This was the questioned asked to me by a reader. The implication I think is that single-view subsidized law professor political speach has to be Ok because taxpayers do not agree on many if any things. That sounds a little odd but it is the only interpretation I could come up with.
I think I have not made my point clearly or it has been misunderstood. It is not that law professors must hush up because taxpayers do not agree. Instead it is that other voices should similarly be subsidized. (Or hiring committees could make an ideological balance a goal.)
I would contrast an institution that encourages the expression of different views with. say, a government that only assists one particular point of view. I can think of a few.
Basically, though, it just gets down to how boring, unimaginative and anti intellectual it is to hear the choir of law professors sing the same tune.