Universities and moral neutrality

A few days ago, I blogged about the efforts of student-government leaders at a Canadian university to silence pro-life speech and groups.  Fr. Araujo followed-up, here.  Now, my colleague down-the-hall, Cathy Kaveny, sends in this:

What happens if we take Canada--and a state run American university -- out of the picture and focus it this way?

. . .  [W]e both teach at a Catholic university which will not allow a pro-choice group to be formed on campus, because it is inconsistent with Catholic values.

Suppose a private university said this:  "Okay, okay, we realize MacIntyre is right.  We realize liberalism is not an un-tradition, over and above every tradition, but is itself a tradition with substantive moral commitments to freedom and equality, which require women to have physical autonomy--contraception and abortion access.  We think a pro-life group threatens those values.

Why shouldn't we, as a private secular institution, maintain our secular humanist values on campus as part of the great diversity of institutions?  In fact, we'll structure it parallel to Notre Dame's structure--we'll allow pro-life speakers, and pro-life books, but not pro-life groups."

In a nutshell, suppose secular private universities stop pretending that they're morally neutral.  They are in favor of a certain set of values, and it is out of those values that pro-life groups are banned.  Is there anything that can be said to that?

As Cathy and I discussed, my sense is that -- putting aside questions of any regulatory strings attached to public money, or non-discrimination laws that are construed to apply to decisions like this -- a private, secular university that was willing to do this (i.e., to stop pretending to be morally neutral) could do this.  Years ago, when I was in law practice, I represented some Orthodox Jewish students who objected to Yale's policy of requiring students to live in on-campus dormitories, which were co-ed.  The response to the objection often took the form of "we're a diverse, multi-cultural place, and we think it is a crucial part of what we offer to expose students to difference," etc.  Fair enough.  The problem (as I saw it) was, Yale also purported to liberal neutrality and wide-ranging tolerance.  I think Notre Dame, and Yale, should be not only permitted, but encouraged, to think about the values and commitments for which they stand, and to act / regulate accordingly, even if doing so distinguishes them from the institutions that are bound by the norms that constrain government action.

Rob . . . what do you think?