When someone asks me to entertain a poop swastika drawn in a bathroom as mortally offensive I start them on the bottom of the pile.
Long story short:
I think these are a bunch of spoiled college kids in Missouri with a victim complex (some of whom happen to be black).
Yes, we know you think that.
What we also know you think, is that it's not possible that you're casting too broad a brush in applying that to the situation, and dismissing core issues too easily as a result.
What is the direct connection between the poop swastika, the university president, and the alleged "core issues"?
This shit would never reach trial. Pun intended.
The student's complaint, at it's core, is that the university's response to the swastika, as well as past incidents (two students covered the lawn of the Black Cultural Building with cotton balls) was not severe enough, and did not do enough to convince minority students that their feeling welcome at the university was a priority for the administration. This complaint was tied into stats about black students at Mizzou having much lower graduation rates, and asked for the university to take necessary steps to improve those numbers.
At it's core, minority students felt that the swastika issue--and the cotton ball issue, in which the student involved were able to plead guilty to. . .littering--were emblematic of a tenor on campus. It wasn't that hate crimes were rampant, but that the few instances of blatant racial issues underscored what they felt existed beneath the surface. They asked the administration to take their concerns seriously; in their estimation, the administration didn't do so, and they took drastic measures to make sure their viewpoints were heard.
It's important to understand that the president's resignation wasn't the goal, and criminal charges weren't the goal. Dialogue was the goal, and had the administration taken that seriously earlier, none of this happens. You can try and write this off as the actions of extremists, but I think it's worth asking why the University of Missouri football team--hardly a demographic associated with political activism--would feel that this cause had enough merit that they would threaten to boycott a game over it.
You've spoken a lot about the leader of these protests and the extreme lengths he went to get attention, and I don't disagree with you on that. But more interesting to me is the football team's willingness to go to such extreme lengths themselves. If this were a small group of radicals, I'd be inclined to think they were simply exploiting the attention they'd received with too-extreme measures. But am I supposed to believe the entire Mizzou football team is equally extreme? That seems unlikely to me, and indicates an issue that goes deeper than a single act of racist graffiti.