My guess would be that what ends up happening is the University has some strong words against this student but concludes that they can't justly expel him based on current campus policies, but they are in the process of rewriting those policies to address issues like this in the future.
Which happens to be what the players asked for
Depending on how that new policy is written and enforced, and I'm guessing this is out of Spracs wheelhouse, how would the new policy also not be subject to a 1st amendment challenge?
Just be in a better position to hold up by having some precedent on campus for making students abide by it? I mean KSU would still be a state school and the constitution would still be there...
Policies that "discriminate on the basis of race" (e.g., affirmative action) are subject to the same standard of review ("strict scrutiny"), and yet several such policies have been found in the university context to be "narrowly tailored" to further a "compelling government interest," namely, diversity in higher education.
Affirmative action policies, just like campus speech codes, implicate constitutional rights, and thus have to be very carefully drafted and applied. But just because they affect constitutional rights does not mean that they are per se unconstitutional (Sometimes they are. For example, racial quotas are per se unconstitutional). It remains theoretically possible to narrowly tailor speech codes to advance a compelling government interest. And if there is one administrator who could narrowly tailor such a policy, who better than Gene Tailor?
While there hasn't been a case construing campus speech codes that has made it all the way to SCOTUS, a policy that was evenly applied would stand a better chance of passing constitutional muster. I would envision a system with progressively more severe sanctions based on clear criteria. First offense? Warning. Second offense? Notation on your permanent record. Third offense? Show cause hearing before student government body to demonstrate why you should not be publicly sanctioned. .... X offense? Possible expulsion. And then you would have to investigate every report of threatening or harrassing communications, and apply clear standards in an even-handed manner. No Constitutional right is absolute. Even First Amendment rights are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The key is to avoid vagueness, overbreadth, and arbitrary enforcement, as those are the usual grounds for striking down speech-based state actions.