Since this place is being increasingly dominated by trolling, let's try to wrap this up, shall we? Here is what I see:
There is research on a gadget that is supposed to help under-performing teams to work together better. It's being funded, in part, by the U.S. army. Whatever the researchers come up with, the gadget will monitor speech and, probably, other sign signs / non-verbal utterances to do with group dynamics, and, based on analyses of the data collected in the process, recommendations for team improvement might be developed.
Now, the OP article identifies one cause of lacking team performance in that a set of voices routinely isn't heard, and that would be women's. Quite obviously, relegating women (etc.) to the sidelines would be a well-to-do white males' privilege since times immemorial. Anyone who has been in more than a handful of team sessions, and at least semi-conscious, has seen how that was playing out.
While the OP runs on "all voices must be heard", you will not find a single utterance raising concerns over the routinely sidelined voices. It so happens I find that scurrilous, and it appears to indicate that, rather than to defend freedom of speech, it all aims at defending well-to-do white males' privileges.
There is another aspect that should be noted: Freedom of speech, as is endlessly repeated, stands at the core of (real) liberalism. That may well be true, and it is a cause worthy of being defended. What's wrong about the OP's argument isn't so much defending that freedom, as it is to set it absolute (just as the gun nuts set the 2nd Amendment absolute). Liberalism, like every ideology with some complexity and wide-spread appeal, has to incorporate and reconcile a broad set of aims and principles, some of which may be competing, or even hard to reconcile. In the case of liberalism, freedom of speech might contradict the efforts to provide a more welcoming and supporting environment for groups on the lower rungs of society, and that comes at a cost to the privileges of well-to-do white males and their traditional dominance.
Hence the screeching, hence the 1st Amendment absolutism, hence the desperate claims to the moral high-ground, hence the attempts at denigrating and smearing everyone not so "principled". A reasonable argument is to be had as to the merits of that gadget (how about inviting a mediator over for some team sessions?). A reasonable argument is to be had as to the merits of not inviting certain speakers on campus. However, denigrating all those who are concerned about the n-word being re-normalized, about gays being routinely decried as pederasts and depicted as a threat to society, about women being belittled as overly emotional, bleeding, not fit for science or leadership, or cold and calculating in case they do aspire to leadership positions, is not a reasonable argument. It is propaganda and a smear in defense of well-to-do white male privileges. Defending these privileges under a 1st Amendment set absolute while disregarding everything else is not "liberal" - except for simplistic bigots with a cause, or rightarded propagandists aiming at monopolizing the white male vote by rallying them behind a Trumpish sense of being victims "under assault" by the so-called "illiberal left".
