Well, no, the article says that

> traffic jams in Paris have risen 4% [in 11 years]

I am not arguing that this is a good idea, but it is simply false that the law requires that Linux 'check kids' IDs before booting'.

The New York law is worse, and should be opposed, but the article only mentions it at the end - and even then, we actually don't know what the verification mechanism would be. I've heard a proposal that "age verification passes" be sold at liqour stores and porno shops, for example, who already seem to do an acceptable job of checking ID without destroying people's privacy.

Which policies, specifically, will result in a return to this aesthetic, in your opinion?

The university does not "allow" professors to express their opinions; that is a fundamental tenet of academic freedom, and is critically important to free speech in and of itself. The idea that a university could _prevent_ professors from giving their opinions in class is laughable anyway; if we didn't value the opinions of professors, we wouldn't need them at all, and could get away with lecturers without PhDs or research obligations. (Of course, many university administrators would quite like that.)

It seems to me that Garber is less interested in preventing faculty from expressing opinions in general and more that he is interested in suppressing a particular set of opinions he and his donors disagree with.