"Kilborn’s lawsuit seems to involve two tensions—the university’s obligation to ensure students feel safe and respected, and recognizing that law school should train students for difficult situations, says Fitzgerald Bramwell, a Chicago lawyer who represents faculty in employment disputes.
"The Black Law Students Association, in particular, is demanding that the professor, Jason Kilborn, be fired." ISE
I don't know of anyone who said that the students should not have their full first amendment rights. If UIC were to expel these students for their words, I would be emailing the students to suggest that they contact FIRE, despite my complete disagreement with the students' sentiments. Let me use a different example to illustrate something similar. Some years ago some fraternity students at U. of Oklahoma said something that was ugly and racist, and two students were expelled. In an essay that originally appeared at Huffington Post, Professor Geoffrey Stone (U. of Chicago law school) wrote, "Needless to say, such language is abhorrent. But the University of Oklahoma cannot constitutionally expel the students for this expression.
I don't think that your paradigm entirely applies to higher education, especially at public universities in the U.S. One, a consumer can educate himself or herself before he or she buys something. However, the students are at least partially ignorant of the subject matter; they are not educated consumers, by definition. Two, tuition pays for a fraction of the cost; state governments also pay a portion (these fractions have changed over time). Therefore, the student is not the only consumer. Three, specifically in regard to the Jason Kilborn some of the complaints came from students who were not in his class. If they get a say, then maybe every student at UIC should get a say.
