If you classify the set of ideas you strongly disagree with as 'bigotry' which has to be 'confronted' rather than politely disagreed with, you reject the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 'Breaking Bigotry' people say they are exercising their free speech when trying to shut down Pacifica Forum, but that doesn't make sense. You don't classify a group of ideas you disagree with as 'hate' or 'bigotry' because you want to refute them with reasoned argument. You are trying to place them beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse, to delegitimate them. This is what led to the firing of James Watson, and endangers the careers of several lesser academics. It's an assault on freedom of speech and academic freedom. One can validly ask the question if attempts to undermine freedom should be tolerated - is the suppression of those who are trying to suppress freedom itself a form of suppression of freedom? It's a bit like the question of whether or not self-defense is a form of violence.