The shutdown of a student newspaper at a western Pennsylvanian university demonstrates that when a student newspaper does not control its finances, censorship from those who do is a constant threat. Unless the people who have power over the paper show character and an understanding of the necessity of the free press, basic first amendment rights can be forgotten.

Duquesne University's student newspaper was closed last week, with its editors saying their decision to run a birth control ad clashed with those of the student government association -- the body responsible for partially funding The Duke.

However, Happy Meltzer, the student government association president at Duquesne, said he closed the office in response to improprieties on the Duke staff -- claiming staff members used an illegal off-campus bank account to charge personal expenses to the newspaper. The student government also suspended Duke Editor Rebecca A. Drumm early this week because of alleged irregularities during her election as the newspaper's editor.

Drumm and the other members of the paper's staff believe the issue is not one of internal difficulties, but one of free speech. Duke editors refused to pull an advertisement promoting contraceptive counseling despite the protests of student government leaders early this winter.

If the actual reason for closing the paper was the birth control ad, then Meltzer and the student government leaders should recognize regardless of the university's Roman Catholic affiliation -- that birth control is much less dangerous than thought control. Although Catholic doctrine forbids the use of contraception, freedom of religion should not impede on freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

If Meltzer's claims are correct, the issue becomes one of power. Unfortunately, the university administration at Duquesne has given its student government power over the paper. This power imbalance infringes on Duquesne students' right to a free press.

A newspaper should not have to be accountable to groups on which they report, whether it is the administration or the students.

A student paper monitored by other students rather than the university administration seems the lesser of two evils. But neither of these powers should have authority over the content of a student newspaper. As long as they do, they should have the character not to infringe on the press.

Not every university community enjoys the privilege Penn State's students and staff do where the student newspaper is just that independently owned and operated with all major news and advertisement decisions made by the students. When either administrators or student leaders try to censor the press, they are doing far more harm than good.

Journalists who have to worry if what they write will be considered too controversial or will be censored are not adequately trained to become reporters and editors in country that depends on the watchdog theory of journalism. They are not taught to question, to pursue a story that may portray the university in a negative light or go against standard beliefs.

Perhaps the only encouraging sign in the whole event was that other student newspaper staffs reached out to aid the Duke. With the help of another western Pennsylvania school -- Indiana University of Pennsylvania -- the Duke's editorial board published a paper they dubbed The Free Press.

Sadly, the Duke cannot boast such a name at its own school.