And, like the author of the article notes at the end, it is a civic-moral issue. Freedom is not an abstract concept, nor is it simply the absence of coercion. Freedom is a practice—a way of thinking about freedom that goes back to Tocqueville at the very least. Habituation is a very important part of the learning process, and if students are habituated into practices that are antithetical to a free society, we will be profoundly injuring the sustainability of our republic.
Simply because private institutions can restrict speech does not mean that they should.
Universities have traditionally had codes of conduct. They weren't invented by pot-smoking hippies.
Tenure is based on the idea that after working like a dog and reaching to top of your field, you should then get an unrestricted forum to express yourself - you've earned it.
The examples of someone being falsely accused and convicted of racial harassment don't prove that students should be able to shout racist and sexist slogans whenever they want. It shows that universities should correctly aply statutes against harassment in a reasonably limited fashion.
So, of course, universities should restrict some speech. They certainly go overboard in some cases but that's a different matter.
I entirely agree with you that behavior intended to disrupt or harass should not be tolerated, but the speech codes are clearly written with the intent to prevent certain types of speech, opinions, or political positions.
Also, most private schools get lots of money from the federal and state government.
Most public universities are run as trusts somewhat separated from the state governments that sponsor them.
Moreover, a state school pretty much has have policies equivalent to private universities.
Freedom of speech means the state doesn't go out and restrict what people say in their own property or in public areas. The constitution's Freedom Of Speech claus isn't a freedom of speech on government property as such; your speech is very much restricted inside a courtroom, for example and even Rush Limbaugh hasn't been dumb enough to challenge that one.
Elementary school students aren't accorded freedom of speech either. Perhaps they should be but that's not the kind of freedom Rush Limbaugh is after, I think.
In any case, no one is demanding free speech inside a courtroom. Also, no one is demanding free speech inside a final exam. What is being demanded is free speech in government spaces of public accommodation. This means that the government can't restrict speech in the plaza in front of a courthouse, a national park, or a college quad (except in content-neutral ways).
I'm pretty sure this is not true in the US. "State schools" (eg University of [state]) are private organizations that are chartered by the state, and partially funded by the government. So there is definitely a strong public link, but they're still private, and there is a big difference between a public university and (say) a public secondary school.
Not to disagree with your overall point; public funds should come along with some basic respect for the Bill of Rights.
IANAL, but I don't think this is true. For example, I imagine the second amendment is quite restricted on most campuses.
... "Freedom Of Speech" merely means the government will not put judicial sanctions on the exercise of speech. As owner or employer, the government can limit speech as much any private individual can limit speech. Federal civil service employees are restricted in their political speech as a condition of their employment. This is utterly and absolutely constitutional.
Expelling a student from a public university for not obeying a code of conduct isn't putting any unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech since it isn't a judicial sanction. Again, the government puts all sorts of non-judicial limits on speech.
I agree that about the public accommodation part but that's a different issue - that's the issue of whether non-students will allowed to speak in semi-public places like Sproul Plaza. I think they should but I realize there's no constitutional basis for this.
Your unlimited freedom position seems to be asking whether a student should be able to shout "honky" or "niger" out their dorm window without being expelled from the university. I think they shouldn't be able to, they should be expelled. I think the university should have the authority to remove those who create an unpleasant environment and I think it should use it in a limited, appropriate way.
Of course universities should have codes of conduct, some part of those codes are going demand minimally respectful behavior. I boggles my mind that so many people want to grand-stand "freedom of speech" and "the constitution" only and specifically with regard to the "anti-PC" hobby-house.
Similarly, if my students criticize me during class, I can say "shut up unless you want to talk about linear algebra." If they criticize me on ratemyprofessor.com or in the hallway, I'm out of luck.
Google, however, can fire their employees even for complaining about Marisa in a bar.
As for whether students should be permitted to shout "nigger" out their window, the answer should not change if they should "asslicker" out the window. The government can ban shouting out the window, they just can't ban shouting certain things but not others. They can even ban fighting words (shouting strong insults at a specific person) as long as they do so in an all-or-nothing manner (they can't ban "nigger" but not "asslicker").
Just because you receive money from the government doesn't make you part of the government. Much of that is in research grants, as well.
That said, there are many forms of social pressure that may be brought to bear on a private organization - publishing articles at reason.com, for example. I'm all for putting pressure on universities and employers place unreasonable restrictions on free speech. Of course, everyone has a different interpretation of reasonable.