Are you referring to the explanation of how the First Amendment allows for rules regulating speech that "substantially impairs the effective conduct of a meeting" or something else? I thought it was a pretty good article. Here's a sample passage:

"The Federalist Society has the same rights of free association that other student organizations at the law school have. Students calling for the law school administration to restrict the organization or the speakers it can bring to campus are demanding action inconsistent not only with freedom of speech but with rights to freedom of association that civil rights lawyers fought hard in the 20th century to secure. To do so would also be inconsistent with the Stanford Statement on Academic Freedom’s requirement that '[e]xpression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion.' Unless we recognize that student members of the Federalist Society and other conservatives have the same right to express their views free of coercion, we cannot live up to this commitment nor can we claim that we are fostering an inclusive environment for all students."

Which parts of the article do you disagree with? And do you do this from a legal perspective or a moral one?

Agreed. A person in power making policy changes is not just engaging in speech. He worked to deny others rights (e.g. marriage equality) and this is a bit of accountability. He still has his platform and is not exactly silenced.

there's nothing right wing about this. I'm a democrat/centrist and what the dean said is completely correct both technically, and morally.