What the administration is attempting to do is monopolize the framing of the issue as a legal one. Frame monopolization is inherently an authoritarian practice and unbecoming of a prestigious higher institution.
What do you mean? It's a law school, so it seems perfectly reasonable and not authoritarian that these issues should be framed by the organization's primary purpose.
And frankly the quoted statement less "frame monopolization" than a rejection of an even more stringent kind of authoritarian ideological "frame monopolization."
In any debate, it is expected that each side will argue their own position and not the counter-position. If you disagree with the administration that the issue is a legal one, then that becomes a new point that one may debate.
It's the difference between fighting a fair match in an arena and having a conversation about what arena or if an arena at all is even the right way to think about this. I simply won't accept without justification that a legal framing is legitimate without a case being made beyond, "well, it's the best we have, or if you have something better, say it." Those responses always display a failure of creative imagination.
What I took offense at was calling a point of debate an "authoritarian" tactic.