> So being called racist or hateful is enough to cancel their dialog, but those suffering under racism or hate must allow the dialog to continue Again -- that'

> So being called racist or hateful is enough to cancel their dialog, but those suffering under racism or hate must allow the dialog to continue Again -- that's not what anyone said. Ignoring speech isn't canceling dialogue. Ignoring speech, here, is a much healthier response compared to a heckler's veto. > They can, and they did I was obviously saying that's not an avenue that's acceptable for law students. And this letter clearly and thankfully discourages that tact. I wish it went further. > We already know what he is going to say. I didn't and I don't? Please stop speaking about things you have no earthly clue about. The point was -- as I explained in some detail -- it's selfish of you to try to determine what speech I do or don't get to listen to (more simply, stop being a baby when you don't get your way?). If you know what he's going to say, and you don't care for it, then don't attend, or ignore his speech, or if you are a law student, pick one of the dozens of avenues for your speech that don't outright prevent the speech of others. And please, for the love of God, don't stop taking the bait and looking this ridiculous. These law students were caught shouting down their political enemies because they were angry and they had some power. But once exposed we can see this for what it was -- it was obviously silly. Why? Because -- once exposed -- it was obvious just how politically counterproductive for their cause this was. Most normal people hate academics acting this loony toons, and young people bullying their elders. So -- for one reason or another, please quit the self righteous act, and focus on winning the next round, not reminding us how you lost this one.