Is Free Speech Just Speech, or More?

From today's Bloomberg News:

During a one-hour argument session in Washington, the Bush administration said it has the power to withhold millions of dollars in aid unless universities give military recruiters the same access to students as other prospective employers. An attorney for the law schools argued they have a free-speech right to refuse to help employers who discriminate.
``You're perfectly free to do that if you don't take the money'' from the government, Chief Justice John Roberts told the law schools' attorney.

I agree with the concept, but not the execution.

I think it's perfectly okay for a law school to express the opinion that the military discriminates. The right of free speech clearly covers that opinion. And I think its perfectly okay for a law school to refuse to host certain recruiters, for whatever their reason. What I don't think is okay is the linkage -- the statement that their refusal is based on, and therefore protected by, free-speech rights. My gut feeling is that free speech covers declamatory acts -- acts that you say about how you feel or what you think -- but not substantive acts -- things that you do -- even if they are based on the opinions stated in the declamatory acts.

Additionally, in the Chief Justice's example, I don't think that its right for the government to insist that you agree with everything it or its agencies do in order to receive funding from them.

Of course, getting money from the government is usually a Faustian deal, anyway.