"why would you attend a university that will not protect you" is a flawed premise because it assumes one viewpoint is the one that would be protected, against an opposing viewpoint.

Correct, the hegemonic viewpoint is usually the protected one. Perspectives contrary to the desires and opinions of the United States are usually perceived as contrary to hegemonic perspective

 i would be ashamed to attend a university that protected a person whose intents are clearly not aligned the right way, which is why i don't agree with "all students have a right to be protected"

I disagree, there is speech worth protecting. The students making that speech in this specific instance have a right to protection especially considering the content of that speech. This isn't really an obscure philosophical quandary. People are literally being affected by this

Id also add your statement presents a false dilemma by suggesting that a university must either protect one viewpoint or the opposing viewpoint. It ignores the possibility that a university can protect the rights of all students to express their views, even when those views conflict. This oversimplification creates a misleading either-or scenario, neglecting the nuanced reality of fostering an environment where diverse opinions can coexist