Brown student exposing Ivy League bloat gives House testimony, urges Congress to ‘mandate transparency'
EXCLUSIVE - Brown University student Alex Shieh, who was recently cleared of wrongdoing after he sent campus employees a DOGE-like email, is testifying Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee on rising costs at elite universities.
"Brown University, like many of its Ivy League peers, presents itself as a selective meritocratic institution," reads Shieh's testimony, obtained exclusively by Fox News Digital.
"But according to data from The New York Times, the median family income of Brown students is over $200,000 — the highest among Ivy League universities," his prepared statement continues. "Forty-seven percent of the student body comes from the top 5% of earners in the U.S. A study by Brown University economist John Friedman confirms that low and middle-income students remain significantly underrepresented at selective colleges including Brown, even after controlling for academic qualifications."
Brown University In Gop Crosshairs After Student's Doge-like Email Kicks Off Frenzy
Shieh, a rising junior who was cleared of wrongdoing by the university on May 14, had previously angered school officials by sending a DOGE-like email to non-faculty employees identifying himself as a journalist for The Brown Spectator and asking them what they do all day to try to determine why the school's tuition has gotten so expensive.
The Brown Spectator, a right-leaning publication which has a board of three people, including Shieh, was revived this year after it ceased publication in 2014.
Read On The Fox News App
The board members faced a disciplinary hearing on May 7 over allegations that they violated Brown University's name, licensing and trademark policies.
Shieh and the Spectator faced scrutiny from the university after Shieh began investigating positions he deemed redundant after reviewing 3,805 non-faculty employees who worked at Brown and emailing them to ask, "What do you do all day?"
"As an investigative reporter for The Brown Spectator, I launched Bloat@Brown, a website that used AI to analyze administrative staff roles and necessity, and Trialhouse.com, a website that performed similar analysis on Columbia University, Cornell University, and the University of Pennsylvania," Shieh said in his prepared remarks.
"I emailed each administrator at Brown with a request for comment," Shieh added. "Only 20 responded. One… replied with 'F--k off.' Soon after, the university instructed employees not to respond, and the site was hacked. My social security number was leaked. Associate Dean Kirsten Wolfe initiated a disciplinary process against me, first under charges of 'emotional/psychological harm,' 'misrepresentation,' 'invasion of privacy,' and later for alleged technology policy and alleged trademark policy violations."
Shieh sent a follow-up email to Brown administrators on May 27, which Shieh previously told Fox News Digital was "one last opportunity to justify their roles."
Ivy League Student Accused Of Causing 'Emotional Harm' To Non-faculty Staff For Sending Doge-like Email
In his prepared remarks, Shieh said that tuition and fees at the Ivy League have exceeded $90,000 per year, and that the school is "projected to run a $46 million deficit for the current fiscal year."
"According to Brown's own disclosures, the university employs 3,805 full-time non-instructional staff," Shieh will say in his testimony. "With 7,229 undergraduate students, this translates to one non-teaching staff member for every 1.9 undergraduates. These staff do not include faculty members, but rather administrators, consultants, and support staff, many in roles of unclear necessity."
Shieh is urging the House Judiciary Committee to look into why his school has become so expensive.
His recommendations include subpoenaing Brown University President Christina Paxson "for testimony and documents related to administrative growth, financial aid coordination, and retaliation."
He also calls for student journalists and whistleblowers to be protected from "institutional retaliation," a review of financial aid methodology used by Ivy League schools, transparency in "administrative-to-student staffing ratios and compensation for nonprofit universities receiving federal funds," and for higher learning institutions that have large tuition and spending increases to be audited.
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
"Thank you for your attention to these matters," Shieh will say in his prepared remarks. "I respectfully urge this Subcommittee to act in defense of students, families, and the American Dream."
A Browkn spokesperson defended university practices in a statement to Fox News Digital.
"As Brown has grown over recent decades in both the number of students we teach and the volume and impact of its research, our staff has expanded to support these important goals. In the last 15 years, we have worked responsibly to build a staff infrastructure that enables us to generate medical treatments and scientific breakthroughs that lead to real solutions for real patients and real people. We also added staffing to prepare students for successful lives and careers, which is important to students and families. Brown's staff members are vital — behind every research breakthrough and student success story, non-faculty staff are a quiet force making those accomplishments possible," the spokesperson said.
"We continue to see a false 'one administrator for every two students at Brown' claim that misrepresents the university, its mission and its student body. A total of 11,232 students were enrolled at Brown in the academic year that just ended — 7,226 of those students were undergraduates. We take no issue with the 3,800 staff number. However, the false "one administrator for every two students" claim ignores the presence of our approximately 4,000 graduate and medical students. These students make up more than one third of our student body, and the staffing to support their advanced education and research is significant. Our staffing numbers should be understood in the context of the fact that Brown is a major research university that supports both undergraduate and graduate education and research. We're not an undergraduate college."
They added that Brown has one of the most robust financial aid programs in the nation, and that "claims that administrative staff growth has not supported the academic experience for students" were misleading.Original article source: Brown student exposing Ivy League bloat gives House testimony, urges Congress to 'mandate transparency'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a day 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.
