you have to understand that the left is looking for any excuse right now, and has been for some time, to find a way to mobilize. i may tentatively agree that speech is the wrong thing to mobilize around [although i'd argue that the harm principle can be legitimately applied to speech, even as i'm arguing that the criteria should be pretty extreme], but the narrative that this is actually about speech is going to be broken apart by anybody really looking into it. you'll even find that it's not truly about racism, if you take that extra step. and even that a lot of the people agitating aren't even students.
a few years ago, it was about financial regulation. then it swung to being about education costs. in canada, we had an indigenous rights movements. now, there's the tautology that black lives matter. the shifting target is indicative of the real motives: what this is really about is getting people out on the street yelling. the target is constantly shifting in attempts to find an issue that can generate a movement.
there is validity in questioning whether the ends justify the means, here. but, let's not get confused.
how do white leftist activists get more visible minorities to rallies?
that's the question at the root of it. and, it's an important question. because leftist activists are well aware that visible minorities tend to react poorly to a bunch of white people marching around with signs. whatever your reaction is to this truth, you have to agree that it's really very rational.
so, step one is to get people out. but, it's step two (radicalization) that is the real point. once you get a crowd together, you can start talking about distributive justice.
now, again: i agree that this is dangerous. is this a crowd you want to assemble? can you radicalize it appropriately? or are you going to produce blow back?
but, let's understand what is happening first. please.