Brown University Faces Scrutiny for Disciplinary Action Against Libertarian Journal

Brown University is facing criticism after initiating disciplinary proceedings against The Brown Spectator, an independent, student-run libertarian journal. The university alleges that the publication violated Brown’s name, licensing, and trademark policies by incorporating the word "Brown" in its name and website domain.

The charges have been levied against every member of the journal’s board of directors, sparking concerns about potential censorship and the suppression of student voices critical of the university administration. Alex Shieh, a Brown University sophomore and a board member of The Brown Spectator, brought the issue to light.

According to Shieh, the university’s actions are unwarranted and appear to be selectively targeting The Brown Spectator while overlooking other campus publications that similarly use the school’s name. He specifically pointed to The Brown Daily Herald, another independent student-run newspaper that has operated for decades with "Brown" in its name and website domain without facing any repercussions.

Shieh argues that The Brown Spectator‘s use of the word "Brown" falls under the legal doctrine of "descriptive fair use." This doctrine allows for the use of a trademarked term in its ordinary, factual context to indicate the origin or purpose of a product or service. In this case, Shieh contends that the journal uses "Brown" to signify that it is a publication produced by students at Brown University.

The disciplinary hearing against The Brown Spectator took place recently, and the board is awaiting a ruling in the coming weeks. Prior to the hearing, two board members met separately with Associate Dean Kirsten Wolfe, the administrator who filed the charges, to explain their justification for using the word "Brown."

The controversy surrounding The Brown Spectator is further complicated by Shieh’s previous interactions with the university administration. Earlier this year, Shieh conducted an independent investigation into the university’s non-faculty employees and their roles, aiming to understand the factors contributing to Brown’s high tuition costs, which approach $96,000 annually.

During this investigation, Shieh created a database of approximately 3,805 non-faculty employees and sent them an email inquiring about their daily responsibilities. In the email, he identified himself as a journalist for The Brown Spectator. The inquiry was framed in a tongue-in-cheek manner reminiscent of "Doge" internet memes, which some perceived as disrespectful.

Shieh’s investigation and email campaign drew criticism from university officials and some employees. While he maintains that his intention was to gather data and gain insights into the university’s operations, his methods were viewed by some as intrusive and inappropriate.

Shieh’s research involved categorizing the non-faculty positions into three categories: DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) jobs, redundant jobs, and "bulls–t jobs." He stated that his interest in DEI stemmed from former President Donald Trump’s executive orders addressing DEI policies and the potential withholding of federal funds from universities that employed DEI staff.

Despite emailing thousands of employees, Shieh received only a handful of responses, many of which were negative and hostile. He believes that the university’s decision to target The Brown Spectator with trademark violations is a retaliatory measure stemming from his previous investigation and criticisms of the administration.

To raise awareness about the situation, Shieh created and posted an advertisement on social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube, outlining the dispute between The Brown Spectator and Brown University. He also plans to air the advertisement on television.

Shieh and his supporters argue that the university’s actions are a clear attempt to stifle dissenting voices on campus and suppress critical reporting on the administration. They contend that the selective enforcement of trademark policies against The Brown Spectator, while ignoring similar usage by other publications, demonstrates a bias against the journal’s libertarian viewpoint.

The university has not yet responded to requests for comment on the matter. The outcome of the disciplinary hearing against The Brown Spectator will have significant implications for student press freedom and the limits of university control over independent student publications. The case raises important questions about the balance between protecting university trademarks and fostering an environment of open inquiry and free expression on college campuses. It also highlights the potential for tension between student journalists and university administrations, particularly when student reporting is critical of institutional policies and practices.