Last month, the prospect of responding to two Spectator articles on anti-ICE protests in Providence came up during a meeting with Herald opinion writers and editors. However, as we discussed arguments, I realized that those pieces contained instances of poor journalistic integrity. In our era of misinformation, to respond and engage with these articles would be to validate practices that can hinder productive discourse.
As an opinions columnist for the Brown Daily Herald, I respect the Spectator’s objective. Brown’s worrying free speech rankings show that the University needs constructive disagreement now more than ever. But Brown and its student journalists need the Spectator to be a newspaper with proper fact-checking and argumentative standards, not a blog. If the publication is truly interested in contributing to campus discourse, then they must abide by journalistic standards to legitimize their contributions to the conversation.
It’s hard to effectively engage with an opinion piece if it lacks relevant evidence. To have a productive conversation, we must first agree on the facts of the matter. This requires substantiating claims with either credible sources or sufficient argumentation. The Spectator, despite what it claims in its mission statement, has an unfortunate habit of making unsubstantiated claims that would each require subsequent argumentation to defend.
One author claims that citation-based tenure selection at Brown “creates a positive feedback loop where academics defer to the politically correct status quo,” but the working paper she links does not mention “political correctness” or ideology at all. Another condemns America’s intellectuals by saying “morality and wisdom, though timeless, are easily bulldozed in the rush toward ‘progress’” but does not explain why that would be true. In a different piece, that author states that “buying a jacket or tie (from the Hillhouse or Harvey haberdashers) often marked initiation into clubs, teams and friend groups,” but fails to include a single example of any organization as proof that this is true.
For even more examples of this lack of argumentation, take an article where the paper’s managing editor guesses that, as the University decreases hiring in response to the 2024 deficit, “it is likely that the limited professors who are hired will be chosen for their research rather than their teaching capabilities,” but he provides no substantiation for the contestable claim. And that editor and an alum writer write in a separate article that spending “only 17.1%” — 17.157% — “of Brown’s $1.9 billion FY2026 operating budget” on regular faculty compensation will cause “resources to shift away from classrooms in a process that weakens the institution’s core mission of teaching,” but they offer no comparison to other universities and fail to acknowledge that the rate technically increased from 17.098% in FY2025.
These mistakes are fixable. Simply providing a statistic, news article or direct quote — when relevant — can ground a claim in truth, opening up room for debate grounded in a shared set of facts. Not only must a source be accurate and credible, though, it should also actually prove the claim instead of merely accompanying it in the sentence. And if a statement cannot be directly substantiated by a citation, that means it warrants an argument of its own.
When substantiating claims about Brown with real evidence, quotes from Brown students and other members of the community can be valuable parts of an article. But the credibility of the Spectator suffers when writers use anonymous quotes liberally. Without a compelling reason for anonymity, a quote only holds water when it is attributed to the speaker, who would be incentivised to speak the truth when their name is on the line. In most cases, the Spectator does not provide any reasons for anonymity at all. When it does, the reasons are often shaky at best: For instance, the editor-in-chief justifies his anonymous quotation by citing “fear of academic repercussions” for one student he spoke to. But a professor who punishes a student for voicing a tangentially political view would clearly violate Brown’s core University values and be subject to probation, suspension or dismissal, which weakens this justification for anonymity.
The Brown Spectator has a chance to show Brown ideologically diverse opinions worth engaging with, benefiting students of all political affiliations. Conservative students could feel more represented on campus, and liberal students could practice having their ideas challenged. Polarization happens when groups feel like the only rational opinions are their own — we can combat this division by reading quality writing from those we disagree with.
Ironically, the Brown Spectator defines itself in opposition to Brown’s other publications: “Unlike the other campus papers that give into the weight of ideological conformity, we publish what they won’t.” It is true that today’s Spectator publishes what other campus papers, including The Herald, will not — but I don’t believe this is because of an ideological split. It seems the Spectator publishes what other papers will not because other papers, including The Herald, will not routinely ignore basic guidelines of journalistic standards.
If all Spectator writers vigorously defended their arguments with quality sources, engaging with their ideas would be productive for every member of the Brown community. Through good-faith conversations that bridge political and ideological differences, we could all speak what goes unsaid.
Arya Vishwakarma ’29 can be reached at arya_vishwakarma@brown.edu. Please send responses to this column to letters@browndailyherald.com and op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
Arya Vishwakarma is a columnist for the Brown Daily Herald. She is from Belle Mead, New Jersey and studies pure math. She likes playing in the orchestra, taking the RIPTA, and enjoying dry noodle bowls.
