If the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn were presiding over intuitions that had been consistent or supportive in regard to how they treat speech on campus, at all, there's a way that they could have answered the any whether or not calling for a Genocide toward Jews violates the campuses harassment or bullying policies.
If these were public colleges, which they aren't, they would be bound by the first amendment. As a first amendment absolutist myself, it would be inconsistent of me to maintain that the Skokie decision went the right way, and follow that up by saying that students shouldn't be allowed to express the same monosyllabic, eugenic clap-trap on campus.
With a clean slate, any of these private institutions could say that, even if they aren't bound by the first amendment, they choose to abide by.
I would support such expression from the presidents of those institutions, and that would give some credence to context.
That's my steelman for these overpaid, racist, quacks.
Specifically, the president of Penn went to "if it turns into conduct" in her response. So, yelling "Kill the Jews!" is cool until people start actually killing Jews?
It also should have been made clearer to the questioners that this isn't just a few racist, idiot kids chanting, "From the river to the sea!" just outside the quad. We've seen Jews having to barricade themselves against these people. We've seen Kosher dining halls shut down due to safety concerns. This isn't a case of Jewish students complaining about micro-aggressions, or feeling mentally traumatized because somebody said something unsavoury about what's going on in Israel. No, when you've got a mob of people forcing students into hiding, and trying to break down the door, that's a direct and imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. That's where any context is, and we've already seen the pro-terror students cross that line several times.
Finally, we all know what these people believe about free speech.
If a singular student posted a sign saying, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.", there would be no ambiguity. The faculty would spring into action be being swift, harsh punishment to that student.
If a single student refused to use another student's neo-pronouns, we all know how swift and harsh that student's punishment would be.