To the Editor:

In recent years, students’ rights have taken center stage as the hot topic for debate. The applicability of the Constitution has been a battle waged between students and University administrations. Private property has taken precedent over individual citizens’ Constitutional rights. Shocking and absurd, this struggle has nonetheless been a mere afterthought to many students at SLU. That is, until recently.

While not the first time the administration has butted heads with students over issues such as free speech and dissenting opinions, this semester has been rampant with the administration’s efforts to silence student acts of discontent. Just this March student organizations collided over war and anti-war demonstrations at Pax Christi’s Die-In. Campus Ministry and Pax Christi planned a demonstration commemorating the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq and the lives that have been lost there. A small group of students disagreed with Pax Christi’s message and staged their own demonstration to represent an alternative perspective of the anniversary’s significance.

The “counter-protestors” were not well-received by the administration during the Die-In, and were verbally abused by at least one administrator. Nor was their dissent tolerated afterward, as several students faced conduct meetings after the fact for disrupting “the message” of the Campus Ministry protest. The administration did not agree with the message that the “counter-protestors” represented and, as a result, these individuals were forced to explain their beliefs and actions in hopes of avoiding University charges. The question is, of course: Was the University merely attempting to enforce rules, or was this an act of censorship and a barrier to greater dialogue? Did the University’s pursuit of students mend or exacerbate the breach that has developed between Campus Ministry and many conservative student groups?

In a somewhat similar situation the editors of The University News were informed on Monday that the administration was to rescind their charter on Saturday, May 5, 2007. It is no secret that the administration has taken steps in the past to seize control of the paper, yet the new charter was nothing short of authoritarian. This new charter offered The University News the options of taking the paper off campus, or handing over total control to the administration. Once again, the administration presented the students with feeble reasoning, excusing the attempted take over by pointing to financial discrepancies. Once again, the question arises, was the University merely attempting to better The University News by providing greater oversight, or was this an act of censorship?

At a University that “enables an academic environment which values and promotes free, active and original intellectual inquiry among its faculty and students” it is clear that these two incidents counteract the very mission of this institution. Future activists beware: SLU “promotes free, active and original intellectual inquiry.” Just make sure SLU approves it first.

Amy Kaufman
Sophomore, College of Arts & Sciences