Geoffrey MillerVerified account

No, I think an executive order like this would not actually lessen free speech suppression, but exacerbate it. There are better ways to effect cultural impact than misuse of unilateral tactics like executive order, which exists for different purposes. One way is legislation.

We don’t need another law. We already have the 1A, which is sufficient. The executive is required to enforce that Constitutional restriction.

To effectively and legally take steps such as defunding, we likely would need law. Withholding difficult to defend against both judicial and legislative counter because there is little/no establishment that universities are unconstitutional. Your feelings here would not be facts.

It’s plain that universities are acting unconstitutionally. They claim that people do not have the right to free speech on most of the university, they actively allow rioters a heckler’s veto, and they favor liberal speakers over conservatives.

Its not plain hence your attraction to unilateral executive order (which intentionally, explicitly end-arounds whether it is considered plain by others). Your argument specifically undermines your stance. 1A would work quite well to defend universities from your order, after all.

Public universities have no 1A rights to favor one viewpoint over another.

That would be false. You're in fact arguing that universities must favor your executive order's viewpoint over competing viewpoints that might come from judicial or legislative or university admin or faculty challenge. So...that why you should choose a better tool than EO.

No, I'm saying they don't get to favor any viewpoint. There is no way you could have honestly misread what I said. At no point did I say or imply they were supposed to favor my viewpoint, but that's what you wanted to believe, so you believe it.