The ability to discriminate between an endorsed opinion and a forced opinion is a marker of maturity. Although students may be impressionable and easily swayed in high school, clear-thinking college students should be able to reason critically. They must weigh the pros and cons of an argument and, after reflection, choose the most rational platform. And after they choose that rational platform, they must stand up for it. With that in mind, consider this story:

Fifteen prominent law schools want to refuse military recruiters’ presence on campus. These schools do not protest the concept of war. Instead, they protest the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bans openly gay citizens from military service. To enact their disapproval, these schools have kept recruiters out.

According to a recent Supreme Court decision, however, colleges that receive federal funding are not allowed to refuse recruiters. Colleges must welcome military recruiters just as they welcome other potential job providers. These schools must now decide between money and morality.

But this is not the only point of contention.

The colleges claim that, in being forced to admit recruiters, their free speech has been violated. They think permitting recruiters on campus indicates support of a discriminatory policy. They find it hypocritical to welcome a group with whose values they disagree.

Colleges, however, are not required to welcome recruiters, according to Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion for this appeal. They can permit or ban whomever they wish. What’s the catch? The government has control of the money it spends, and it is legally justified to attach as many strings to that money as it sees fit.

If colleges want government money, they must admit military recruiters to their campuses.

Free-speech violation is not the issue here. Regardless of federal mandates, choice is still involved, and colleges are still free to speak. Colleges will never choose to reject federal funding completely. Even though they have the freedom to accept or reject military recruiters, their dependence on funding makes the decision on its own. The real conflict lies between speech and action.

Due to past choices, a university may be forced to welcome an organization with beliefs contrary to its own. However, it is never forced to absorb those beliefs. It does not need to be the voice box for every visitor that sets foot on its campus. Rather, a university should continuously uphold its own mission. This route, too, preserves freedom of speech.

Consider the motivation behind the law school protests. They do not protest war. They protest the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. And, if they are prepared to stand for their values, the protesting colleges could use this situation to further their cause, albeit in a less powerful way.

Protesters could set up shop directly across from the military recruiters. From that location, they argue their case to passersby just as easily as recruiters could their own. Protesters could possibly gain more supporters by explaining their cause in greater detail. Colleges could regain some of the faith their students had instilled in them, while retaining government resources.

This national example draws attention to the rights of expression we have at our disposal. When we, at Saint Louis University, disagree with a policy, we can and should exercise our right to protest. We can write letters to legitimate venues of expression, like newspapers and government officials. We can even protest in the middle of West Pine Mall.

Or, better yet, we can use those clear thinking skills we’ve developed. Instead of shunning our opponents, we can evaluate their arguments and prove ours better. If we can’t, we might consider the merits of the other side. We can invite dialogue and court maturity.