That standard neatly sidesteps the tricky troll problem.

Beyond trolls, the men give little wiggle room, insisting that neither matters of great import nor the fraught subject of identity is exempt.  "The more important the subject under discussion, the more willing we should be to listen and engage," they insist, "especially if the person with whom we are in conversation will challenge our deeply held--even our most cherished and identity-forming--beliefs."

Counseling respective engagement even with those "perspectives that we find shocking or scandalous," and invoking "the virtues of intellectual humility, openness of mind, and, above all, love of truth," they lament "all-too-common efforts" by people "to try to immunize from criticism opinions that happen to be dominant in their particular communities." And while they nod toward the right to peaceful protest, rightfully calling it "sacrosanct," they urge that "before exercising that right, each of us should ask: Might it not be better to listen respectfully and try to learn from a speaker with whom I disagree? Might it not better serve the cause of truth-seeking to engage the speaker in frank civil discussion?"

That ethos "protects us against dogmatism and groupthink," they note, "both of which are toxic to the health of academic communities and to the functioning of democracies."