This week, the Brown Political Union was planning to host a Monday debate on the topic of whether local police should cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. In response, the Dream Team, a student organization representing undocumented students at Brown, wrote that it was “out of touch” by putting their community’s existence up for debate. Just one hour before the event, BPU announced the event would be rescheduled. In a later statement, BPU explained the postponement was due to a misunderstanding about Student Activities Office requirements. The topic of the debate was deeply offensive for many, but it is these personal stakes that make it even more important to show up and engage in conversations rather than withdraw from debate.
We recognize the immense difficulty of the current political moment, especially and disproportionately for our undocumented peers. Although the American immigration system has undoubtedly been broken for a long time, President Trump’s mass deportation policy is cruel, counterproductive and contradictory to our American values. It is because of these truths and our commitment to free speech that we believe the debate must go on. As famously stated by Supreme Court Justice William Brandeis, the solution to harmful speech is “more speech, not enforced silence.”
We applaud the Dream Team’s initial call to rally its supporters to speak at the event. We firmly believe that a diversity of voices is necessary to cultivate successful pedagogy. However, we hope that this rallying is to participate in the debate and not to ensure it doesn’t happen.
The subject of the BPU’s event — whether local police should assist with federal immigration enforcement — is not merely a “theoretical exercise,” as the Dream Team put it, but a daily reality for local officials contemplating their community’s response to federal immigration policy. When students graduate from Brown, they not only leave College Hill but also break apart from a political bubble. To fulfill the University’s mission, Brown students ought to learn how to engage with a world full of ideas, even those they disagree with.
The backlash the debate received is part of a growing trend at Brown and across the country to disengage from dialogue with those holding opposing views. Part of the tension felt on campus over the past year stems from an unwillingness to engage with peers who think differently than us. Confronting opposing views on topics that have personal stakes should only provide more motivation to speak out. After all, these are the kinds of conversations that one would face when dealing with politicians, lobbyists and people in positions of power.
Cancelling events intended to promote dialogue — whether due to bureaucratic process or external political pressure — is troubling. Brown must remain a place where difficult conversations can occur without fear of disruption or administrative interference. When the BPU event is rescheduled, we call on all students to engage in the discussion rather than suppress it.
Intellectual growth does not come from silencing opposing viewpoints but from confronting them head-on. Only through open discourse can we cultivate a campus that truly values knowledge, critical thinking and the pursuit of truth.
Editorials are written by The Herald’s editorial page board, and its views are separate from those of The Herald’s newsroom and the 135th Editorial Board, which leads the paper. This editorial was written by Ethan Canfield ’28, Rchin Bari ’28, Paul Hudes ’27, Ben Aizenberg ’26, Tas Rahman ’26 and Meher Sandhu ’25.5.
