First, the issue is a little more complicated than the Blaze makes it out to be: the Argus is likely to face only a 16% drop in funding, and that funding is going to be distributed to other publications. If there are more publications on campus receiving funding, there’s a decent argument that the diversity of opinion will increase, not decrease.
Second, to the extent that it’s a retaliatory move for a conservative editorial, it’s a bad move, no question. The students who are calling for that move are, IMO, doing the wrong thing.
Third, this is how it almost always goes. On the one hand, we have people in positions of real power saying nasty things about black people (or about women or gay people or whatever). On the other hand, we have college students wanting to change funding for college papers. Which of these situations gives conservatives the vapors? Over and over they freak out over what teenagers are saying on campus instead of paying attention to what happens in the halls of power.
Take another campus controversy: choosing the president for North Carolina’s highly-regarded university system. The Republican legislature, apparently unhappy with the bastion of liberalism at Chapel Hill, packed the UNC board with campaign donors and other Republican activists, who demanded the resignation of the currently, highly-respected president, and installed a Republican activist in his place. This is after they closed several campus centers that engaged in research and activities the legislature didn’t like, such as African studies.
Which is more damaging to academic freedom: teenagers complaining about editorials, or legislators enforcing political compliance on campus? Which do conservatives complain more about?
If you’re complaining about teenagers and silent about political takeover of university administration, I admit I’m very skeptical of your true motives.