No, but the government could attach strings to the money. Now, freedom of speech is well understood and well protected, so it would probably be difficult for the government to gag the Crimson this way, but it's not hard to see how certain "equal opportunity" or "diversity" requirements for admissions could find its way in.

You misunderstood what the parent was saying.

By "force them to do X" he meant the government can refuse to fund them if they didn't do X (which forces them to abide by the government's rules if they are accepting its funds), not that the government can legally mandate them to do X unconditionally.

Conditions placed on the recipients of government expenditures are not unrestrained by Constitutional limitations. Witness the Supreme Court throwing out some of the strings attached to ACA's Medicaid expansion.

You are going on tangent after tangent as if to prove something. No one said that "unrestrained by Constitutional limitations" are ok.

Suppose you have the right to exclude Blacks or Asians from your college (freedom of speech, associations or whatever)

Once you take even a penny of federal dollars, directly or indirectly, you may have to agree not to discriminate. So YOU give up that right voluntarily. No one forces you to take the government's money.

see Rumsfeld v. FAIR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Forum_for_Academic_....

Those government dollars most certainly can be conditioned on associating with certain people (military recruiters, in that case).

You picked one narrow thing that no one even suggested. No one even hinted that the government would tell the Crimson not to criticize, say, Obama but that's the route you went.

Now more on topic, the being able to discriminate as a private uni one:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/admissions/faq/faq_list.asp?iSectio...

Q: Why doesn’t Hillsdale accept any federal or state taxpayer subsidies? A: In 1975, the federal government said that Hillsdale had to sign a form stating that we did not discriminate on the basis of sex. Hillsdale College had never discriminated on any basis, and had never accepted federal taxpayer subsidies of any sort, so the College felt no obligation to comply, fearing that doing so would open the door to additional federal mandates and control. Our trustees pledged two things: first, that the College would continue its long-standing policy of non-discrimination, and second, that it would not accept any encroachments on its independence. The case went to court, and Hillsdale College won a partial victory, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did rule that Hillsdale College was an “indirect recipient” of federal funding because of participation in federal grant and loan programs. In 1984, Grove City College in Pennsylvania fought and lost a similar legal battle. The case then went to the Supreme Court, and in Grove City v. Bell, it was determined that if even one student received a federal grant or loan, it made that institution a direct recipient of federal funds. To avoid the hassles of government control, Hillsdale College announced its decision to end participation in all federal financial aid programs in 1985. In 2007, Hillsdale announced that it would no longer accept State of Michigan taxpayer subsidies earmarked for student financial aid, thereby making the College completely independent of taxpayer support.

Basically once you take their money you agree to their strings.

With no limiting principle?

As far as I know, the only federal mandates they have to accept are the ones in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. These basically just forbid discrimination based on race or sex.

Hang on, I am going to ignore the topic at hand and spend the next 4-5 weeks to discuss every possible constitutional /anti-constitutional scenario just to please you.

sorry for the sarcasm but he keeps going

I'm not the one who insisted taking a "penny" meant "the government can force them to do almost anything."

This is an absurd principle, and you've offered little but snark to defend it.

You take advantage of government largess every time you drive on a Federal highway. That doesn't mean the government can make your travel on that highway contingent upon giving up completely unrelated rights.