Ah there’s a simple explanation. When I read the original post I missed the word “a”, which changes the meaning. When I read the post it sounded like a talk criticizing previous protests as riots, not an advertisement for a future protest.

However I still assert that the talk titled as it is in my post would not be met well.

>Additionally, the flyer about Black Lives Matter could equally well be a talk.

And if it were, it might hypothetically have been tolerated.

However, "Black lives matter mostly peaceful arson and riot" doesn't describe a talk, it describes an arson and riot. Claims that Stanford reacting differently to the two would merely be due to political bias is disingenuous projection.

Maybe GP intended to describe a satirical talk exactly like the one in the OP, but they didn't, and their language entirely undercut the premise of their attempted argument.