"Actually, it goes to the heart of the "1st Amendment" claim of the universities. O'Connor's statement shows that the univeristy has options available to it (citing one particular example) that don't require banning recruiters outright, therefore there is no compelling reason, even if the university's argument is accepted, to overturn the law."
But the problem is that was never the issue. They are arguing that free speech issue as a distraction from the real issue. She was clearly fooled by it, as you are. Chief Justice Roberts was not. The question is solely whether Congress may fund education with strings attached, other Constitutional restrictions notwithstanding. This is long-settled law; it can.
I'm not being fooled by anything. I know the 1st Amendment argument is specious. Nevertheless, it's still a relatively common practice to say something along the lines of: assuming everything the plaintiff says is true (and relevant), has the plaintiff shown that they have been or will be harmed. In this case, the answer is: no, even if we accept the specious arguments of the plaintiff, the remedy requested is not necessary.