As I understand the law, restrictions on free speech cannot extend beyond what is necessary to protect other vital interests.  Frankly, I don’t know exactly where the courts have drawn the line between statements that are protected free speech and statements that can be prohibited because they create an illegally hostile workplace or otherwise constitute illegal harassment.  But I do know that there is no general interest in “equality” that would permit the government to outlaw speech that may be disparaging or advocate inequality as to particular groups (See Matal v. Tam and National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). 
Also as I understand the law, public universities are government actors.  Government actors cannot discriminate among speakers based on the content of the speakers’ messages.  It’s that simple.
So no matter how lofty their credentials and how sophisticated their arguments, ignore the commentators who are trying to rewrite First Amendment law to make free speech subordinate to “equality,” or subject to government deciding that the message is deserving of an audience.

I haven’t had time yet to read the Supreme Court’s opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair, the decision issued last week on the ability of a state to collect sales tax from a seller who has no physical presence within the state.  I don’t trust (and neither should you) any mainstream media reports about what a Supreme Court opinion says.  I’ll try to summarize the opinion after I have read it.
In the meantime, however, here’s a link to a post that describes the practical problems faced by businesses who sell products or services in more than one state.  Those problems will now be visited upon businesses selling over the internet, at least to the extent that individual states are going to try to collect sales tax from such businesses.  More on that later, as well.

Go to deconcinimcdonald.com, where you’ll see a link under Recent News that takes you to my latest Tax Law Special Report.  There you can read my comments on why I think there should be more opportunities for tax-advantaged savings, and why I think those opportunities can and should be provided without the creation of yet another set of tax rules.
While I’m on the subject, here’s a link to a recent post on the Tax Foundation’s site that makes some of the same points that I made in my Special Report.

Specifically, my June newsletter is about (a) existing tax-advantaged savings vehicles, i.e. retirement accounts, education savings accounts, and health savings accounts, and (b) why I think there should be savings accounts in which the earnings are not taxed regardless of the purpose of the savings.  
I will give you the link here as soon as the newsletter is posted to my firm's website.
In the meantime, here's another article bemoaning the fact that Americans aren't saving enough.  If that's true, then my idea should be a no-brainer, right?

Having advised clients on handling their loved ones' estates for almost thirty years, I have seen  numerous situations in which someone's attempt to direct the disposition of their estate, i.e. to create a valid will, was ineffective.  Don't let this happen to you.  Read about the Arizona rules for how to make a will in the May edition of my Estate Planning Law Report.