I think it's a great idea to do journalistic reports on Sex Power God and parties like it. In fact, if Bill O'Reilly had blurred out the faces of party guests, gotten his facts straight and elected not to call Brown's leaders "pinheads," I would have thought it was kind of cool to see my alma mater on TV. But that's not what happened. By refraining from taking those measures, O'Reilly didn't report or even editorialize. He attacked.
This should come as no surprise from a known shock-jock, polemical provocateur, but it does raise one question, one which has been on the minds of many this past week: Of all the U.S. universities where wild parties take place, why did O'Reilly choose Brown?
One obvious answer might be that it could have been any other school in the country and Brown was only noticed because O'Reilly happened to choose it. Unfortunately, I don't think that explanation holds water. I think the real answer is more complicated and troubling, and the University community should take it into account while forging its response.
In recent years, the American Right has locked its angry sights on "liberal academia." They've made no secret about it. Just pick the name of your favorite conservative columnist and enter it into Google alongside the words "academia" and "liberal" and see what happens.
Regrettably for the Right, "liberal academia" is an abstract idea, so it needs to hone in on a few corporeal manifestations of it in order to mount an effective attack. Enter Brown. Situated on the shores of New England, the school is historically activist, ethnically diverse, relatively safe for the queer community and boasts a nationally renowned African-American woman as its commander-in-chief. Brown is a simply perfect target for right-wing ideologues.
Now, I realize that this analysis may sound paranoid, but it seems less so when one remembers that Brown has been the at the center of this anti-"liberal academia" firestorm for years. In 2001, a group of hapless students attempting to fight racism detonated a grenade planted by conservative writer David Horowitz, and Brown was attacked. In 2004, President Ruth Simmons laudably announced the slavery and justice committee, and Brown became a punching bag for right-wing talk radio. Now it's 2005, and Brown is being painted as a hotbed of liberal moral depravity. These are but a few examples, so given the Right's consistently antagonistic relationship with Brown, doesn't it seem silly that everyone should act so shocked, shocked, when they swing at Brown again?
Of course, I'm not saying the Right is out to destroy Brown. That would be ridiculous. However, I do believe that the right wants to change the face of academia in America, and if Brown is an easy place to make their stand, then that's where they'll do it. Personally, I think this country should have a dialogue about what academia looks like, but that doesn't mean someone should be allowed to take pot shots at my former home while initiating the debate.
Taking all of that into consideration, I believe that if Brown wants to avoid being smacked in the future, it must make itself a more difficult place to attack. In part, that means making sure that Brown is a safe place for people of all political persuasions. To the point: Nobody should be made to feel like a prude for disapproving of Sex Power God. I also think it would be a nice idea to invite O'Reilly to speak on campus to discuss his points of view.
Making Brunonia a more difficult place to attack, however, also means that Brown's community and institutions must be aggressive in their response to O'Reilly. I suggest that:
1) A coalition of alums publishes an open letter supporting the Undergraduate Council of Students' resolution of Nov. 16 (if you're interested in supporting such an endeavor, e-mail NoSpinBruno@yahoo.com)
2) The faculty do something to the same effect, and
3) The administration exhaustively explore all legal options, particularly regarding issues of privacy.
I recognize, by the way, that administrators may be concerned about giving this story more life than it deserves, especially considering that some students were engaged in dangerous behavior that must be curbed. Still, in the long run, I believe that an administration which seeks to correct the self-destructive behavior of some of its students while at the same time fastidiously defending their privacy will be credited for doing so, not derided.
Most of the people with whom I have spoken support such a plan, but some argue that it would be better to "let things blow over." I believe that such a non-action ignores history and is a recipe for future trouble. As we can see in any number of cases throughout the last quarter-century (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, anyone?), if the right-wing punditocracy draws blood and doesn't get slammed into the pavement in response, it is only emboldened to continue its aggression. Brunonia can win. But without fighting, there is a distinct risk that as viewers got a distorted picture of Sex Power God from O'Reilly's report, so too might they, over time, get a distorted view of Brown.
Whether we like it or not, Brown has been designated a battlefield in the Right's "culture war." I'd prefer not to let the O'Reillys of the world be the only ones fighting.
Former Herald columnist and leather pants enthusiast Joel Silberman '05 is still like totally crushing on Herald Opinions Editor Te-Ping Chen.
