Some academics do indeed get it:

More than 150 professors joined the letter. But it’s interesting to note which names were absent: as of Wednesday, not a single law professors had signed it.

The letter wasn’t widely circulated around the law school, according to law professors. But they say the faculty rejoinder has generated little enthusiasm among them.

“I’d be surprised if anyone would sign on to this,” Chicago law professor Brian Leiter, a professor of jurisprudence and legal philosophy, said of the Chicago faculty statement. “You can’t get a legal education without studying the most unpleasant aspects of human existence: murder, rape, treachery, betrayal, dishonesty,” he said. At Chicago, “all views get to be heard as long as you can argue for them,” he said. “It’s the essence of the institution. if certain ideas offend, tough noogies,” he said, adding that his law school values civility. ...

[Tax Prof] Daniel Hemel, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and one of the law school’s youngest faculty members, raised similar concerns. “The proliferation of safe spaces and the expansion of the set of prohibited viewpoints pose a threat to the free exchange of ideas on college campuses,” he wrote in a short essay.
A few do; the rest appear to be standard-issue "Let's force everyone to be warm and cuddly(as THEY define it), or else!" idiots.


Speaking of idiots, some actually well-meaning,
That, I think, is a very bad idea, and indeed an unconstitutional idea. Should Congress be free to set up one set of contract law rules for contracts dealing with “unpatriotic speech” and another for contracts dealing with other viewpoints? A special set of contract law rules for contracts dealing with speech that “is inappropriate with respect to veteran status,” differing from rules related to other speech? A special set of contract law rules for contracts dealing with speech that condemned a business’s environmental practices? I don’t think so — and Congress likewise shouldn’t set up rules allowing special restrictions (not applicable to other speech) on “inappropriate” speech “with respect to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or other intrinsic characteristic.”


SeeBS is still at work, reporting all the news they want you to see, as they want you to see it.