Colorado State University, like most of academia, wants diversity. Hearing diverse views from people with countless backgrounds and viewpoints provides an essential component of a well-rounded higher education.

Here’s what the university’s website says:

“Colorado State University is committed to embracing diversity through the inclusion of individuals reflective of characteristics such as: age, culture, different ideas and perspectives, disability, ethnicity, first-generation status, familial status, gender identity, and expression, geographic background, marital status, national origin, race, religious and spiritual beliefs, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, physical appearance, medical diagnosis, documentation status, and veteran status with special attention given to populations historically underrepresented or excluded from participation in higher education.”

Consider the “special attention” part.

It is hard to imagine anyone less represented on any state campus in the country than the minority who oppose abortion. As such, the campus should welcome nearly any anti-abortion/pro-life speaker an organization of students invites. That would uphold the university’s commitment to “different ideas and perspectives.”

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Students for Life at Colorado State University invited anti-abortion/pro-life speaker Josh Brahm from the Equal Rights Institute to enhance the free exchange of diverse ideas by someone representing a philosophy often “underrepresented or excluded from participation in higher education.” Attendance was voluntary, so no one triggered by the speaker’s message needed to attend.

When the group applied to CSU’s Diversity Grant Committee to reimburse the $600 cost of bringing the speaker, the committee denied it. It wasn’t for a lack of funds for speakers. The diversity committee, funded by mandatory student fees, apparently refused the request because the speaker’s views were diverse relative to the campus population.

A federal lawsuit by the student group claims the Diversity Grant Committee denied the application because “the speaker’s content doesn’t appear to be entirely unbiased as it addresses the topic of abortion.” Furthermore, the “committee worries that folks from varying sides of the issue won’t necessarily feel affirmed in attending the event.

If true, one wonders what kind of speaker affirms the views of everyone attending a speech. That would be impossible. If possible, this exercise would undermine the purpose of bringing speakers to campus to share diverse ideas.

The students seek $600 in compensatory damages. They also want reimbursement for the mandatory student fees each member paid to fund the Diversity Grant Committee.

Their demands are more than reasonable in what sounds like a prima facie case of a state university violating the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech no matter how controversial, unpopular and triggering it might be. As the First Amendment protects hardcore porn, it should certainly protect an abortion opponent.

The lawsuit invokes the First Amendment and the 14th, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

These students have a moral obligation to sue, if only to defend the Constitution for the rest of us. The outcome of the lawsuit has nothing to do with favoring one side or the other in the longstanding abortion debate. Quite the contrary, the students’ likely victory will ensure pro-abortion rights students are never treated like this if popular sentiment turns against them.

It’s a sad day in Colorado when one of our major university systems – one that preaches “diversity” as the highest cause – balks at diversity. If the lawsuit’s claims are factual, that’s what this otherwise great university did by breaking the first law in the Bill of Rights – the one ratified 233 years ago to protect the exchange of diverse and controversial views.

Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board