It's a public university which means you have to see even the views that you don't like.
First of all, "silence" historically has been and continues to be an avoidance tactic for dealing with racism. So there is truth in the saying.
Second, the people taking this idea to extremes are a vocal minority. It's easy to see someone get canceled on Twitter and jump to the conclusion that the Red Army is right around the corner. I'm not that worried in the long run. Be understanding, but push back, and remember that some people will always be jerks no matter what the context or what ideals they find themselves aligned with.
Freedom, like freedom of speech and freedom of association, includes the freedom to inaction and silence. Assuming the worst (that someone is racist if they don't tweet about racism every day etc) is toxic behavior
But that's the problem, it's the extreme vocal minority who are calling for (and succeeding in) cancellations of perfectly reasonable individuals who want to speak at universities. See Jordan Peterson, etc.
Actually, when was it not a problem? I vaguely remember christianity's historical splits were caused by lesser disagreements (at least what was stated to be the cause).
“if you’re not with us then you’re with the terrorists” == “if you’re not out protesting/twittering/tumblring then you’re with the white supremacy patriarchy.”
Actually quite interesting how you can use the same tactics in a totally different population and get people all riled up. Most likely just political maneuvering by parties to engage voters.
Looking at it objectively I also didn’t see the media covering the Tusla massacre (as abhorrent as it was) nearly as much as they have been in the last couple days, which does lead to the suspicion that the coverage is politically motivated.
I've seen "silence is violence" a number of times, and regarded it (justifiably, I think) as manipulative BS. Then I saw one sign that said "silence = additional deaths". That one I found a bit harder to dismiss.
If (if) you think the statistics indicate that blacks are getting killed at disproportional rates, and if you think that you can put enough political pressure on to change things, then silence is not direct violence, but it is letting things continue to happen the way they've been happening.
It at least made me think, which "silence is violence" didn't.
The problem with these arguments as a whole is that they ascribe a two-dimensional zero-sum game to what is in fact a more complex issue with millions of variables involved. Remember that slogans exist as signaling for likeminded people and a publicity attractor to the rest of the crowd. They don't exist to persuade others of a point or provide a workable method for achieving an aim. The best way to obtain the latter is to present your case in full to a legal society.
[1] https://nypost.com/2020/06/03/ny-times-reporter-says-destroy...
If you're able to come up with a useful set of rules that can't possibly be abused, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested to see them.