These are very big questions and how that is implemented I'm not competent to comment on, neither do I have the resources or influence to impact on it, other than on lower municipality level, where I've been involved a bit politically.
They are big questions, and I definitely do not claim to have any answers. I only want – no, demand! – the ability to discuss them without being labeled or punished for my current opinions.
Many of my current opinions are wrong, but because I can and want to learn, I want to find out which ones and why.
I may not be competent myself, but I refuse to leave such discussions to ideologically driven university students and activists alone.
I fully accept that whatever I discuss with someone may sour their opinion of me, and cause them to stop interacting with me. This is acceptable, because all interaction has its risks and rewards. (It is rare, though. I do make an occasional blunder, especially linguistically, so I do worry a bit about that, about effects of miscommunication.)
What I do not accept, is when someone demands others to not interact with me,
or else, especially if it is because of something they heard from some another person attributed to myself. And especially if they do so by labeling me as something I am clearly and demonstrably not.
(Obviously, I am projecting myself in Scott Adams' situation here, but that's just how I relate to other people: I imagine myself in their situation, reflecting their reactions on what I imagine (or know from experience) mine would be, and draw parallels to my own experiences. I seek common ground, and try to build deeper understanding based on the commonalities. I do fear I sound very self-centered, but this is just the way I've found I can effectively relate to anyone, regardless of their background or characteristics.)