Your right to free speech is not infringed if people choose not to listen to you, or if they listen but remain unconvinced

Nobody claimed anything even close to that. Can you please TRY to argue in good faith rather than immediately trot out the strawmen?

On the contrary, you’re infringing on their rights if you force them to listen

Another strawman, as nobody has said anyone should be forced to listen to anything.

(I consider “extortion” the right word to describe the behavior of protesters who deliberately cause serious disruptions unless their demands are met.)

Wow. Just wow. You REALLY don’t have a fucking clue what extortion OR protest is! 🤦

reasonable because (…) less disruptive

Protests without disruption accomplish nothing. Which is the ACTUAL reason why people who are against protesting want to minimize disruption.

primary goal of educating students

By keeping them and others from hearing anything but the official version about a genocide that they themselves are contributing to economically by refusing to divest?

To paraphrase Nick Fury: you SAY education, but I think you mean the other thing.

Protesters are still left with plenty of time to express their ideas.

As long as they do so at a time and place where aa few people as possible will see or hear them 🙄

Many protesters are going to be upset about this because they want to be disruptive

Because they don’t get noticed without being disruptive and a protest that nobody notices is as useful as tits on a tractor.

but that is not their right.

Their right to express grievances is explicitly addressed in the first amendment of the US constitution. Nowhere does it say “unless it’s inconvenient to people who claim to be for free speech but are more interested in what Martín Luther King referred to as negative peace and Nazis being treated courteously than the rights of protesters and the lives of Palestinians”