Glenn Reynolds (a.k.a. blogger Instapundit) has written a guest column for foxnews.com on the recent disturbing events at San Francisco State University. Reynolds reads the University's tepid equivocating non-response to the rabid and threatening behavior of pro-Palestinian student agitators as "simply the latest stage in a long-standing and widespread trend of giving some student groups the permission to engage in behavior that the university would not permit for a moment if it came from groups not favored as politically correct."

An academic himself, Reynolds knows whereof he speaks, and the nation should listen--even if college administrators do not, and have not--when he says that

The result of impunity, of course, is escalation. Just as the toleration of 'broken windows' and other petty acts of lawbreaking leads to more serious crime, so a policy of tolerating acts of lawlessness by overpoliticized students leads to more serious problems.

Such previous events as the theft of conservative student newspapers by groups who disagree with them (as happened earlier this year at Berkeley when an entire press run of the Cal Patriot was stolen from its offices) have now escalated to riot. If it is not addressed, last week's riot may be next week's--or next year's--politically motivated murder.

Such may seem unthinkable to Americans, but we saw such behavior on college campuses thirty-five years ago, and we're seeing such behavior in Europe now. The tolerance of smaller-scale violence and illegality by university administrators has laid the foundation for worse in the future, unless swift action establishes an example that such acts are not tolerated.

So what do you do? What can you do? And how do you parse the issues? Reynolds offers insight, explaining the difference between peaceful demonstration and criminal behavior, differentiating between strong speech and threatening acts, and putting the actions of riotous pro-Palestinian students in a variety of contexts (including the context of SFSU's own policies on hate speech, hate crimes, and general conduct).

Reynolds also provides a link to blogger Joe Katzman, who was moved enough by the SFSU situation to take time away from sitting Shiva for his grandmother to record his thoughts about what can be done there and at other campuses across the country. I won't summarize it because it's too important to paraphrase. Read it, and don't miss the follow-up blogs recounting additional advice from readers.

The bottom line: college administrators cannot be trusted to act swiftly and fairly on this one, if left to their own devices. It's going to be up to fair-minded students and faculty, to parents, to alumni, and to taxpayers to force colleges and universities to stop undulating in the winds of political correctness. For the sake of scholarship, study, civility, and free inquiry, let's hope higher ed finds its spine. Let's hope it has a spine to find.

Signs of a spine have emerged in Cambridge: Harvard faculty, disgusted by Noam Chomsky's petition urging divestment from Israel, have begun petitioning back. Alan Dershowitz has also spoken out on Chomsky's politics and ethics.

For a clear indication of what exactly the pro-Palestinian campus energy is feeding on, consider this poster, paid for with public money, and posted on the SFSU campus this past April. Student organizations involved include the Associated Students of SFSU, GUPS (General Union of Palestinian Students), and MSA (Muslim Student Association). This isn't "expression." It's blood libel. It's crucial that we comprehend and honor the difference. It speaks volumes that university administrations at SFSU, Berkeley, and elsewhere have not.

Food for thought: neo-Nazi David Duke, former leader of the KKK, is very popular among militant Islamic groups such as Tanzeem. He has embraced the Palestinian cause in terms that frequently--and eerily--echo those of certain campus radicals.