They take public money, in the form of taxes and private donations. We have to be careful to avoid confusing various meanings of public and private. A state-supported institution is often answerable in numerous fashions to the state, but while the state is answerable to the public, the public is hardly limited to the state to seek explanations or administer chastisement or to gift funds. Even as private companies selling widgets are accountable to the public in the form of boycotts, so is a university, and more so since they enjoy special status in numerous fashion compared to widget makers, something they generally make a point of taking advantage of. Well, it comes at a price, and explaining yourself to the public is one of those. They must answer the publics questions, and generally the will need to answer why they support this or that and if not what they are going to do about it, to rectify the current incident and to prevent further incidents. This seems just, fair, and reasonable to me. NW's status as private rather than public may be a factor in certain regards, but is hardly free license. Further, they are accountable to others scholars and Universities who will expect them to deal with this incident satisfactorily. Same as a politician might have the legal right to scream racial obscenities, same as a person does, but while that person must face public censure, the politician will be even more accountable to the public, his peers, and his party for such comments, even if he has broken no law.

Add on: In regards to RT's specific budget cutting theme, universities and research are areas of large funding, right now anyone who studies this guy's field is going to be worrying with great and deserved dread if the gov't is gonna come by and slash his budget as a result of the prof's recklessness.