You raise good points, William. I agree that there should be a right to say things that may be unfavorable to others, and also that the line between this right and the right to infringe on the rights of others is an elusive one.
It's a tough one to define, really -- especially in an environment like a University, where the idea is to have an open, non-judgemental setting to explore new ideas. Having a bunch of anti-* rhetoric in such a place is, in my opinion, not conducive to creating an ideal place to learn.
But at the same time, it shouldn't be a no-opinion zone either. Yeah, it's not an easy thing to have a strong opinion about.
This is a tricky subject. Its ridiculous to sue a school for not providing funding to openly anti-gay/gay-excluding clubs, although the lines blur a bit if it is a public school. Some of the cases in this article are downright perplexing, though. I mean, you pretty much have to agree that as long as someone is not being harrassed or abused, people should be free to say whatever they want. There are two problems with this simple concept, though. One that is often forgotten is that this does not always apply to private institutions. Private institutions can sometimes deny or exclude certain types of speech, and other times cannot. The other problem is that what consitutes 'harassment' is not really clear in the first place. Many things that could be personally offensive (ie "Gays are sinners") are not truly harrassment - unless they are directed at a particular person. Anyway, this is an interesting read.