Karen Arenson/NYT: Columbia Minuteman speech disruptors charged
The NYT reports ("Columbia Charges Students With Violating Protest Rules") that the students involved in the fracas at that university where students and others rushed the stage where Jim Gilchrist of the Minuteman Project was speaking and unfurled banners will face unspecified punishment. The possibilities include "disciplinary warning, censure, suspension and dismissal".
It being the NYT, their version of the events does not seem to comport with my recollections:
Protesters unfurled a banner on stage during one speech, and were then attacked by the speaker's supporters, including some from outside Columbia.
If those "attacks" were done out of self-defense or out of concern for the safety of those speaking, is "attacked" really the correct word?