At Stanford, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Pope (before he was the Pope) have been rejected as potential speakers in deference to certain campus groups' misplaced sensibilities. But the law school is giving a platform to a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. The point--which I hope it isn't necessary to make, but which I suspect I had better--is not that I disagree about which views are endorsed and censored at Stanford. The point is that Stanford should not be censoring views, creating double standards, committing viewpoint discrimination, and generally polluting the intellectual atmosphere so badly that free inquiry just isn't a viable possibility on campus.

Worth noting: the law school faculty itself is a bit challenged on this point.