I've been an admirer of (and small donor to) FIRE; I think it does good work combatting silliness such as campus speech codes. Thus, I was quite surprised to find that the current issue of FIRE Quarterly contains an article advocating external pressure by the NYCLU on Hamilton College for disinviting Ward "Little Eichmanns" Churchill to its campus. (Link here; scroll down to page 9.) The article is by FIRE board member Michael Myers; here's the salient part:

Initially, Hamilton College officials stood
by the invitation for Churchill to speak on
campus, although they had also insisted
on “balance” through a panel. But as censorial
pressures mounted from politicians,
media demagogues, and angry donors,
college officials folded and canceled the
event altogether, citing death threats that
had been called in. The NYCLU fell silent,
but even the New York Post, which had
itself been railing against Professor
Churchill and his scheduled talk, faulted
college officials for their cowardice for
using “crank calls” as the basis for punking
out on their pretense of support for
academic freedom and free speech.
The answer I got from my own call to the
NYCLU’s legal director as to why they had
said nothing in this episode was that they
had indeed been quiet about the
Churchill controversy—but they had now
gotten “an op-ed opportunity.” A free
speech organization need not await an
“op-ed opportunity” or even a client to
speak up for free speech—especially
when the governor of New York was pressuring
Hamilton College officials about
the speaking invitation to Churchill.

Hamilton College is a private institution; it can invite and disinvite anyone it pleases to speak on its campus. Other than rebuking NY politicians for hectoring Hamilton, the NYCLU should have no say in Hamilton's affairs. There are, after all, civil liberties other than freedom of speech (which only applies to government in any case); among the others is Hamilton College's freedom to associate with whomever it chooses.