“A republic, if you can keep it”

Phoebe Peus

“A republic, if you can keep it”

- Benjamin Franklin -

“At Brown, undergraduates are creators, leaders and doers who are not satisfied with merely raising questions — they learn to confront, address and solve problems facing society, the nation and the world.” These words welcome visitors to the Undergraduate Students page on Brown University’s website. Will Brown stand behind them when it’s most necessary?

Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Sept. 10 put a spotlight on the topic of free speech, highlighting the fact that many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum appear to be rejecting the principles enshrined in the First Amendment. Should individuals be persecuted and socially ostracized for their beliefs? Should they be fired? And, what in the world is “hate speech”?

Like him or not, Charlie Kirk had one thing right: “My position is that even hate speech should be completely allowed in our country,” he said to the Wall Street Journal. “The most disgusting speech should absolutely be allowed in our country.” He went on to explain that the term is subjective, and that it will ultimately be defined by whomever is in power. Gray areas are dangerous, particularly for those in the democratic minority.

Brown University should lead by example and emphatically make a stand for freedom of speech. Of course, civility should still be encouraged, but the university has, for far too long, been actively stifling the conservative minority by creating an environment that is not conducive to fostering an open debate on controversial issues. Most conservatives I know, including myself, are nervous to speak up in class or with friends, fearing academic and social repercussions. This environment of fear is unacceptable at an institution like Brown.

Free discourse is predicated on the notion of debate, often described by scholars and politicians as the “marketplace of ideas.” Prior to the last several decades, competing in this marketplace was a cherished tradition of the Western world. May the best idea win! This is no longer the case, and universities are a major reason why. Universities like Brown have replaced honest intellectual debate with “safe spaces,” intended to minimize the disagreement necessary for a free society. In 2020, Stanford discouraged the use of offensive terms such as “walk-in” and “you guys” at student gatherings, but after receiving significant resistance, the university amended this rule book in 2023. This policy of censorship is not only dangerous: it is also nonsensical.

For starters, the world is not a “safe space.” Universities that shelter their students from this reality are doing them a disservice. Students need to learn to be strong and articulate their opinions. They need to know how to apply intellectual rigor to their arguments, to hone them, and to defend them. For too long, universities have allowed only one side of the argument to be presented. A New York Times Article published in 2022 found that although American views have become far more diverse in recent decades, elite institutions have not become representative of this shift. They are typically a predominantly liberal population whose lifestyle tends to be considerably more affluent than the average American. This political correctness continues to damage the very people it purports to protect. What are these students going to do when they graduate and find themselves in the real world, which is by no means a “safe space”?

Second, most issues are not black and white. We don’t always know the “right” answer. Intellectual debate and the free flow of ideas help our society to determine the best course of action. All should feel free to contribute to the debate, as it is the only way for us to ascertain what is right. Preventing open debate does nothing but create the dreaded “echo-chambers.” A Brown Daily Herald article from 2016 reported that the ratio of liberal to conservative professors at Brown was approximately 30 to 1—a striking imbalance given that, in 2015, around 40 percent of students identified as right-leaning or conservative. Even if these viewpoints represent a minority, students who hold them still deserve to feel that their perspectives are acknowledged and respected by their professors. Must we only engage with those who share our beliefs? Do students at Brown truly have the freedom to encounter and debate differing ideas?

Why are universities suddenly so afraid of open discourse? Academic tenure was created, in part, to protect freedom of speech and promote intellectual honesty and integrity. What happened to these ideals? Academia is no longer a merit-based system. On the contrary, it is perhaps more political than any other profession. A comprehensive study conducted by the University of Washington, spanning from 1996 to 2014, reveals a critical insight into academic tenure: it is predominantly determined based not on making waves but on how frequently one’s work is cited by other academics. This creates a positive feedback loop where academics defer to the politically correct status quo rather than risk their citation rankings. Where is the quest for the truth\?

The unfortunate truth is that these academic institutions have an overwhelmingly liberal dominance of professors and campus environment which has stifled debate. There is no upside to articulating one’s views — only the fear that one might be offended. The result is timidity and overall weakness at the elite universities that once challenged the status quo. Opposition has been criminalized by social shunning and student codes of conduct. Neither side has the opportunity to win the debate because it is no longer allowed to happen.

In lieu of blindly falling in step with other elite universities, Brown should vigorously defend freedom of speech. The university must be a “safe space” for all ideas, not just the ones that are accepted at other elite universities. Brown should give its students the freedom to develop and test their opinions against the views of other students across the political spectrum. This will result in a more enlightened world and stronger, more confident students.

Perhaps most importantly, it is worth remembering that those who trample on free speech when they have the power to do so will likely regret their decisions when the tables turn. Today’s minority won’t be the same as tomorrow’s, and principles like free speech ensure democracy continues to function regardless of who’s in power.