Letter To The Editor: Response to 'A republic, if you can keep it'
Pete Peterson
Conservatives love to malign the political left for playing “the victim card,” but as soon as campus political discourse arises, some conservatives are quick to blame The University (perhaps to be compared with the “systemic racism machine”) for why they are afraid to speak their minds. In her article, “A republic, if you can keep it,” Ms. Phoebe Peus (’26) interweaves the case for free speech absolutism with her general grievances about the state of campus discourse.
In her musings on Charlie Kirk, Ms. Peus makes a strange rhetorical maneuver and praises him for his free speech absolutism. She is correct to cast doubt on the coherence of the “hate speech” category, but when she shifts to discussing the supposed predicament of conservatives on Brown’s campus, her discussion of “hate speech” seems to concede — at least implicitly — that particular conservative speech could fall under that label. Just because you are allowed to say something does not magically make that thing good.
As far as I know, the United States is not on the verge of adopting a European-style hate speech law, but hate speech is still something worth discouraging. In the wake of Kirk’s death, many on the left accused him of “hate speech.” Instead of defending him against those accusations that I believe are baseless, Ms. Peus simply affirms that hate speech should be allowed in the country.
Furthermore, free speech is not under threat at Brown University. Quality debate, on the other hand, is nowhere to be found!
Just last spring, when the Brown Political Union announced a debate concerning whether local governments should cooperate with ICE, the thought that someone could argue for the affirmative was so appalling to many students that there were widespread calls to protest and shut down the debate itself. The rationale put forth by these students was that mass deportations are so deplorable that it wasn’t even worth having the debate. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone agreed? Alas, the majority of our elected officials consistently support these deportations, and the burden is on us to alter the zeitgeist should we disagree. The ability to debate sensitive issues is elevated only by confronting dissent.
Ms. Peus seems to understand that quality debate is rare at Brown, but she misses important details on how we got here. The conservative students at Brown are indeed relatively soft-spoken, but it’s a mistake to blame this phenomenon on some nebulous, omnipotent University bureaucracy. Ms. Peus fails to give an example of how exactly Brown University has stifled conservative speech. Perhaps there is an argument that professors have a liberal bias that sacrifices the intellectual integrity of the faculty; I appreciate that Ms. Peus brings this up and discusses the mechanisms for why this is the case. But what about the students? Ms. Peus cites a Brown Daily Herald survey showing that 40% of students in 2015 were vaguely right-of-center. Who exactly is preventing these students from speaking their mind?
Conservative thought is mute on campus, and not because of the meddling of The University Anti-Conservative Machine, but rather because conservatives are too weak to speak up. Conservatives are not victims for going to a predominantly liberal campus in the same sense that white people are not victims when attending an HBCU, nor are atheists attending Liberty University. Instead of complaining about the Brown’s culture and blaming a vacuous entity, it’s time for conservatives to untuck their tail and stand up for what they believe.
Political discourse going across the aisle hardly exists at Brown University. But this has little to do with the political views of the faculty or the administration, and everything to do with the taboo surrounding right-of-center views among students. Predictably, the self-proclaimed tolerant left is not bursting at the seams to embrace conservative ideas. The burden is on conservatives to demonstrate the merit of their ideas. The left has a grip on Brown’s campus culture because of their relentlessness and vocality. Silence with the occasional complaint will change nothing.
When conservatives generally hold their tongues, they become the silent majority in the country. When conservatives at Brown do so, they become a silent minority, a truly special snowflake that is easily ostracized by the vocal majority. We cannot allow this to happen. Cross-party debate is important, not because it changes anyone’s mind immediately (although it could), but because it serves as an opportunity to learn about opposing values. Without debate, we are left only with knowledge of opposing policy, and no direction for how to productively work towards a common goal.
Say what you believe. Don’t be ashamed. Don’t be afraid. If you genuinely think your beliefs are Good, then there should be no hesitation in speaking them. Brown students need a reality check, and they need to understand the predominant view of the American proletariat: conservatism. Don’t deprive them of such education by living in fear of repercussions.