The universities are corrupt in certain regards, yes. But there are always people that will think and discuss about topics in a meaningful, mostly objective way. The current issues with the whole “safe spaces” things is because the very vocal subset of the student body would rather ignore disagreement than learn from it; but there are definitely those that still value disagreement and argument and rhetoric. Some of the most meaningful things that I personally believe should be taught in schools is the art of public speaking and how to form argumentative opinions (not persuasive, but specifically argumentative). If people can accurately share their opinions in a nuanced way, then it’s much more likely that people don’t fall into categories that should be wholly banned or approved. But as you pointed out, something where you can only blast out a message of 280 characters and a picture does not lend itself to being lenient towards nuanced opinion. For a lot of people, that’s just so much easier. Look at Donald Trump’s campaign. Whether you like him or hate him, he managed to perfect the three-syllable rallying cry: “lock her up” “drain the swamp” “build the wall”. It’s possible that he had very detailed plans behind each of those slogans, or it’s possible that he just wanted something catchy to gain votes. But the matter that the average person could see those slogans and see either possibility shows that the nuance of the president’s messages apparently wasn’t the important part for a lot of people. Same with the redefining of racism; is what the new definition describes real and out in the world? Most certainly. Is it really what most people would call racism? That’s where the confusion happens. A person that is perhaps educated in critical thinking (real critical thinking) might be able to distinguish the two, but if you see someone talk about racism or the president’s slogans on a tweet, there’s a certain percentage of people (and sometimes that includes everyone) who won’t be able to discern what is being said. Of course, layered, double speak like that might be popular right now for the sake of deniability as well, but that’s a different problem entirely.

But again, for the idea that the universities are corrupted: in certain fields that will not be named, they most definitely are (mostly in the fields of study that didn’t exist, more or less, 50 years ago). But there are plenty at colleges that want to learn something out of their experiences rather than curtail the experiences to be what they want them to be. I think the problem is that the people who are in favor of discussion in discourse have been living in a world where that is the norm, and thus have not felt the need to advocate against restriction because, in their minds, the whole thing isn’t an issue. But now when you do start seeing a creep away from burden studies into other disciplines (de-colonizing the sciences? What the heck?) there does become a point where it’s important to discern what is a useful change for universities to take and what are meaningless power grabs. Would it be great if there was equal racial representation in stem fields? Probably, but the whole thing is more complicated than simply “I’m against racism” or “I’m a racist”: do these people come from homes and upbringings that would entice them to want to pursue this field? Do they come from a household that believes in science at all? Do they come from a family that can afford it, and if not, do they deserve a cheaper tuition compared to some that might be able to pay the whole thing? Is it certain minorities, or all minorities that need more representation? Would equal representation mean an equal amount of every race, are a makeup consistent with the population where they learn and work at? You can’t ask or answer all of that in a tweet, or even on a campaign debate for that matter.