It seems comically naive to expect that the population that faces virtually zero downside and has the greatest propensity for risky behavior would obey such an order.
(In case anyone isn’t certain, I do not support this line of thinking. But since authoritarianism is fashionable nowadays I fully expect it to happen)
I didn't get that out of the article you referred to. The article said that students mingling should be assumed inevitable:
"They're going to wander. They're going to visit each other. They're going to go into town. They're going to sneak off and have a party. This is what they do."
And that sick students should be grouped together, away from healthy students:
"Some colleges have the capability of a dorm or a couple of floors of a dorm where they could keep people who are infected,"
Sounds reasonable, better than sending them home, given the odds.
Doing some quick Googling about the scientists at the head of US public policy on the subject: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-colleges...
The scientists seem to say 1) don't send students home and 2) contain them so they don't cause further outbreaks at universities. So the suggestion of ending youth public gatherings at a university seems in-line with the science.