Thompson deserves commendation for saying that Cynical Theories deserves to be taken seriously. However, fine points get undermined by the confusion of Theory "Motté" and "Bailey". More, their preoccupation with the left does NOT indicate where they want to put most of the blame. https://twitter.com/ConversationEDU/status/1324494202550378497

When it comes to freedom of speech, the dissemination and adoption of Theory in the student populace (in general) has led to a situation where it's scary to say what you think or even to tell your life story at request if it happens to contain something that goes against Theory.

Explosions into protests obviously aren't representative of the typical situation, and I'm sure that in most places it is milder than it feels. However, it is the feeling that produces self-censorship. And student support for no-platforming and hate-speech laws produces it.

Consider group dynamics like what @nntaleb calls "Renormalization". There is no need for the intolerant students to be a majority for their nice-sounding (and almost always confused) anti-speech stance to be noticed. Even lecturers in Norway appear to notice it.

The result is that the only people who dare to express themselves are the people who either a) have fuck-you money or b) are confident in their ability to articulate their opinions and concerns in a manner that won't make people think you are being intolerant.

Putting free speech aside, the article cites the Huffington Post on a real far-right threat attacking the now-infamous college, as if what transpired there was in response to a real and greater threat. The Huf-po article (which is crazy in a number of ways) does not say this.

The closest it gets is that in response to the explosion at Evergreen, Patriot Prayer said they would protest there, and someone anonymous (thus easily faked) threatened with a killing spree. This is not the greater far-right threat the article treats it as.

In combination with the confusion of motté and bailey, this makes it a rather weak critique of Cynical Theories. It paints everything the book criticizes in the best possible light while understating (willfully?) every concern brought up by its authors.

Closing points (should have been brought up earlier):
For a comprehensive overview of the Evergreen Spring, @BenjaminABoyce's documentary series is a great source.
Focusing on the problems on the left could also indicate an identification with the left, as those who would listen.

Finally, freedom of speech is one of the things that have been undermined intellectually in a really nasty way by Theorists. It is not, nor has it ever been about the amount of speech or giving people platforms. It's about letting people express their opinions when they see fit.

Thus, encouraging people to speak is the most we can do. Shutting down willing speakers because we a) don't like what we think they will say or b) others "haven't been heard", is completely backwards, and infringes on other people's right to listen.

The grievance studies affair is also deeply misunderstood in this critique. Scholars objected that it didn't show what it purported to show because they didn't listen to what it purported to show. To understand it, one should read the publically available report with peer review.