In her March 18 column, Herald Staff Columnist Arya Vishwakarma ’29 refused to respond to two recently published Brown Spectator articles about anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests in Providence. Instead, Vishwakarma chose to attack The Spectator’s editorial standards, baselessly claiming that our publication has a “substantiation problem” and “poor journalistic integrity” that “hinder(s) productive discourse.” While disappointing to read in a respected publication like The Herald, these claims reflect a societal tendency to dismiss minority, heterodox viewpoints without engaging with their substance. Vishwakarma’s column underscores why Brown needs a publication like The Spectator.
To be clear, no publication is above editorial criticism. Of course there are instances in The Spectator’s columns where stronger sourcing or providing additional context could have strengthened individual pieces. However, Vishwakarma attempts to make selective critiques about individual articles as evidence for a sweeping indictment of the publication, dismissing its contributions to campus discourse. Additionally, by framing her column as a criticism of The Spectator’s editorial standards, Vishwakarma substitutes a critique of style for a response of actual substance. The implication of her column is that The Spectator is not worth engaging with because it allegedly fails to meet her standards of “quality writing.”
For an example of this generalizing, take Vishwakarma’s claim that The Spectator “liberally” relies on anonymous sources. A review of The Spectator’s 21 published articles shows that quotations from identified individuals are used regularly, while anonymous sourcing is minimal. In the few cases where sources are quoted anonymously, there is, in fact, reasonable context for granting anonymity, such as professional or academic repercussions, even if the reason is not explicitly given in the article. One can debate whether the use of anonymous sourcing is appropriate for opinion journalism, but to claim that The Spectator relies on it routinely and haphazardly is not true.
Vishwakarma’s critique of The Spectator’s use of evidence appears to come from a misunderstanding of opinion argumentation. She points out a passage arguing that citation-based tenure incentives can create a “positive feedback loop” in academia and objects that the underlying study does not explicitly reference “political correctness.” This critique conflates evidence with interpretation. The cited research in this example establishes a premise — that citation frequency plays a central role in tenure decisions — and the article builds on that premise to state its potential intellectual consequences. Insisting that every cited work must independently contain an article’s conclusions is not a tenet of good journalism; it would make opinion writing impossible.
A cursory review of her column and The Herald’s opinion pieces reveals an important flaw in Vishwakarma’s argument: There is inconsistency in how the journalistic standards Vishwakarma discusses are applied. She argues that The Herald “will not routinely ignore basic guidelines of journalistic standards,” yet The Herald regularly publishes opinion pieces that rely on author interpretation. For example, in one recently published Herald op-ed on ICE protests, the authors claim that the University limiting what student and faculty information it shares with the Department of Homeland Security would “prevent immigration agents from easily targeting and locating members of our community.” This claim isn’t supported with any citations, and it doesn’t need to be, given that the article in question is an opinion piece rather than a news story. However, Vishwakarma only calls out The Spectator’s articles for a lack of evidence.
The contradictions embedded in Vishwakarma’s argument reflect the broader issues facing political discourse at Brown. By subjecting one set of viewpoints to hyper-scrutiny, Vishwakarma’s piece could have a chilling effect on those wishing to express dissenting opinions on campus. The hyper-scrutiny follows a habit many liberals have of dismissing conservative ideas by questioning the intelligence of the speaker and not the merits of their argument. To her credit, Vishwakarma recognizes the problems with Brown’s broader political climate in her column, stating that “polarization happens when groups feel like the only rational opinions are their own.” However, the implication of her column — that The Spectator’s published columns are not worth engaging with because they fail to meet her arbitrary standards of “quality writing” — is the very kind of rhetoric that helps stifle open discourse at Brown.
The reality that Brown students are loath to recognize is that the “unsubstantiated” opinions expressed by some of The Spectator’s authors are held by millions of Americans and play a fundamental role in our nation’s politics. Once students leave the Brown bubble, they will be forced to engage with these perspectives — whether they think they are based in sound logic or not. Haphazardly claiming “poor journalistic integrity” is hardly an effective strategy for productive political discourse. We encourage the talented opinion writers of The Herald to engage with The Spectator’s opinion journalism, and we look forward to reading their engagement with our writers’ ideas — rather than our publication’s editorial standards — in the future.
Gray Bittker ’27 and Ben Marcus ’26 are the Managing editor and Editor-in-chief of The Brown Spectator. They can be reached at gray_bittker@brown.edu and ben_marcus@brown.edu. Please send responses to this op-ed to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
