>>I could probably come up with a half dozen or so credible reports of incidents but I doubt you would be convinced without affidavits from Bill Clinton, Al Gore and at least one liberal think tank. :)

Though you posted this facetiously, it raises an important point that I feel strongly about: I try to guard against celebrity endorsements swaying my opinion. People who let Clinton, Gore, Rush, Rand, or Isaac Newton tell them what to think are not likely to contribute much to society. If Einstein took your advice, we'd still be scratching our heads about the aberration in Mercury's orbit (cf the space board), along with a lot of stuff that the two relativities have pointed out about our universe.

>>I presume you have already heard anecdotes on this subject and dismissed them as false.

I have heard anecdotes where only one side of the question was presented, and dismissed them *not as false* but as requiring more information. And that was only for me to decide if *that one instance* amounted to anything. Even if I believed every editorial that you guys linked me to, it still would not amount to a statistical hill of beans. To detect a trend, statistical data is required.

No one that I know of is documenting cases of lefties getting heckled. Do you conclude from this that college students never heckle lefties? That's not good logic, if so.

>>I am not sure statistics are kept on evil happenings.

It would not be difficult to track speakers of all sorts at colleges, come up with some sort of test to determine where on the political spectrum they lie, and come up with an objective means of grading their reception. For a person using their nervous system rather than their endocrine system to draw a statistical conclusion, this is what's required.

Why would you be satisfied with less?

It seems bizarre to me, that with all of the engineers and scientists around here, the standards for proof are so low.