Differences are 1) the students didn't run the institutions, with the ability to thwart rhetoric made in good faith, have professors punted etc. and, 2) protest

Differences are 1) the students didn't run the institutions, with the ability to thwart rhetoric made in good faith, have professors punted etc. and, 2) protesting against Black people having to use the 'back entrance of the theatre' in the 1950's is altogether different than many of the tactics used today related to not allowing discussion about issues with which some might disagree. I'm glad 1960's students made progress, especially with respect to difficult issues like apartheid. I'm equally glad (and I'll bet most share the same view) that students might want a more objective look at, for example, the Israel/Palestine conflict. The issue is the authoritarianism of the context, and the cancellation/derision of those who don't share the same view, and other ridiculous postmodernisms, such as literally removing photos of previous graduates (i.e. mostly white men) because it's offensive to the sensibilities of those who think it contravenes a positive learning experience. [1] Cleese is exactly right. Very few are concerned with the 'good faith' arguments of any group. It's the intolerance displayed by some camps that is the problem, not their arguments. [1] https://thepostmillennial.com/university-removes-alumni-photos-from-1907-in-promise-to-show-a-more-diverse-and-inclusive-vision-of-engineering https://thepostmillennial.com/university-removes-alumni-phot...