Where did I go wrong?” my father jokingly asks every time he and I engage in a serious debate about politics. As a fairly strong Democrat who raised a robustly conservative Republican for a younger son (me) and a moderately conservative Republican for an older son (my brother), my father was stampeded by a herd of elephants. You see, I was raised in Rhode Island suburbia, where fiscal conservatism and social liberalism reign supreme. As a result, no one seems to find it odd that I support free trade policies, oppose the welfare state, and would like to privatize social security. But, when I venture into the other realm of my beliefs (ones which I hold more dearly and fiercely), my social conservatism, many raise their eyebrows.
Just the other day, while enjoying a late evening sandwich at The Gate, I struck up a conversation with a girl sitting at one of the tables. After the conversation drifted towards politics, she was utterly perplexed as to how I could hold such views. We seemed to have similar backgrounds, both having grown up in Northeastern suburbia—she from Long Island and I from Rhode Island. But when topics like gay marriage, abortion, and various other socially-oriented issues surfaced, she could not fathom my belief system. “Why are you at Brown if you are not a social liberal?” she asked. I managed to conjure up a few bogus answers so as to not reveal my true intentions for coming to Brown—after all, discussing my hope of halting the declining moral fabric of a once Christian university is not exactly the type of conversation one discusses with a stranger.
I emerged from that discussion a wiser man, however. And even if I have only spent two weeks at Brown University, I have already been made quite aware of the fact that social conservatives are not welcome here. Everything that Brown University represents flies in the face of the conscience of a social conservative (I am sure that Barry Goldwater will not mind my innovation). Though I enjoyed my first two weeks at Brown, I have repeatedly discovered that this University is not meant for the student who goes to church every Sunday, who thinks that sexual intercourse should still be reserved for those who have entered into the covenant of marriage, and who thinks that consumption of alcohol is to be done responsibly and respectfully.
My first encounter with Brown’s combative social liberalism was during the very first class meeting of the year. The first! It did not take long for this University to mobilize its message of in-your-face toleration and unadulterated hedonism. To be as straightforward as possible, there was a gay pride flag hanging quite noticeably from a window in Faunce House, which made quite an impression on this freshman. Now, I have no information regarding the University’s role in placing the flag there, if it even had any, but the fact of the matter is that the flag was displayed quite conspicuously to all of my freshmen classmates. And I do not want to hear freedom of speech arguments from those who did not take offense. For, if a national-socialist desired to hang a Nazi flag from the window, I have a sneaking suspicion that these so-called free speech defenders would change their tune. The idea in question here is that of forum, and the University acted rather poorly in ensuring that the very first class meeting was not politically charged. I, as a person who supports traditional marriage and vociferously opposes the homosexual agenda, was offended that the University would allow such a hollow display, as there was no opportunity for debate to take place. But I suppose that I am just an unenlightened conservative, who has yet to be made “progressive.”
Another telling encounter of Brown’s thick social liberalism came at my first unit meeting, which immediately followed the first class meeting. I had, and still do have, three very agreeable Resident Counselors, but their message was quite disturbing, most especially when they arrived at issues dealing with sexual intercourse. As a conservative Christian who finds much merit in the aphorism that “tradition trumps trends,” I was blatantly disgusted with what was said at that meeting. Among the many lessons I learned there were the very colorful definitions of “sexile” and “sexin.” It certainly was in tune with the moral character that this University purports to instill in me. After all, Baptists agree with pre-marital sex! Well, on second thought, scratch that. Secular liberals who subscribe to moral relativism agree with it. If it feels good, DO IT!
During that same disquieting meeting, there was the infamous condom demonstration. I had read about such a thing in Out of Ivy: How a Liberal Ivy Created a Committed Conservative, by Travis Rowley ’02, but had figured that no moral institution could sponsor a demonstration of such poor taste. How wrong I was. With a banana as the—well, it is not too difficult to figure out—I was shown how to properly use a condom. And don’t forget to put it sombrero-side up! But not to worry, I think that my parents would be more than thrilled to see their son taught such important life lessons. Moreover, I think that some friends back home would love to know where they could have a choice between latex, non-latex, and “dent” condoms, and for only 50 cents! I suppose that it is a fair trade though—I mean, the going rate for a soul is always fluctuating somewhere around the half-dollar mark.
Institutional acceptance of illicit personal behavior aside, there is also the matter of this University’s seeming toleration of public drunkenness. But let us get a few things straight first. I take no issue with the consumption of alcohol and have often been a vocal opponent of the drinking age whenever a discussion about it arises, but I firmly feel that one must take on the burden of responsibility when enjoying a substance that is undoubtedly potent. Excuses like “I was so drunk when I did that” are unacceptable and shed no responsibility from the person who committed an indiscretion. That being said, I have time and again noticed that the University, at least in practice, never misses the opportunity to turn a blind eye when a drunken student stumbles across the Main Green with a beer in hand. The word “disciplining” apparently means nothing to the University, as one can reasonably conclude from the lack of regulation imposed on the irresponsible and outrageously public consumption of alcohol.
Am I the only person who thinks that it may be harmful to Brown’s reputation for its students to be falling over in public, tossing empty beer cans onto the street, and shouting obscenities? After the SexPowerGod scandal that occurred this past spring, I am doubtful. But when are we going to do something about it? When is this University going to return to its better self, more specifically its Christian roots? When speaking the other day via instant messaging with my older brother, Scott Quigley ’05, I mentioned to him that the toleration of such behaviors on campus reminded me of the social depravity about which I had read in my history books. You know, the kind of depravity that seized control of the Roman Empire and subsequently contributed to its collapse. He was taken aback by my comparison, without a doubt, but I do not sincerely recall his contesting my claim. I wonder why.
The motto of this University is In Deo Speramus, or In God We Hope. Well, it is indeed God in whom I hope at this point, because there are serious social changes that need to be enacted if this is to remain a moral and truly American institution. If we keep on the same disastrous path, then it would certainly not be out of the ordinary for the next Brown event to be a bread and circus.
