One interesting feature of the US universities system is that at public university, the first amendment protects the rights of jihadis to call for violence and so on. At private universities however the university can demand adherence to certain behavioural norms.

This seems to me to be a good way forward: privatise the universities and let them deal with it. I imagine that most regulars on this site will prefer that freedom of speech should be restricted in general, rather than privatise anything in particular.

Which kind of brings us back to the earlier posting on whether the left is totalitarian or not.

I imagine that most regulars on this site will prefer that freedom of speech should be restricted in general, rather than privatise anything in particular.

Why should the liberal-left be for censorship? But the two are not mutually exclusive positions. One can be pro- free speech and be against privatisation of academia.

You misunderstand me. My point was only that (IMHO) most regulars here, given the choice of privatising something or restricting liberty, would choose to restrict liberty. That is to say where it is a choice of one or the other. In other circumstances I’m sure that many of your readers would adopt a pro-free-speech, anti-privatisation stance.

given the choice of privatising something or restricting liberty

As has been pointed our repeatedly across the site, the choice isn’t always that clear. When you say ‘liberty’, the choice to exercise that liberty may only be applicable to a few. The point about leftism is to make the playing field more level so more people can exercise their choices.

Liberty means absence of coercion. This doesn’t imply an ability or the means to do something. Only that nobody is preventing you from doing so.