I just don't see withholding of funding as construable as a law that abridges speech. I literally just re-read the first amendment and I don't see it.
It seems to be more on the spectrum of "freedom of reach". The same way a social media platform might not promote your content but doesn't take it down, the government is not creating a law about what institutions can legally say, just adjusting how much they're willing to support those institutions in other ways.
It comes down to creating an environment hopelessly dependent on the system and then using that as leverage for coercion. The same end goal of social credit IDs and CBDCs, which would bring it to the level of the individual.
Right. Which is why I started with "fuck federal funds and accreditation". The universities should do whatever they want and say good riddance to the system of dependency.
For those who value the universities' stance more than they value the federal accreditation system and discount, they will go along for the ride and the ethics will bifiurcate. This is the way.
