It might help to consider that these beliefs are widely held and therefore more commonly encountered. I don't see why the argument can't be extended to the other classes of speech you mentioned.
> Freedom of speech does not mean a right to be heard ...
I feel like if that's the argument you're making, then you misunderstood the argument that was made. I don't think a person I disagree with has a right to be heard but I'd love to hear what our disagreement is. An important point to understand is that it's more likely for me to have a better understanding of my own opinion (rather than having it changed) specifically because I listened to and considered the dissenting opinion. It seems that it can only help me understand where the disagreement is.
Perhaps more to the point: that it's speech being suppressed not by a government but rather a private entity doesn't mean that I would (or should) agree with said suppression. You can disagree but, indeed, that can only happen after you've heard me out.
To the second: The thing is, if I'm a student paying tuition, or a colleague who's implicated by you, can I push for official sanctioning and/or dissociation once you make your speech? I'd argue yes. It's private institutions which can make their own rules (public institutions are more complicated, but are often held to a standard of "public pressure is okay, state pressure isn't" in my country)
As long as we have a healthy media and educational system of diversity , these debates and issues are not about free speech, they are about people exercising their free speech, then getting a bunch of other people using their free speech to react to it and calling for consequences and the initial speakers wanting indemnity. Those who complain about silence tend to be quite audible. I'd say, let them do like those who founded https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_University_of_Berlin instead of trying to evade consequences in cushy, well paid jobs
The argument being made in TFA (and by John Stuart Mill) is that an opinion can only be rationally disagreed with after its been heard and understood. I'm all for an argument against that point but you should consider how much you're talking around that point rather than to it.
You can think the way you do all you want but you're misunderstanding if you think John Stuart Mill's argument is anything other than that it is irrational to do so.
Or speaking less blithely: Freedom of speech does not mean a right to be heard, it means the state can't stop you or punish you for speaking. Likewise, academic freedom does not necessarily mean everyone gets to say what they want. I don't think administrators deciding what should or should not be allowed to be said by faculty is good. But at the same time I don't see the problem of a society deciding that they don't want those endowed with a voice to amplify messages that are obsolete and/or regressive. As long as the hurdles for creating alternative newspapers and universities and...are low enough, I see no problem in faculty and staff lobbying for political stances out in the open - otherwise we'd have hidden political stances anyway.