I prefer my academic research not be conducted in terms of unorganized trials by combat.

The big difference is that if you’re attending a riot in Harvard Yard, then you clearly know what you’re getting yourself into, and you’re making an informed decision to participate and accept the consequences.

However if you’re someone attending a spoken debate, and you’re asking a reasonable question backed by lived experience (as opposed to a deliberately provocative question based on the assumed experiences of others), then you shouldn’t be subjected to direct personal attacks.

Attacking someone because their lived experiences run counter to your preferred world view is just intellectual cowardice. You’re neither trying to learn from the speaker, or provide a valuable counter-experience. You’re running from knowledge that might force you re-assess your world view.

Maybe I'm starting to get old, but indeed to me booing sounds like part and parcel of a university debate on a divisive topic... People clap, people boo, sometimes worse!