No, that is a complete mischaracterization of what I have been saying. Here is a paragraph from Mr. Shapiro's letter: "Third, under the reasoning of the IDEAA Report, none of this objective textual analysis even matters. As the report put it, “The University’s anti-harassment policy does not require that a respondent intend to denigrate or show hostility or aversion to individuals based on a protected status. Instead, the Policy requires consideration of the ‘purpose or effect’ of a respondent’s conduct.” According to this theory, the mere fact that many people were offended, or claimed to be, is enough for me to have violated the policies under which I was being investigated. Although there was no formal finding of a violation because of the procedural fact that I wasn’t an employee when I tweeted and so not subject to those policies, so long as some unstated number of students, faculty, or staff claim that a statement “denigrates” or “show hostility or aversion” to a protected class, that’s enough to constitute a violation of Georgetown antidiscrimination rules. The falsity of such a claim is immaterial to being found guilty. Georgetown has adopted what First Amendment jurisprudence describes as an impermissible “heckler’s veto.”"
The key word is "effect." Scott Greenfield wrote, "Having already been demonized beyond repair, the ironically subconstitutional notion that any future offense would be determined based not on what was objectively said or intended, but on whether anyone claimed to be offended, harmed or traumatized by it, made his demise essentially inevitable."
By the standard set forth in the IDEAA report, Professor Feldblum's tweet and especially Professor Fair's tweet are ripe for a finding regarding these antidiscrimination rules.
