thing. How much free speech did Jews, women and black students have when they weren't even allowed to enroll in certain colleges in the first place? When exactly was the golden age of academic freedom that everybody wants to return to? I have a feeling the answer to that strongly depends on when the respondent happened to attend school.

3) This article also lumps together issues which are linked in only the most nebulous of ways. What is this specific bakery case meant to be an example of? The author states, "Across the country, academics have caused lasting damage to their institutions by failing to stand up to, or actively supporting, extreme demands for speech codes, limits on academic freedom, and tenure changes." But this situation, of Oberlin officials and students protesting a bakery, doesn't seem to fit into any of those categories. Or maybe it's meant to illustrate how "leaders are ceding control to a small group of activist students and faculty members." Huh, who's ceding control to whom? Seems to me the activist students and faculty members <i>are</i> the leaders.

4) In this specific instance, the writer in my opinion fails to adequately cover both sides of the story. Why were the students and faculty so sure that racism took place if that so clearly was not the case, as portrayed here? It appears as if they had ample opportunity to walk back their position but refused to even in the face of potentially ruinous litigation.

5) And if schools are losing verdicts and enrollment right and left, then isn't this a self-correcting problem? The expression goes that you have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences. Overactivist universities will face oblivion, problem solved. Or perhaps potential students will decide that going to schools that support their social issues is worth the higher tuition and stricter environment. Many religious institutions impose extra restrictions and limit free expression -- some people are okay with that kind of learning environment; as a society we're generally not apoplectic over it.

I'm not denying there are some seeming trends that are seemingly worrisome. I just can't tell, from most of these articles, how truly widespread they are, how deep is their support, how much of the hysteria is media or internet driven, how badly activism affects the overall university experience, and why supposedly large numbers of students and faculty are so strongly in support of them if they are all downside and no benefit.

EDIT: When I started writing my comment there were no other replies. Thank you grellas and others for providing a lot more context than existed in the article itself.