You make an interesting distinction and one which occurred to me as well. The question is, when does a public or a quasi public institution become the government? If the university is supported by government monies is it government? If it is granted some police powers by the state, such as the powers to police its campus, is it the government? If it is excused from certain obligations such as paying taxes of various sorts or living up to normal contract obligations, for example, relating to the quality of the education that it delivers, does become the government for some purposes?
Now, if an institution is granted governmental powers are we then wise to be very careful about letting it operate on the one hand as the government and on the other hand is a private institution? I think that a quasi public institution such as a public school Must be very careful about how it regulates free speech or other conduct. After all, the students as a practical matter are compelled to be there. But what about a university where the compulsion is less?
On the other hand, if institution is private and character we would be wise not to try to interfere with its rights to regulate the conduct of its employees because to do so would Impose government censorship on private speech which might be even worse than a quasi public institution censoring free speech itself.
This path gets very thorny as left-wing politicians look for institutions like hospitals and medical care and educational establishments to fund and thereafter claim that they can control the institutions because they are taxpayer supported.
I don't know anything about the University of Toledo except this Dean who censures free-speech is an ass. Until I know more about the institution, I don't know which way to jump on the issue as a legal or constitutional question.
One last thought, our views on whether the speech should be privileged should not be determined by whether or not we support homosexuality or this woman's views about it.
