Sets a nasty precedent. You have the power to filter, like you said. It's quite possible to sift through this pile ONLY for postings by Renfro, a true scholar. The web interface makes that easy.
So what there's a lot of irrelevant poopka packed around it. If the database is any good, you won't have to deal with it (much).
Anyway, you're still free to sample. Maybe a writer you couldn't stand a year ago seems like a voice for sanity a year later. Columnists may seem to drift in and out that way too.
It's useful to have a base line and a track record.
Banning a party simply deprives us of history, when the reality is: disk space is *not* in short supply and it doesn't take a lot of staff time to keep the Viagra commercials at bay. Plus filtering tools exist. So I guess I just don't see a problem here. Why does Drexel have its knickers in a twist?