Just a hint for you - president of Univ of Chicago will not have suffered this fate because that school stands for true free speech and didn't disinvite or ban any speakers from its campus. You live by "words are violence", you die by "words are violence".
Are you seriously claiming that, if students had made similar statements about any other group of people (except maybe whites), these universities would be asking “well, but is it pervasive and severe?”
Many examples there, like: "From 2019 to this year, Harvard sanctioned four scholars, three of whom it terminated." or "In 2020, Harvard revoked conservative student activist Kyle Kashuv’s acceptance over comments he made on social media as a 16-year-old, for which he had since apologized. "
Some other colleges as well:
Yale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Yale_Hallo...
Stanford: https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/05/judge-duncan-stanford-l...
The survey results are interesting, but I think contradict the point you're trying to make in many cases. For example, the survey showed students felt less comfortable discussing abortion. An odd result if the claim is there's some kind of liberal oligarchy that's selectively punishing conservative speech.
CogitoCogito asked for "specific examples of the universities in question acting in contradiction to these statements". When you are providing specific examples, a handful are enough.
People need to step back and realize that the majority of students are 18-21 year olds. They are children. The student codes of conduct are meant to correct bad behavior, not to punish and expel students.
Most of these actions are demanded by the student majority.
The underlying phenomenon is that the children are running the daycare and administration is doing their bidding. It is perfectly consistent that the admin only takes action against the most egregious students. However, a book, paper, or statement might get faculty removed. Similarly, invited guest speakers can be shut down by hecklers veto.
In the hearing, Stefanik kept asking the presidents whether a call to genocide was considered bullying and harassment according to the respective universities' codes of conduct. That's a factual question that has an objective answer, which they gave multiple times: it depends if it's pervasive and severe. Which is exactly what those codes of conduct state, namely that a single instance of someone saying something stupid doesn't constitute bullying or harassment according to those policies. The phrasing 'pervasive and severe' comes directly from Harvard's code of conduct, for instance.
But Stefanik would then would casually change the context of her question, using 'bullying and harassment' in a colloquial sense instead of in the sense of her initial question (i.e. the codes of conduct). Why? Maybe to engender exactly the reactionary response that followed. To try and insinuate that the presidents actually think calls to genocide are A-OK under certain situations, namely when it comes to the genocide of Jews. To insinuate, as some (like you) have, that the presidents think some classes of minority populations are worthier of defense than others. To bring into question the utility of a liberal higher education entire.
I'll give her this: Stefanik was very successful (as evidenced by yours and similar comments, and by the mainstream media's reaction) in generating widespread, reactionary approbation. To some of the most banal, legalistic, administrator-speak imaginable. I'm glad this is the state of discourse in this country.