The University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law has brought a new meaning to the heckler’s veto. Some of us criticized the law school for its failure to hold students accountable for disrupting a recent Federalist Society event featuring James Percival, general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. While the law school administration does not appear interested in holding the protesters accountable, it has threatened the Federalist Society that it could face discipline if it identifies any of the students who disrupted the event. This perfectly surreal position was stated in a letter from Bayrex Martí, UCLA’s assistant dean for student affairs.

On April 21, law students organized a protest to prevent others from hearing Percival. As others protested (appropriately) outside of the event, these students entered the room and drowned out the speakers by booing, shouting profanities, playing cellphone ringtones, and even allegedly making death threats.

These tactics are expressly prohibited by the university as conduct that is “so disruptive as to effectively silence” a speaker. The fact that the speaker continued to try to speak (and succeeded after a walkout) does not change the fact that these students succeeded in disrupting and effectively silencing the speaker during the event.

UCLA issued a feckless response where it mouthed support for the free exchange of ideas but did nothing to punish the responsible students.

As I discussed earlier,the incident is reminiscent of the earlier incident at Northwestern University, where the university condemned but did nothing about students who entered a class and forced it to be canceled over a guest speaker from ICE. It was the lack of any action, not the condemnation, that left the greatest impact on the students.The same full-throated message was sent at Stanford, where no student was punished, and the university made everyone watch a meaningless video that was openly mocked. One year after the incident, a majority of Stanford students believed shouting down Judge Duncan was warranted.

The UCLA students were clear that anyone speaking from the Trump Administration would be subject to the same disruption: “UCLA must not give representatives of ICE and the Trump Administration a base to organize Trump’s campaign of racist ethnic cleansing of the U.S. and the Middle East.”

However, UCLA wants to deter anyone who names the students who are clearly shown in the video proudly disrupting the events and spewing abuse.

In April 22 emails, Martí warned Federalist Society President Matthew Weinberg against identifying the disruptors.

“I have also seen requests online to identify students in the audience who are visible in video recordings. I would strongly encourage you and other organizers to not disclose those details.”

If that “encouragement” was not enough, Martí threatened “reasonably predictable” consequences.

In a barely comprehensible message, Martí warns:

“If that information is shared despite the tenor of some online commentary, and an implicated student reports behavior from anyone that falls under prohibited behavior per the Student Code of Conduct, the student organization and/or individual students could be connected to it (the allegation being that the outcome was reasonably predictable when the names were disclosed) and subjected to campus processes.”

Whatever that means, it is not good for free speech or the law school as an institution. Presumably, the law school was responding to concerns from these students who appear to demand both the right to disrupt speakers and the right not to be held accountable for their conduct.

By participating in this disruption, these students took a public stand against free speech and actively sought to prevent others from hearing opposing views. However, they do not want to experience any consequences themselves while denying the rights of others.

These protesters know that many would view their conduct as unprofessional and uncivil. Specifically, employers from judges to law firms to agencies would likely find this misconduct relevant in considering these students for positions. Viewpoint intolerance is strangling higher education and destroying basic values of civility in our profession.

Few law firms would relish hiring a lawyer who screams “Nazi” or holds up disgusting signs to those who hold opposing views.

The Federalist Society, student journalists, and any of the student body have the right to report on public events and to identify those responsible for public disruptions. The letter seeks to impose a form of coercive censorship on student groups that wish to offer detailed descriptions of these controversies.

For example, what happens under this letter if the Daily Bruin publishes the names of the students? How about a student blogger?

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has sent a letter urging the university to retract what it calls a threat against Federalist Society members’ rights: “As painful as online criticism may be at times, UCLA may not restrict protected speech merely to shield student protesters from the consequences of their actions.”

Notably, the letter contained a footnote stating “Student protesters have also published video clips and photographs of the event alongside comments publicly identifying and mocking Federalist Society members visible in the clips, including a photograph of Weinberg taken in the hallway outside the event.”

What is most distressing is the relative silence of most law faculty in light of this conduct and the most recent threat against the Federalist Society. Where is the rest of the faculty after their students shouted down a high-ranking government lawyer who came to campus to discuss immigration policies?

To his credit, Percival was willing to take time from an undoubtedly busy schedule to engage UCLA students and teachers on these controversies. He was met first by a mob from the student body and then by silence from most of the faculty.

Most glaring has been Dean Michael Waterstone’s role in this controversy. Waterstone appears to have taken a relatively passive role as his school becomes the latest symbol of academic intolerance and hypocrisy. At a minimum, Waterstone should explain if he had prior knowledge of the Martí letter. If so, he should explain to the rest of us how the law school believes it can compel the silence of groups, students, and journalists regarding publicly available information related to the controversy.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”