Georgetown University must defend the right of invited speakers to speak.

On Monday, acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan was prevented from delivering remarks at a formal Georgetown University event. While faculty repeatedly attempted to calm protesters in the crowd, their words went unheard. Every time McAleenan attempted to speak, he was drowned out. One member of the faculty explained that McAleenan had agreed to take questions, including from protesters. They ignored him. They weren't interested in dialogue or learning, or even arguing.

Frustrated, McAleenan eventually decided to leave.

Does Georgetown accept this? Does it hope that it doesn't happen next time? Or does it take action to create consequences for those who would destroy its community and its learning environment from within?

Because that environment will be history soon if Georgetown allows this to stand. As one of the nation's finest universities, respected for its legacy of high-quality education, it must hold true to its fundamental commitment to expose students to diverse and influential viewpoints. If a small section of protesters gets to determine what is and what is not acceptable speech, then Georgetown is no longer a university at all. It is a hostage to censors.

Censorship is, unfortunately, contagious. Once these little authoritarians realize they can exercise real power by shutting others up, they become bolder. And if faculty fear that protesters will respond to a particular speaker, they may even self-censor to avoid that outcome.

Georgetown should start suspending people who behave in such a fashion, giving their entire school a bad name. It won't be hard to identify them. Some of the protesters have been doing the media circuit, making clear their lack of both contrition and introspection.

Sabiya Ahmed, a third-year law student told the New York Times that there is "nothing to debate." Speaking to the BBC, Ahmed explained why silencing a speaker is preferable to debate. "If we think that there needs to be a discussion around [Trump administration immigration policy], that there's room for discussion around whether those policies are justified, I think there's something really wrong with us. So when we saw him leave," Ahmed smiled "I was just, we started clapping."

Also speaking to the BBC, first-year law student Daniel Berchenko said that "silencing the oppressor" is a duty. Challenged as to whether he is personally oppressed by the state, Berchenko ridiculously replied, "Something that is very important to me is that you don't need to be affected by something to understand that it's wrong."

These law students fail to understand the most basic tenet of any legal education — namely, that to successfully apply facts to law, one must first hear from the most informed individuals on issues of relevance. McAleenan clearly met that criterion on Monday.