text: This is a thoughtful post, a reasonable, establishment critique of the establishment. Being a public university president is an impossible job because the different stakeholder groups often make demands that are impossible to reconcile. Professor Schill appears to have performed admirably in negotiating the rapids, so to speak.
  
  Those students' critique, however, doesn't agree with yours at all, and if their manifesto is accurate, they have legitimate grievances. The most worrisome charges are that the POTU has ignored the students' concerns, and refused to meet with them, and that his understanding of free speech is deeply flawed. 
  
  Given the students' detailed critique, isn't it possible that the two faux pas you cite are not anomalies? That these errors in fact, indicate that Professor Schill still has a lot to learn about identity, academic freedom and protected speech? It sure sounds like Professor Schill has neglected ONE stakeholder here, the student body.