Mort wrote these paragraphs in a WSJ oped in 2015:
Any attempt to hold people accountable for what they say will rile up the “free speech at any cost” advocates, but any defense of First Amendment rights will lead to campus unrest and hand-wringing. So where to draw that elusive line?
I’m not a lawyer; few university presidents are. But most of us have access to high-powered legal advisers. Sometimes state and federal laws are clear enough to make the decision, but usually they are not. And don’t expect to find agreement among your senior administrators. In a crisis the interests of those in student affairs, public relations, the legal counsel’s office, fundraising and faculty governance seldom align.
What’s a president to do? I have learned over 15 years in this job at two institutions that you better have a compelling reason to punish anyone—student, faculty member, staff member—for expressing his or her views, regardless of how repugnant you might find those views.
Freedom of speech doesn’t amount to much unless it is tested. And if the First Amendment doesn’t matter on college campuses, where self-expression is so deeply valued, why expect it to matter elsewhere?
It sounds like his head is in the right place on the issue. That said, I disagree with the decision to permit those students to interrupt the game, if that was indeed the case, as it violated the rights of the attendees (not that the cost was significant, IMO).
How exactly did it “violate the rights of the attendees?”