Protests without disruption? On Columbia's arrest of antiwar protestors

I see no evidence that the protestors have endangered anyone's safety. The claim against them instead is that of disruption. But protests typically do involve disruptions of business as usual in some way. Attempts to regulate them so that they do not are attempts to limit their effectiveness by requiring that civil disobedience be done obediently, that transgressions are not transgressive, and, let's be honest, that the exercise of free speech that is by definition disagreeable be done be agreeably, that debate not rise to contestation. Universities depend and thrive on free expression of vital disagreements, but their normal and profitable operations involve an implicit quarantining of debate in a space separated from any immediate impact on anything. Public protests in general, and student protests in particular have always and everywhere achieved results precisely by transgressing the normal boundaries. This can be done in ways that cause some trouble without endangering persons or property. Protest groups like the JVP, which Columbia banned, are adept at doing this in professionally managed ways. The truth of course is that Columbia has joined the consensus among America's elites that protests against America's ally Israel are almost unique among those that must not be permitted. Jewish students who are Zionists complain that they feel uncomfortable, but are not unsafe. Protests, like ideas, may be uncomfortable. America is founded on and needs them.