You might not have noticed, but your Constitutional rights were violated last week. By your own university, no less.

Last week, the university came down on Northeastern’s Times New Roman (TNR), a satirical campus publication, for using foul language and inappropriate humor in two stories in their Summer 2005 issue after complications arose with their Web site’s domain rights. The Times New Roman Web site has since been shut down upon university orders.

Allegedly, the censored pieces, which included a faux interview with the virus SARS and an ironic take on a UFO landing that referenced oral sex and used vulgarity, were in violation of the university’s Appropriate Use Policy, which forbids violent, harassing and pornographic material.

Now, although anyone with a sense of humor could differentiate between satire and “offensive, violent, pornographic, annoying or harassing” material, the more pressing issue is the ambiguity of this policy. The TNR is a publication that specializes in exaggerated and fictitious stories strictly for humorous intent, similar to the Onion. The aforementioned pieces may be considered vulgar and in poor taste, but do they adhere with the written criteria for violation?

Northeastern is a private university, and the administration is within its legal right to censor any piece in a university publication. But just because they can does not mean they should. Furthermore, when would it be acceptable for a university to put tape over the mouths of its students?

Certainly if the piece would endanger students or faculty, or if it spreads bold-faced lies, then the university stepping in would be the only responsible course of action. After all, it’s freedom of speech, but with responsibility and within the law.

Ben Bullock, the editor, or king, of The Times New Roman, said the AUP should not be used as an internet watchdog. But then, what is its purpose?

Easy. The purpose of the AUP should be to protect, not limit, the students of Northeastern. The violating stories did not endanger any students or faculty, but could feasibly be construed by outside readers (read: parents, neighbors, people with deep pockets) as offensive, and imply the university condones those stories.

After all, why would the university decide to shut down the TNR Web site now? In their Spring 2005 issue (an issue less likely to be viewed by parents of incoming students than the recent issue which was published during orientation sessions), the publication included Winnie the Pooh battling testicular cancer and regaled in the joys of maiming children. Not to mention a standing headline which appears in every issue: “Fuck grammar, I’m pissed.” Why didn’t the administration play Webcop in that case?

While this bureaucratic mandate only directly applies to one student organization, it’s an unfortunate reminder to all students that the administration will sometimes overlook the students to protect its appearance.