[muh_gradle]

This comment itself is in such bad faith that I don't even know where to begin. Imagine this. A progressive event was taking place in which a progressive speaker didn't get to do their planned talk. Instead an administrator gave their pre-written notes (literally printed) and went into a diatribe admonishing the intended speaker when their job was to help moderate the event. Are you seriously telling me that this was appropriate?

[elicash]

I'm not the person you're responding to, but you clearly are laying out a version of facts that is being contested. You're saying she "hijacked" the event rather than attempted to de-escalate an already out-of-control situation, and maybe even suggesting that doing so is out of the normal responsibility of deans.

She clearly failed. And I think she should have enforced existing policy rather than think her speech would be effective (although not 100% sure the best way to carry that out in the moment). But we both agree that part of her role in her position is to act in that moment. I think the two of us even agree about what she should have done. We just disagree about whether she acted in good faith.

[muh_gradle]

If Tirien Steinbach was acting on good faith to de-escalate, she wouldn't stop saying "is the juice worth the squeeze" to the speaker ad nauseum. I watched the 9 minute video of her speaking uninterrupted. In fact she loves asking "is the juice worth the squeeze" so much to the point that it becomes a subtitle in her Wall Street Journal article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/diversity-and-free-speech-can-c...).

That's not a good faith attempt at de-escalation in that moment nor do I believe she was ever trained to de-escalate in such a manner. It's a prepared, written piece of dramatic, performative theater and she wanted a stage to deliver her thoughts.

[dekhn]

She had prepared remarks. Obviously what she did was not in good faith (from the perspective of the invited speaker).