College presidents are much in the news these days. As Valley News readers know, Dartmouth College President Sian Beilock responded to protestors camping on her front lawn by having them arrested. My own leadership style would have involved marshmallows and hot chocolate.

More seriously, presidents of Penn, Harvard and MIT were widely excoriated for failing to adequately denounce genocide.

At a Congressional hearing, the reprehensible Elise Stefanik, R-NY, baited the trap and the presidents stumbled right in, blindly following a roadmap provided by lawyers. I paraphrase: “Do you think genocide is wrong?” “Well, it depends on what your definition of ‘is wrong’ is.”

Ding. Wrong answer. Right answer would have been:

“Of course it’s wrong, you hyper-partisan twit! But our students didn’t advocate for genocide. They attempted, with sincere intent, to recognize the current and historic plight of Palestinians. They used ill-advised language that was understandably alarming to the Jewish community. Your political gotcha gamesmanship does little to advance a very complex and volatile issue.”

Although compliance with some federal regulations is a condition of receipt of research grants and aid, insertion of government into student protests is inappropriate and unprecedented. And I’ll not even get into the irony of any Republican denouncing any kind of bigotry, including antisemitism. Does “Jews will not replace us!” ring any bells?

UPenn’s president resigned under a barrage of criticism. The New York Times reported, “The president, Elizabeth Magill, and the chairman of the board of trustees, Scott L. Bok, are leaving after intense pressure from donors, politicians and alumni” — a candid acknowledgment of where true power rests in education.

Harvard President Claudine Gay survived a Harvard Corporation vote on her continued appointment, despite a well-orchestrated campaign to force her out. That effort was most aggressively led by billionaire alumnus Bill Ackman, a poster child for entitled donors who think they should have unlimited influence.

This is inevitable, as colleges are increasingly governed by and beholden to the wealthiest Americans. About half of Dartmouth’s trustees, for example, are in the money business.

I led a private school in Manhattan for decades, so I know a bit about donors and attempts to influence policy or management decisions. The line should be clear and bright. Donors should support priorities established by the institution, not leverage their wealth to determine priorities or pressure governing boards or administrators to bend to their bucks.

This incident further inflamed an ongoing debate about free speech from a constitutional and policy perspective. Many commenters point out what they believe is inconsistency and/or hypocrisy on college campuses where (what they claim are) minor micro-aggressions draw sanctions whereas allusions to genocide are robustly defended.

In this fallacious view, the voices of conservative white men are woefully underrepresented on and off campuses and this viewpoint censorship is the nation’s gravest offense against free expression. As if. A quick review of the racial and gender makeup of the U.S. Senate might be a rebuke to that opinion. And, as written above, “... leaving after intense pressure from donors, politicians and alumni.” I would guess that the “donors, politicians and alumni” flexing their power are not primarily queer, Black activists. Just sayin’.

A long-valid standard for freedom of speech is that the answer to bad speech is more speech. I heartily agree. Parsing the complexity and context of any expression is perilous, at least from a legal or policy perspective. What to one person is a petty claim of micro-aggression is to another person a pattern representing real, dangerous, racist aggression. The invocation of “intifada” or “from the river to the sea” is to one person a call for genocide and to another person an expression of support for Palestinian self-determination. Appending one’s own particular and personal experience is, of course, understandable, but not dispositive.

Elizabeth Magill unwisely raised the importance of context from her Congressional hot seat. She was right, but raised the issue in the wrong context, if you will.

In fact, context matters a great deal. We would all benefit from learning why a so-called micro-aggression is painful. We should all learn what heart-shattering inferences can be drawn by Jewish friends from careless use of some words and phrases.

But despite the emotions arising from micro- (or macro-) aggressions or the inference of antisemitism, in the absence of a clear and direct incitement to violence, freedom of speech must be protected, including — perhaps especially — on college campuses.

And we should all have marshmallows and hot chocolate with those with whom we disagree, especially campus campers.

Steve Nelson is a retired educator and former Sharon resident. He now lives in Colorado.