The Stanford Daily fired a long-time columnist simply because he refused to axe a reference to new Stanford student and First Daughter Chelsea Clinton.

Jesse Oxfeld, a senior and long-time staff member of the student paper, apparently wrote a piece that criticized the university’s highly publicized policy of not covering Clinton differently than any other student.

What’s the deal? Isn’t that what a columnist’s job is? Isn’t he supposed to question and address public policy as well as influence public opinion?

What’s all the hub-bub about? Is it because he questioned the way the campus was being affected by the presence of the First Family?

Maybe it was because he actually had the audacity to write about a campus event.

The man didn’t call Chelsea something outside of her name or question her chastity.

He simply asked that the White House afford the Stanford campus the same privilege it asks for —privacy. Was that to much to ask? Probably not.

It looks like the people at the Stanford Daily may be a little bit mixed up when it comes to their columnists’ First Amendment rights.

It appears there is a little bit of a descrepancy in what the columnist thought he could write and what the paper thought he should write.

Simply mentioning the president’s daughter in a column isn’t grounds for firing. Is it?