Yesterday we learned that Georgetown Law School students were demanding a safe space in which to cry about tweets sent by the school’s newest hire, Ilya Shapiro. In addition, members of the Black Law Student Association demanded “reparations” in the form of free meals and cover for any classes they missed while protesting.

Today, National Review’s Nate Hochman has a follow-up story on the situation at Georgetown, and it sounds like things have only gotten worse. The debate over Shapiro has dominated a group chat set up for the class of 2023 and students who dare to suggest any outcome other than his firing are being accused of harboring racist views and kicked out of the chat room.

Things deteriorated further when a handful of students spoke up to suggest that Shapiro’s tweets weren’t racist. “I wouldn’t read into Prof Shapiro’s tweet much beyond his opposition to affirmative action and related diversity policies when they modify merits-based approaches,” one user wrote. “Wholly unacceptable comment, check yourself,” the group-chat moderator quickly responded. “Now is not the time for debate, instead we should be supporting our incredibly talented black female law students,” another student added. “Damn Fed[eralist] Soc[iety] is a helluva drug,” a third wrote.

A fourth chimed in: “Some of y’all still think you belong in the Confederacy I see.”

Two of the dissenting students, Travis Nix and Rafael Nuñez, were eventually removed from the chat altogether. (“I am tired of witnessing my friends and colleagues defend their humanity and no doubt they are also tired of defending themselves,” wrote the moderator who removed the two students.) Members of the group chat were “ripping anybody who was willing to defend Shapiro, or even just give him any amount of human decency and respect,” Nix told NR. “I was like, ‘I am not gonna let these poor kids get ripped to shreds,’ so I made my statement, and then I paid the price.”

Nuñez was kicked out of the group chat after defending himself against the accusation that he was “privileged” for defending students who spoke out. “That’s what really got to me,” he said. “Like, my mom was undocumented for 35 years. I grew up on food stamps and welfare and had to dig myself out a hole to get to go to Georgetown Law. My life has been difficult, but I don’t complain. And it just bothered me that these kids that didn’t even know me — you know, a fellow person of color — were telling me that I’m privileged. Like, you don’t know the things that I had to see growing up and what I had to do and struggle to get here.”…

“Some people encouraged me to go to the administration, but like, you’ve seen the administration’s response,” said Nuñez, who told NR that he “tends to lean a little more liberal.” “They’re not going to be on my side. Like this is just gonna make more enemies for me, honestly. I’m going to keep my mouth shut. I’m on a scholarship. I don’t want to get kicked out, you know?”

I feel like it goes without saying at this point but call-out culture tactics, like calling someone “privileged” are just a way of silencing people whose opinions the cancel mob doesn’t want to hear. The same can be said for expressions of exhaustion (“I’m just so tired of…”) and claims that different opinions are denying someone’s humanity. Add in the claim that speech equals violence and you have a robust set of rhetorical tools designed to end discussions by default rather than have them.

That’s the goal of woke activists. They don’t want to debate anyone, they just want other people to obey or be quiet. And in Nuñez case, he has clearly gotten the message. If you speak up, you could be the mob’s next target and that could have major repercussions on your life. So why even take the risk? And I’m not belittling Nuñez concerns here. The mob probably will come after him if he continues to disagree with them. He’s right to be worried.

The only thing that is going to stop this is for someone at Georgetown to stand up to the mob and refuse to give in to their demands. Unfortunately, given the behavior of the dean at yesterday’s sit in, it’s not clear that anyone at Georgetown has the backbone to do that.