Because every university's resources are limited, an educational institution must routinely make decisions concerning the use of the time and space that is available for extracurricular activities. In my judgment, it is both necessary and appropriate for those decisions to evaluate the content of a proposed student activity. I should think it obvious, for example, that if two groups of 25 students requested the use of a room at a particular time -- one to view Mickey Mouse cartoons and the other to rehearse an amateur performance of Hamlet -- the First Amendment would not require that the room he reserved for the group that submitted its application first. Nor do I see why a university should have to establish a "compelling state interest" to defend its decision to permit one group to use the facility and not the other. In my opinion, a university should be allowed to decide for itself whether a program that illuminates the genius of Walt Disney should be given precedence over one that may duplicate material adequately covered in the classroom.

--Supreme Court Justice Stevens, WIDMAR v. VINCENT, concurring opinion.

Some people believe that humor belongs even in serious things, like supreme court legal opinions. Some people believe there is value in cartoons.

Downvoted. This is a serious post and this comment adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. Funny references belong on reddit.

Reversed. I liked the comment. You underestimate the relevance.