Resigned President was not wrong in her remark.

The most controversial thing UPenn President Liz Magill said at the hearing was actually correct: whether calls for genocide qualify as "harassment" does indeed depend on the context.

The problem (in addition to sounding tone-deaf) is that UPenn's policies - and those of many other universities - are highly inconsistent. They treat right-wing bigotry (sometimes even seeming bigotry) much more harshly than the left-wing kind. And in some cases, they have gone soft on actual disruption and harassment (in the narrow sense of those terms), when it comes from the left. This state of affairs put Magill in a difficult situation where she could neither credibly pose as a consistent defender of free speech nor argue the school punished all bigotry evenhandedly. She didn't handle it well, but it was an inherently tough pickle.

I think the contradiction should be resolved in favor of punishing violence, harassment, and disruption, but otherwise tolerating even awful speech. Private universities have a constitutional right to go further than that. They can even punish all non-"woke" speech, all unpopular speech, all speech that offends university administrators, etc. But they shouldn't because doing so undermines the academic mission. And real-world academic administrators can't be trusted to carry out such policies impartially.