Brown University Targets Student Journalist for Emailing Administrators
Alex Shieh, a student reporter for The Brown Spectator, is being investigated by Brown University. His alleged crime? Asking administrators about their jobs. On March 18, Shieh emailed each of Brown's 3,805 non-instructional full-time staff members, asking them to describe the tasks they performed in the past week. The university began its investigation two days later.
With Brown running on a $46 million deficit and annual tuition and fees set to increase to a combined $93,064 this July, Shieh launched the site Bloat@Brown (which is hosted by The Brown Spectator) on March 18. Inspired by the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Shieh strives to determine "whether tuition dollars are funding mission-critical functions" and "to expose the bureaucracy to which all 3,805 administrators belong." He would assign each administrator a rating of "low risk," "ambiguous," or "suspect" based on publicly available data used to determine "legality," "redundancy," and "bullshit job" subscores. The full methodology may be accessed here.
Kirsten Wolfe, Brown University associate dean and associate director of student conduct and community standards, notified Shieh that a preliminary investigation had been launched into his activities associated with Bloat@Brown two days following its publication. The notice was shared with Reason by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which is advocating for Shieh. Wolfe accuses Shieh of "accessing a proprietary University data system," causing "emotional distress for several University employees," and misrepresenting himself "as a reporter for the Brown Spectator," in the notice. These alleged behaviors violate the university code of conduct's prohibitions on emotional or psychological harm, invasion of privacy, misrepresentation, and violation of operational rules, according to Wolfe.
Wolfe also accuses Shieh of accessing a data system that contains "confidential human resources, financial, and student information," but does not specify the system she's referring to. Bloat@Brown only published the names and positions of administrators (both publicly available via the staff directory) alongside a subjective valuation of their value to the college. The directory is provided "solely for the information of the Brown University community and those who have a specific interest in reaching a specific individual," according to its acceptable use policy. Shieh is a member of the Brown community and plainly stated his interest in contacting each administrator.
Dominic Coletti, a program officer at FIRE, says, "It's hard to imagine how…that information could be confidential if it's also public." Shieh did not even publish the email addresses—also publicly available—of the administrators and went so far as to censor the recipient of one email he shared on X.
Brown guarantees students the freedom "of political activity inside and outside the University," including "the right to petition the authorities, the public and the University," per its code of conduct.
Brown claims that Shieh misrepresented himself by identifying as a reporter for The Brown Spectator. But Shieh is a staff member of The Brown Spectator; he is its publisher and a reporter. While the publication is not officially recognized by the university, its staff has been working on its revival with The Fund for American Studies (TFAS) Student Journalism Association since the summer of 2024. Shieh tells Reason they are "just trying to figure [out] the printing situation" but "have a bunch of other articles ready to go." Ryan Wolfe (unrelated to Kirsten Wolfe), the director of the Center for Excellence in Journalism at TFAS, confirms this.
Bryan Clark, Brown's vice president for news and strategic campus communications, tells Reason that Bloat@Brown "appeared to improperly use data accessed through a University technology platform to target individual employees by name and position description" but could not provide additional details about the allegations against Shieh "due to federal law protecting student privacy." Kirsten Wolfe did not respond to Reason's request for comment.
Coletti says that the university "needs to actually provide the allegations—it can't use the threat of possible punishment down the line as a sword of Damocles to impose a chill on any student's ability to, one, do journalism and report on the university and, two, talk about the investigation itself."
Bloat@Brown's interactive map of administrators was disabled by hackers on the day the site launched. Shieh tells Reason that the hackers bragged about their exploits on Sidechat, an anonymous social media app that sorts users by college community, meaning that the hackers must have "brown.edu" emails. Shieh says he and the team at The Brown Spectator are working to get the information back up.
Universities are supposed to be bastions of free speech. Brown's code of conduct reflects this ideal by requiring the university to notify students of charges made against them, affording students the opportunity to review the evidence against them, and recognizing students' right against self-incrimination. By withholding whatever evidence it may have against Shieh while threatening him with an ill-defined preliminary investigation for publishing publicly available information in a critical manner, Brown's behavior belies its values.
The post Brown University Targets Student Journalist for Emailing Administrators appeared first on Reason.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
2 days ago
- New York Times
Can Donors Fill the Major Budget Holes That Colleges Face Under Trump?
The T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard has not been disguising its plight. 'With Harvard's federal funding frozen, we are relying on philanthropy to power our research and support our educational programs,' the school's donation website says. 'Your ongoing engagement is vital to keeping our mission on track.' The Trump administration's decision to block billions of dollars in research money to certain colleges is forcing administrators and their fund-raising teams to scrounge for cash. As schools across the country contemplate layoffs, lab shutdowns and other drastic steps, they are weighing how much the gaps can be plugged by private philanthropy — and how pointedly political their pleas for donations ought to be. A handful are wagering that the financial rewards of trying to leverage donors' concerns about the federal cuts will outweigh the risk of antagonizing the White House. In an April 30 note to alumni, Christina H. Paxson, the president of Brown University, said about three dozen of its grants and contracts had already been canceled, and that the government had stopped funding many research grants. She said news reports stated that the Trump administration had threatened an additional $510 million in grants and contracts to the university. The moves, she wrote, represented 'a significant threat to Brown's financial sustainability.' She urged alumni to lobby lawmakers about the issue, and included links for making donations to the university, including to support research whose federal funding was canceled or delayed. (Brown said data was not yet available for release about whether giving had increased as a result.) Many other institutions have opted for more caution. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education and a former leader of Occidental College, suggested that some schools may be worried about turning off right-leaning donors who may agree with President Trump's opinion that academia has tilted too far to the left. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
Gun rights groups slams Senate parliamentarian's ruling on silencer deregulation: ‘Total garbage'
Gun rights groups fumed Friday after the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a provision deregulating firearm silencers cannot be included in President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Republican lawmakers sought to eliminate a $200 federal excise tax on silencers and remove them from registration requirements under the National Firearms Act, but the parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, determined the measure did not comply with the Senate's Byrd Rule, which prevents the inclusion of measures deemed 'extraneous' to the budget process in reconciliation bills. 'The Parliamentarian's ruling is total garbage,' Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, said in a statement. 'The [National Firearms Act] is explicitly a tax law. This partisan ruling is just another excuse to protect the unconstitutional tax-and-register regime of the NFA.' Republicans sought to eliminate a $200 tax on silencers and remove the device from the National Firearms Act. AFP/Getty Images Provisions that don't directly affect spending or revenue, as interpreted by the parliamentarian, violate the Byrd Rule. Brown urged senators to bypass the parliamentarian and include the silencer provision in the bill anyway. 'Any so-called 'advisor' who can't see that a tax repeal is a budget item has no business telling Senators how to vote,' Brown said. 'GOP leadership has one option: ignore the parliamentarian and override this nonsense. Anything less is surrender.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has indicated in the past that he's unlikely to ignore the parliamentarian rulings. Therefore, the provision, if not rewritten to comply with the Byrd Rule, would need 60 votes to make it out of the Senate, rather than a simple majority. The National Rifle Association also slammed the parliamentarian, noting that she was appointed by the late Democratic Nevada Sen. Harry Reid. 'We strongly disagree with the Harry Reid-appointed Parliamentarian's ruling that removing suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and other arms from the punitive NFA tax regime falls outside the scope of reconciliation,' the NRA said in a statement. 'Nevertheless, we remain committed to working with our allies on Capitol Hill to end the unjust tax burden on these constitutionally-protected arms.' Gun rights groups fumed over the Senate referee's ruling on silencer deregulation in Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill. AP Brown further argued that the Trump-backed bill is the 'biggest chance' gun rights advocates have had in decades to 'start tearing down the NFA.' 'It's not over yet,' he said. 'We expect pro-gun Senators to fight like hell, not cower and run for cover behind bureaucratic opinions.'
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Atlantic
The Tea Party Is Back (Maybe)
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Signs were all around, but the clinching evidence that the Tea Party is back came this week in New Hampshire, where the Republican Scott Brown announced that he'd be running for U.S. Senate. Fifteen years ago, in January 2010, Brown, a state senator in Massachusetts, defeated the Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by the late liberal icon Ted Kennedy. Brown's victory was a landmark for conservative opposition to Barack Obama's administration, and in particular to his attempt to overhaul health insurance. Protests in the streets and angry crowds at legislators' town-hall meetings had given a taste of the brewing voter anger, but Democratic leaders dismissed demonstrators as rabble-rousers or astroturfers. Brown's victory in deep-blue Massachusetts proved that the Tea Party was a real force in politics. Brown turned out to be somewhat moderate—he was, after all, representing the Bay State—and his time in the Senate was short because Elizabeth Warren defeated him in 2012. But in the midterm elections months after his win, a big group of fiscally conservative politicians were elected to Congress as anti-establishment critics of the go-along-to-get-along GOP, which they felt wasn't doing enough to stand up to Obama. Led by Tea Party activists and elected officials, Republicans managed to narrow but not stop the Affordable Care Act, which Obama signed in March 2010; they briefly but only fleetingly reduced federal spending and budget deficits. By 2016, the Tea Party was a spent force. Its anti-establishment energy became the basis for Donald Trump's political movement, with which it shared a strong element of racial backlash. Trump provided the pugilistic approach that many Republican voters had demanded, but without any of the commitment to fiscal discipline: He pledged to protect Medicare and Social Security, and in his first term hugely expanded the deficit. But now there's a revival of Tea Party ideas in Washington, driven by some of the same elected officials. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act follows the long-running Republican principle of reducing taxes, especially on the wealthy, but it doesn't even pretend to cut spending commensurate with the reductions in revenue those tax cuts would produce. This is standard for Republican presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Trump all ran for office railing against deficits, and then increased them while in office. They were eager to lower taxes, but not to make the politically unpopular choices necessary to actually reduce federal spending. In theory, at least, the Tea Party represented a more purist approach that insisted on cutting budgets, even if that meant taking on politically dangerous tasks such as slashing entitlements. (Republicans could also produce a more balanced budget by increasing revenue through taxes, but they refuse to seriously consider that.) Some of the Tea Party OGs are striking the same tones today. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, elected in the 2010 wave, has emerged as the foremost Republican critic of the GOP bill. 'The math doesn't really add up,' he said on Face the Nation earlier this month. Trump called Paul's ideas 'crazy' and, according to Paul, briefly uninvited him from an annual congressional picnic at the White House. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, another member of the class of 2010, has also demanded more spending cuts and described the bill's approach as ' completely unsustainable.' 'I'm saying things that people know need to be said,' he told The Wall Street Journal. 'The kid who just exposed that the king is butt-naked may not be real popular, because he kind of made everybody else look like fools, but they all recognize he was right.' (The White House has lately been working to court Johnson.) Standing alongside these senators are representatives such as Andy Harris of Maryland, who was elected in 2010; Paul's fellow Kentuckian (and fellow Trump target) Thomas Massie, who arrived in the House in 2012; and Chip Roy, a Texan who first came to Washington in 2013 as chief of staff for Tea Party–aligned Senator Ted Cruz. Staring them down is Speaker Mike Johnson. Like Paul Ryan, who was a role model for many Tea Partiers but clashed with the hard right once he became speaker of the House, Johnson has frustrated former comrades by backing off his former fiscal conservatism in the name of passing legislation. As my colleague Jonathan Chait has written, this has led Johnson and his allies to brazenly lie about what the bill would do. The neo–Tea Partiers are not the only challenge for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. More mainstream and moderate GOP members are skittish about a bill that is deeply unpopular and will cut services that their constituents favor or depend on. Nor is fiscal conservatism the only revival of Tea Party rhetoric. Zohran Mamdani's victory in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary has elicited a new burst of bigotry, sometimes from the same exact people. Meanwhile, Democrats are experiencing their own echoes of 2010, as voters demand more from elected officials, and anti-establishment candidates such as Mamdani win. The 2025 Tea Party wave faces difficulties the first wave didn't. Rather than being able to organize Republicans against a Democratic president, Paul, Johnson, and company are opposing a Republican president who is deeply popular with members of Congress and primary voters. Roy threatened to vote against the bill in the House but then backed down. Now he says he might vote against the Senate bill when the two are reconciled. 'Chip Roy says he means it this time,' snickered Politico this week, noting that he and his allies have 'drawn and re-drawn their fiscal red lines several times over now.' Then again, how better to honor their predecessors than to back down from a demand for real fiscal discipline? President Donald Trump said that he had cut off trade negotiations with Canada because of Canada's tax on tech companies that would also affect those based in America. The Supreme Court limited federal courts' ability to implement nationwide injunctions in a decision that left unclear the fate of Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that parents can withdraw their children from public-school classes on days that storybooks with LGBTQ themes are discussed if they have religious objections. Dispatches Atlantic Intelligence: Damon Beres interviews Rose Horowitch about her latest story on why the computer-science bubble is bursting. The Books Briefing: As a writer and an editor, Toni Morrison put humanity plainly on the page, where it would outlast her and her critics alike, Boris Kachka writes. Evening Read The Three Marine Brothers Who Feel 'Betrayed' by America By Xochitl Gonzalez The four men in jeans and tactical vests labeled Police: U.S. Border Patrol had Narciso Barranco surrounded. Their masks and hats concealed their faces, so that only their eyes were visible. When they'd approached him, he was doing landscape work outside of an IHOP in Santa Ana, California. Frightened, Barranco attempted to run away. By the time a bystander started filming, the agents had caught him and pinned him, face down, on the road. One crouches and begins to pummel him, repeatedly, in the head. You can hear Barranco moaning in pain. Eventually, the masked men drag him to his feet and try to shove him into an SUV. When Barranco resists, one agent takes a rod and wedges it under his neck, attempting to steer him into the vehicle as if prodding livestock. Barranco is the father of three sons, all of them United States Marines. The eldest brother is a veteran, and the younger men are on active duty. At any moment, the same president who sent an emboldened ICE after their father could also command them into battle. More From The Atlantic Culture Break Coming soon. A new season of the Autocracy in America podcast, hosted by Garry Kasparov, a former world chess champion and democracy activist. Watch (or skip). Squid Game 's final season (out now on Netflix) is a reminder of what the show did so well, in the wrong ways, Shirley Li writes. Play our daily crossword. P.S. Tuesday was a red-letter day for blue language in the Gray Lady. The New York Times is famously shy about four-letter words; the journalist Blake Eskin noted in 2022 that the paper had published three separate articles about the satirical children's book Go the Fuck to Sleep, all without ever printing the actual name of the book. An article about Emil Bove III, which I wrote about yesterday, was tricky for the Times: The notable thing about the story was the language allegedly used. In its second paragraph, the Times used one of its standard circumlocutions: 'In Mr. Reuveni's telling, Mr. Bove discussed disregarding court orders, adding an expletive for emphasis.' It printed the word itself in the 16th paragraph, perhaps because any children reading would have gotten bored and moved on by then. The same day, the Times reported, unexpurgated, on Trump's anger at Iran and Israel: 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing,' the president told reporters. I was curious about the discussions behind these choices. In a suitably Times -y email, the newspaper spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha told me: 'Editors decided it was newsworthy that the president of the United States used a curse word to make a point on one of the biggest issues of the day, and did so in openly showing frustration with an ally as well as an adversary.' It's another Trumpian innovation: expanding the definition of news fit to print.
