The invocation of the Bill of Rights here is to provide an example of a document attempting to moralize. The author's intent here is that this highly respected

The invocation of the Bill of Rights here is to provide an example of a document attempting to moralize. The author's intent here is that this highly respected moral document protects free speech (the Bill of Rights being what the writers thought to be a non-exclusive set of human rights codified in a legal document), and so we should think twice before doing otherwise. I am aware of the popular notion that legality and morality are completely separate conversations, but morality does actually inform legality, albeit in a very flawed and incomplete way. The Bill of Rights is one of those rare legal documents that's seen as a valuable reflection of morality, even today. Agree with it or not, the author isn't attempting to form a legal argument here, so pointing out the lack of a legal standing for the Bill of Rights at Northwestern is kind of missing the point, I think.