Student Shieh shakes up Brown with DOGE-like query, but universities hold fast in defense of admin 'bloat'

University Hall and Van Wyckle Gates at Brown University
Robert Barnett via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

A conservative student journalist who roiled Brown University in March with a DOGE-like investigation of administrator efficacy was cleared of disciplinary charges under university policies, at least for now, WPRI reported yesterday.

In mid-March 2025, Brown sophomore Alex Shieh emailed more than 3,800 university staff—including administrators, but not faculty, nor students—with a DOGE-inspired query, "Describe what tasks you performed in the past week," the free speech-protective Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reported.

Shieh told WJAR (NBC 10 Providence) that he planned to "use[] information he gathered to launch an online database using artificial intelligence, detailing the different administrators working for the school." Writing under the banner of the conservative Brown Spectator, Shieh was unabashed in advancing his self-described "Bloat@Brown" thesis: that the sky-high price of higher education at Brown—$96,000 annual cost of attendance—could be chalked up in large part to an excess of well compensated staff.

Brown swiftly charged Shieh with conduct infractions, namely, violation of computer use policy and having inflicted "emotional harm" on staff.

The charges come right from the contemporary higher ed playbook. Even mired in the muck of early-20th-century, callow conceptions of academic freedom, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as soon as the 1990s managed to perceive the misuse of "electronic communication policies," later commonly known as "acceptable use policies," as a constraint on free campus inquiry. FIRE today sometimes considers such policies in its campus free speech rankings.

The "emotional harm" claim is rich: a charge staff are encouraged to assert in a world in which there's no I in Team Corporatocracy, and which the university eagerly backs to suppress dissent. One might think a university would be cognizant of how the charge of "emotional harm"—not actionable in tort for the very reason that the law should not infiltrate and suffocate social interaction in liberal society—feeds the "snowflake" stereotype. But no, higher ed is committed blindly to its moral condescension. 

My own employer has selectively (and unconstitutionally?) enforced a university policy requiring faculty to "accord respect to ... others" (my emphasis). Calling out misfeasance is an offense, notwithstanding state whistleblower policy.

For an institutional home of so many smart people, Brown apparently couldn't see beyond its bubble to anticipate the public firestorm of support for Shieh. Turns out, Americans are fed up with our uniquely-in-the-world outrageous cost of higher education and the refusal of universities, especially well endowed private ones, even to acknowledge the problem, much less part with their wealth to redress it. Whether staff at Brown are too numerous or too well compensated, I can't say; I haven't made a study of it. But Brown's problem is that Shieh's thesis sounds credible. "Bloat@Brown" hit a nerve.

My reaction was exactly what manifested on Reddit. For example, in the r/Professors thread ("sub") "How Do We Feel About Alex Shieh?," in April, biomedical sciences associate professor the_Stick put it much more eloquently (typos corrected) than I could:

I suspect this sub will automatically dismiss him because he is an undergrad, used AI, is brash, likes the idea of DOGE removing inefficient and wasteful positions, has been interviewed by FoxNews, is Asian, dislikes DEI, and intentionally challenges the university structure. 

However, the curious aspect is that he is targeting administrative bloat with his 'investigation,' specifically positions that we on this sub have often complained about for years and years. While he indelicately lumps positions into what he classifies as DEI/woke, he also uses the term "bullshit jobs" which we have discussed here too. He also specifically does NOT target students or faculty but deanlets and administrators with complicated titles that we have made fun of here. I am NOT saying he is 100% correct, but I am saying he is making arguments we have made here for a decade about the ongoing administrative expenditures having priority over things like faculty salary and facility maintenance. His concerns appear to have arisen from working in a flooded room while observing a 50% increase in tuition over the past decade.

While his language is unrefined (as one might expect from an undergrad, even at an Ivy), I am not a big fan of the university response to him either. From various sources, he seems to have asked in his emails what is your job description or what do you actually do (without making a call for justification). We've done that here, and I know many of us have asked some administrators with a strange title what they do. But that email, perhaps because he made so many at once, is being held up as infliction of harm. The idea of misusing publicly available data seems to be a witch hunt. The charge of misrepresenting himself as a journalist goes against idea of citizen and activist journalists which have been recognized much more widely. He might be a jerk, but Brown's response seems exceedingly vindictive in tone so far.

Indeed, before I read Professor the_Stick's missive, just this week, I engaged in an annual tradition of my own: an audit of positions and salaries at my workplace, in the University of Massachusetts, using the state's public and transparent, but difficult to search, online payroll system. I say it's an "annual" tradition, but really it's more often biennial, because I can't stand to have my stomach turned every year.

I would tell you what I found, but ... I don't want to inflict any, uh, emotional harm or disrespect. It must suffice to say that there are a lot of people making a lot more money than the law faculty. Like me, many of them have "Chancellor" in their titles. But I've never seen them in a classroom doing the, you know, educating that universities are so famous for. Nor the research. In fact, many of them I've never seen.

Like the_Stick observed, Shieh's suspicion is neither new nor devoid of merit. It's rather an echo of Benjamin Ginsburg's superb The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters. The 2011 book made waves, inspired demands for reform, and then effected no change whatsoever.

So it's likely to go for Alex Shieh.

War protests expose double standards in higher ed

Ted Eytan CC BY-SA 4.0

I've refrained from commenting on the Israel-Hamas war, specifically and especially on the eruption of conflict, mostly, fortunately, non-violent, in higher ed in the United States, in which my own interests in academic freedom and free speech are most immediately implicated.

Despite my reticence—I'm under water with exams and a textbook deadline, though I follow the war closely in the news and remain in contact with friends in Tel Aviv—I read something in The New York Times that hit the nail on the head, so I want to amplify it.

In "Why Campus Speech Is Vexing" for The Morning from the Times, David Leonhardt wrote today:

[U]niversity leaders do face a basic choice. Do they want to expand the list of restricted speech to include more statements that make conservatives, Jewish students and others feel unsafe? Or do they want to shrink the list and tell all students that they will need to feel uncomfortable at times?

What since-resigned UPenn President Liz Magill said to Congress—essentially that the First Amendment protects a call for the genocide of Jews in the political abstract, absent hallmarks of unprotected speech such as incitement to imminent violence, or the severity and pervasiveness that characterize harassment—however socially and politically tone deaf, was technically a correct statement of the law from the former professor of constitutional law and Stanford Law dean.

The problem that Leonhardt recognized is that the First Amendment is not the standard that university administrators and their henchpersons have been applying on campuses for decades. Rather, hate speech codes, anti-discrimination policies, anti-bullying rules, and related prohibitions have proliferated and been enforced vigorously, First Amendment notwithstanding. And the standard has been a double one, because enforcement has been variable based on viewpoint, protecting only favored classes of minority persons or condemning disfavored, read: politically incorrect, viewpoints.

The problem is only compounded for university faculty, who are supposed to be the standard bearers for free expression, but have our livelihood hanging in the balance. At renowned schools where misdoings garner headlines, faculty might have a fighting chance to protect themselves. But what I've seen at the universities where the rest of us work, in the trenches, faculty routinely are intimidated, disciplined, and terminated for not toeing the line. When it happens in flyover country or in the lowest tiers of rankings, no one bats an eye.

When I was accused of stepping out of line years ago at another institution, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education founder Harvey Silverglate gave the local paper a quote condemning me. He apparently responded to the paper's inquiry with the assumption that a typically liberal law prof had gone off the rails. He failed utterly to learn anything about the case before he opined on it. When a mutual friend reached out to tell him that "he got it wrong," FIRE adjusted its public position thenceforth. But Silverglate never retracted his remarks, nor ever said anything apologetic to me.

At the University of Massachusetts Law School, which ranks at #167 in the U.S. News ranking of U.S. law schools, I've been told that University of Massachusetts policy, which requires that all employees show "respect" for all other employees, is violated by calling out misfeasance. So when I see an opportunity through faculty governance to do things better for our students and our community, I keep my mouth shut.

Tenure means nothing in these fights. I wrote many years ago about that paper tiger. Big-name-school academics, who don't have to toil at the hamster-wheel-spinning labor of assessment data collection and interim-strategic-plan-benchmark-attainment reports, don't well understand how faculty governance roles, as distinct from teaching and research responsibilities, are weaponized against faculty in the schools of the trenches.

Just last week, I completed a survey on academic freedom by the University of Chicago NORC that asked about ideological intimidation of faculty. The check-all-that-apply list of contexts in which intimidation or suppression of viewpoints might happen named a range of research and teaching contexts, but, true to form, University of Chicago, said almost nothing about school and university service roles. I added the response in "Other."

Professor Keith E. Whittington recently published a characteristically compelling paper on faculty "intramural speech" and academic freedom. It doesn't cite my 2010 work, in which I coined the term "penumbral academic freedom." I was working in a flyover state then, so it's like the paper never existed. Or maybe, as an east-coast, Duke Law would-be mentor once gently advised me when I was toiling voicelessly in flyover country, I should accept that my writing just isn't very good.

Well, I digress. My aim here is principally to say: When Magill fell, and as Harvard President Claudine Gay flounders, I'm torn between a head-shaking sorrow for the supposed quintessential marketplace of ideas and a mite more than a modicum of schadenfreude.

Back to work. The provost's dusty bookshelf is crying out for another strategic plan, and these exams aren't going to grade themselves.

Events endeavor to empower student journalists

The Student Press Law Center and partner organizations are sponsoring Student Press Freedom Day on February 23, 2023.

A number of virtual educational events are open to the public:

• Public Records Workshop with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE);
• Roundtable: FIRE Defends The Commonwealth Times, a student newspaper at Virginia Commonwealth University, with FIRE;
• Fighting for Press Freedom: How To Be an Advocate for Student Journalism with the Student Press Law Center (SPLC) and the National Coalition Against Censorship;
• Agency in Student Literary Publications with the National Council of Teachers of English and National Scholastic Press Association;
• Student Press Trivia Night with FIRE, the Freedom Forum, and the SPLC;
• FOIA Workshop with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF);
• Refusing Censorship: A High School Newspaper's Fight for Student Press Freedom, featuring adviser Adriana Chavira of the The Pearl Post at the Daniel Pearl Magnet High School in Los Angeles, with PEN America, the First Amendment Coalition, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and the SPLC;
• Student Press Briefing: Impacts of School Surveillance with the Center for Democracy & Technology;

There also are pre-recorded events on school media policies, op-ed writing, and student press freedom.

Many moons ago, I had the privilege of interning at the Student Press Law Center when I was a law student, and then of representing student journalists pro bono when I was in practice in Maryland. Censors never tire, so there is always opportunity for practicing attorneys to engage with this rewarding and challenging work.

HT @ the Free Expression Legal Network (FELN).