That is perhaps the crux of ALL of these debates. The vocabulary around these issues is not equally understood in a consistent context by all of the parties involved. Attempting to answer someone else’s question that is loaded with inconsistent implications among listeners of the question and forthcoming answer is nearly a pointless exercise if you actually intend on enlightening the conversation.
That is what is so frustrating about the university leaders’ appearances. As someone pointed out in another forum, it turns out all three of these leaders were coached, probably for HOURS, by the same elite law firm prior to this appearance on how to navigate the rhetorical mine field before them. Yet none had the sense to deconstruct these loaded questions and answer them one clause at a time to both convey to listeners how the question itself was purposely adding confusion to the debate and also educate everyone on the priority of responsibilities and freedoms we ALL have to each other in our actions and speech.
All three of these universities have faced issues over the last few months regarding complaints about selected enforcement of “free speech” that pointed out how fraught their attempts were at claiming to support free speech while also claiming to support an environment free of “trigger words” whose interpretations had no uniformity across the campus much less the world. They should have seen this question coming from the moment they were asked to appear.
WTH