The Shadow University

Affirmation is the chief imperative of our postmodern times. This desire springs from one of the most fundamental urges of human nature and combined with liberalism it cultivates a passion for diversity and tolerance. In the context of the university, these ideals often overshadow the pursuit of truth and invite the expectation of comfort at the expense of critical thought. Consequently, ideas that disrupt the emotional harmony of the community must be suppressed.

Thus, in recent years, diversity and tolerance have spawned the emergence of hate speech codes, disciplinary systems shrouded in secrecy and deficient in due process, and a nexus of institutions designed to monitor and manage some of the most intimate details of student life and thought—what Alan Kors and Harvery Silverglate called the “shadow university.” Although they focused on formal structures, the shadow university also exists in far more subtle forms.

On March 13, 2001, The Brown Daily Herald published a polemical advertisement by David Horowitz that contested the idea of slavery reparations. A coalition of student radicals reacted by stealing an entire press run of The Herald. This act ignited a campus controversy that tested Brown’s commitment to freedom of speech.

Two years elapsed between the theft of The Herald and David Horowitz’s speech in the Salomon Center on October 22. The event was marked by the relative civility of the audience and was dignified by the presence of President Ruth Simmons. Dean of the College Paul Armstrong even introduced Horowitz, invoking intellectual diversity as the “chief virtue” of an academic community.

Yet the day following Horowitz’s appearance, Associate Provost Brenda Allen summarily denounced him at a reunion of the students responsible for the 2001 attack on The Herald. The College Democrats joined in the chorus, affirming his right to free speech, but condemning Horowitz as a “demagogue who primarily represents the closed-minded fringes of the Far Right.” Once again, no one responded to Horowitz’s argument. Instead, Brown relapsed into debating the very legitimacy of his presence on campus.

Brown’s reception of Horowitz exemplifies the inconsistencies inherent in the “shadow university” and underscores the urgency of reform. The success of this reform depends upon the Brown community’s interpretation of diversity. Brown students, faculty, and administrators must decide whether they adhere to a conception of diversity held hostage by racial grievances and ideological fanaticism, or one founded in the Western traditions of Socratic skepticism and education in the liberal arts. Ultimately, diversity must transcend social categories. For diversity, like justice, should be color blind. Reform that recognizes the primacy of intellectual diversity will create the conditions in which academic freedom can flourish. Until then, the specter of the shadow university will continue to haunt Brown.