Letter: Claim that students don't have a voice is ridiculous

"Some... might argue that these protesters have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. However since Duke University is a private institution, protesters do not have these rights...," reads The Chronicle's April 14 editorial. Are you kidding me? Was that just printed in our University's daily?

As a freshman, had I signed away my rights in order to come to Duke, it would not have been so long ago that I am unable to remember. I do not however believe that this was the case. I'm not writing in support of the protest or even saying that what they did was within their rights. I'm writing simply to say that I think that The Chronicle is sadly misinformed.

I don't think that the fact that the University is a private institution has anything to do with whether the protesters had a right to do what they did.

They did not even feign having that right. But I do not think that The Chronicle - Duke's own poster child for freedom of the press - should be spouting disempowering rhetoric such as that in the editorial. (Wait... because The Chronicle operates at a private institution does it follow that it does not have the right to freedom of the press?). No searching I did online unearthed any proof that Duke students fall outside the realm of the First Amendment.

The editorial mentions that police removed Christian fundamentalists from in front of the West Union Building. I wonder if the people in question were Duke students. I think that this fact is highly relevant because it could distinguish their crime as trespassing, which I assume it was, or some sort of infringement on a speech code. Assuming that they were students, therefore making the mention of the incident relevant to Thursday's protest, and that they hadn't made any statements that could be read as threats, then I would be disturbed by their removal by the police. I find it hard to believe that this was the case however. Assuming that those protesters were not Duke students, Duke University is on private land, and should administrators and police choose to use that fact to remove unaffiliated and disruptive people for trespassing, I respect their right to do so.

If The Chronicle is right, then I would urge Duke Student Government or the administration to pass a student's bill of rights that would reinstate our basic constitutional liberties. If The Chronicle is wrong, as I fear it is, then shame on a newspaper, a "voice of the people" if you will, for saying that the people have no voice.