Misuse of First Amendment

Consider the lead paragraph of a June 5th news story by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily.

An adviser on the campus of UCLA has edited a student's personal graduation statement to remove her reference to "my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," citing policy in the Department of Molecular, Cell & Development Biology (MCDB).

My first reaction was, of course, that this was a violation of the First Amendment's religion and speech clauses. Then I thought...can a university, even one taking federal funds, violate the First Amendment? Doesn't it read, "Congress shall make no law..."? If UCLA, or even its Dept of MCDB, on its own, issues a policy or guideline restricting the content of their students' writings, speeches, classroom discussions or the extent of their on-campus activities, as unpoular as it would be, what amendment or constitutional law will have been broken? Doesn't that student already have recourse? Can that student not attend a different school if he or she feels "oppressed" by this one? It may not be an easy transition, but it can still be done within this great country of seemingly unlimited choices. I know of at least one college (Hillsdale) in this country that embraces the values embodied in our U.S. Constitution and would welcome this student.

The official statement released by UCLA in response to the student's complaint reads as follows:
"Because the reading is by the university, not the students, to avoid the appearance that the university was advocating one religion over the other, guidelines were established so that messages would not include references to particular religions. The department and the university support the First Amendment and in no way intended to impinge upon any students' rights. Thus, upon review, and recognizing that the intent of the ceremony is for all students to have a chance to say something at graduation, the department will continue to make clear to the audience that the statements are the personal statements of each student and will read statements as originally submitted by the students."

So what's the problem? If the policy is to allow statements to be read as submitted, then let the statement stand with the disclaimer that it is a personal statement. If a Muslim student said "Allahu Akbar" in his or her statement, would the department or university edit it in like manner? I don't like the way UCLA lays claim to the First Amendment though. They say they support it, but then they have guidlines that fly in its face. As I said earlier, as a private entity, UCLA should be left alone in their policy-making to be as free or as oppressive as they would like. It reminds me of non-profit organizations; they cannot lawfully engage in political behavior or endorse candidates, but isn't the very law, made by Congress, requiring non-profits to refrain from such behavior, or risk losing their tax-exempt status, a violation of the First Amendment?

My final question is this. Does the acceptance of federal money, in any amount, even by student loans, force a university to abide by the U.S. Constitution? Let's set aside for a brief moment my disgust and disagreement with the use of federal money for education at any level; it should be left to the states and the people. If one of the "strings" attached to that federal grant is that universities receiving those funds will abide by the First Amendment, or the so-called "separation of church and state", then haven't they themselves violated the First Amendment? Remember that "Congress shall make no law...". Citizens, whether individually, together as non-profit organizations, together as universities or in any group cannot violate the First Amendment!

Remember that the U.S. Constitution, espcially the Bill of Rights, spells out what the federal and state governments cannot do to you.