Here we go!

Universities should invite neither professional provocateurs (i.e. trolls) like Coulter, nor people advocating theories like Mr. Spencer's, which are (to use a hip parlance) 'basic' and thoroughly debunked. If someone wants to deliver a well constructed, logically sound defense of racism, fine. The academic community can wrestle with it. But if they want to spew garbage with no sense of intellectual honesty... there are plent of internet and cable news outlets for that already.

A flawed argument that improperly uses data. These arguments have been thoroughly debunked in "Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth."

Haha. 'Issues.'

This is so much whining. Sometimes your ideas aren't popular and people don't want to hear or read them. Make your ideas better, more useful, more coherent with reality. Then people might eant to hear them.

What's truly gobstopping about this whining is that for centuries conservative ideas about race, gender, sexuality, and economics have been enforce as laws effectuating the suffering of millions upon millions of peoplle. Now that those ideas are losing popularity, conservatives are whining that they have a right to their ideas' popularity.

This is wrongheaded. Why is the University suddenly THE PUBLIC SQUARE? Why should every crackpot troll have the right to space and A/V amplification at a place dedicated to methodical inquiry and knowledge production? Universities should be ensuring that their students have the right to free speech. And they should probably support the notion that our society should provide many outlets for free speech, especially in the public square, through the internet, and for journalists. But their mission should not be, above all, to amplify anyone their students invite to campus. That's ridiculous. Let the College Republicans on campus make their own speeches.

Ooooh! Well it must be a serious problem meriting serious attention if "Even the Onion weighed in" to give their satirical hot take.

Even some conservatives say this author is full of shit. At least that's what I heard.

WTF? This is not what happened in the Berkeley case. It's as if the author wrote the article before the outcome.

And many who don't want trolls on campus are nowhere close to "demanding that offensive content be excised from public discourse...." We are merely noting that the University should not feel responsible to host and provide space and A/V amplification for every troll invited by its student groups.

Please link to this updated (but substantially similar) version of the paper. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2808731)

Thanks! :)