Vote in or appoint new leaders who do not give a damn about them. May backfire if too callous people are the winners.
Another method, create a formal method for processing complaints from Twitter that diverts the hateful energy from individuals towards a larger decision-making body. Let us say that a random 24 people jury of MIT peers had to decide by secret ballot whether the researcher in question gets approved or disinvited, and that the result is 14:10 to keep him.
The Twitter mob cannot really do anything with such result, if individual voting behavior was anonymous.
Unfortunately that last point is not strictly true so long as the mob can get their hands on the list of 24 people and then badger them to each make a public condemnation of the speaker or be assumed to be a wrongthinkist like the speaker, and hence one of those who voted incorrectly. So you'd better hope that the other 10 will stand strong and not out the 14 wronguns in their mix.
Yes, nothing is foolproof, but badgering 24 people is quite a lot of work. One of the reason why Twitter mobs are so efficient is that they can concentrate on a single target or two without too much effort.
Edit: also, the show where all 24 people ritually condemn the person while everyone fully knows that 14 of them voted "yea" would be absurd enough to make some people think twice.
This is actually the first constructive idea I've heard that seems at all likely to address this issue in a just way without infringing on the free speech rights of the people protesting campus speakers. Well done.
The one question I have here is whether the average member of MIT faculty would now thing that an anti-affirmative action essay would be beyond the pale. It doesn't seem too surprising to me if 50%+1 members of such a committee would still vote to withdraw an invitation from this guy. But at least you would be defocusing the external outrage campaign a little, which does not seem like a bad thing.
This may be part of the solution, though, as other mentioned, juries can also be pressured on Twitter.
Part of the problem is that people with visible status engage in public harassment of their colleagues on Twitter with no consequences. Unless there is a cost for appalling behavior, the problem will continue to degenerate.
I am pretty sure the mob would go after the entire group: those who vote for it for voting for it, and those who didn't for being part of such a group.
> Vote in or appoint new leaders who do not give a damn about them. May backfire if too callous people are the winners.
You're literally talking about appointing a group primarily based on their quality of not listening to people; in the ideal case, they're callous.
The trap is that you'll really just appoint a bunch of right-wingers who won't cancel right-wing speakers for not being "politically correct" but will cancel every mildly-left wing speaker for being a terrorist or supporting terrorism.
The "listening vs. not listening to people" is a spectrum and while I think it would be unwise to pull the gauge completely to the side of callousness, more resistance against mob justice might just be necessary.
Currently, Twitter mobs have a lot of power, but none of the responsibility. This is a hellish combination, almost guaranteed to bring out the worst in people.
This needs to be reined in somehow. I am not claiming that utterly callous leaders are the solution - in fact, I made a "may backfire" comment right after my first sentence.
The jury method seems to me more democratic, anyway.
Another method, create a formal method for processing complaints from Twitter that diverts the hateful energy from individuals towards a larger decision-making body. Let us say that a random 24 people jury of MIT peers had to decide by secret ballot whether the researcher in question gets approved or disinvited, and that the result is 14:10 to keep him.
The Twitter mob cannot really do anything with such result, if individual voting behavior was anonymous.