I know you do. And, yes, the law can be complex, but this instance is not. The student organization provided the University a heads up of the proposed protest (which strictly speaking isn't necessary under University rules for open areas). The plan was to "occupy" the South Lawn. They passed out fliers telling folks to bring sandwiches and snacks. After occupying the lawn for the day they were going to march to the capitol. The University, and particularly Hartzell, freaked out about what was happening elsewhere (and I point out that a lot of the problems at other campuses were also administration caused) and gave a blanket no. Technically, under Texas law and University regulations, it had no authority to do that. More importantly, a blanket no to speech isn't a "reasonable, place, and manner" restriction since it amounts to an outright prohibition of the freedom to assemble. Hartzell, apparently understanding the student organization was moving forward despite his blanket no, decided the only course was to call in riot police to bust heads before the event even started. There was no violence, except by DPS. There were no threats, except by DPS. There was no destruction, except by DPS. And of the 50+ people arrested that day, including a cameraman for the news exercising a core civic right and service, all were later released and charges dropped. This was a naked trampling of the First Amendment. This was a naked abuse of authority. And Hartzell wasn't a mere observer or participant, but was rather the architect, as confirmed by his own letter and his own texts. Fuck him. Ultimately, he was afraid of a picnic. Maybe he invited the wolves to dinner not appreciating what would happen. But if that is the case, he is too incompetent and stupid to run the University anyway.