Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. City College of San Francisco, 2009 WL 86703 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12), so holds, concluding — as was not disputed in the case — that “sidewalks and plazas on a publicly-supported college campus constitute a [traditional] public forum.” Therefore, the court rightly reasons, it’s unconstitutional for the college to require a licensing scheme under which “college officials … review literature before it is distributed and [may] deny permission to distribute it at their unfettered discretion.” (Of course, many content-neutral restrictions that do not involve discretionary licensing schemes may well be permissible on university sidewalks, just as they are on public sidewalks.)
Sounds generally quite right, given current First Amendment precedents, though note that “publicly-supported” should probably have been “publicly-run.” The Supreme Court has made clear (see, e.g., Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982)), that government funding of an institution doesn’t subject the institution’s decisions to First Amendment scrutiny — only actual government control does (for instance, when the institution is run by a government body, or when a government body pressures a private institution to impose certain speech restrictions).