Will, I think you and the columnists are wrong to claim this is about censorship. To say, "What you said pisses me off and I don't think you should say it," isn't censorship, it's argument.
But now there are those who want the column pulled. I think at that point it does become censorship, or at least starts to look like it in bad lighting. I think that would be a mistake.
Within a professional organization, when someone uses a platform of that organization to say something abhorrent, I think the right move is to point out that it is abhorrent, and why, and use it as a vehicle to improve understanding of the issue. I may be missing some things here. But I am worried by the, "A lot of us found what you said offensive, so your bullhorn is being taken away" approach.
Here are the questions: 1) Where is the line between, "reflecting an attitude offensive to many people," and, "so blatantly and obviously offensive that if you don't see the problem you're morally bankrupt.." 2) Who gets to decide where that line is for a professional organization? Is it all members,or is it only (or primarily) only those in the group in question?
Number 2, by the way, isn't a rhetorical question; I honestly don't know the answer. The argument that woman should get all, or at least the lion's share, of say in determining how offensive that was has a lot of virtue.
Why can't anything be easy?