On Oct. 1, the Trump administration invited Brown and eight other universities to sign a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” Contained in this invitation is a shakedown: Give up meaningful say in matters of administration, admissions, finances and academic freedom, and in return, President Trump will allow the University continued access to student loans, visas, research funding and tax exemptions.
The administration’s demands are unconstitutional and un-American. The compact favors universities that Trump believes to be “good actors” and swindles the rest. By inviting the University to take part in this agreement, Trump gravely misunderstands Brown. Our past willingness to negotiate in good faith does not mean we will blindly buy into Trump’s attempt to strip universities of self determination. Yes, Brown is a “good actor,” but that does not mean that we are unprincipled. We urge President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 to reject this outrageous demand and to protect the University’s independence.
In August, our editorial page board applauded the agreement Paxson struck with the Trump administration. We believe it was a principled, pragmatic compromise that addressed the government’s legitimate civil rights concerns while carefully balancing Brown’s financial needs and its academic freedom. In our editorial, we wrote that “our independence and core values cannot be put up for sale, nor can we allow the University to censor protected speech.” As argued, the previous agreement with the federal government did not compromise these values. This current compact, unfortunately, does.
The compact contains a wide range of demands that interfere with Brown’s freedom. Its mandates include capping international undergraduate enrollment at 15%, mitigating grade inflation and implementing a five-year tuition freeze for domestic students. Allowing the federal government oversight over admissions processes, grading policies and tuition increases would be a blatant concession of institutional independence.
Perhaps more troubling is the effective speech ban this agreement would impose. The letter requires that participating universities ban “support for entities designated by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations.” While at first glance this may seem reasonable, it is a thinly veiled attack on pro-Palestinian students protesting the Israel-Hamas war and the Trump administration more broadly.
Who gets to decide what constitutes support for terrorism? Last month, Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum that identified anti-capitalism and anti-Christianity as underpinnings of political violence and American terrorism. While we do not agree with everything said during student demonstrations, we fundamentally believe in a student’s right to protest. When the government enters the business of policing speech — even speech we find objectionable — we lose the ability to speak altogether.
Additionally, the government requires institutional neutrality that extends to all university employees. Neutrality is a worthy consideration, but the government deciding what is acceptable speech is a chilling thought. Is an economics professor who believes that trickle-down economics does not work belittling “conservative ideas?” Is a biology professor who believes that Tylenol does not cause autism engaging in political speech? What about a philosophy professor who does not believe life begins at conception? We share the government’s ambition of “fostering a vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus,” but instituting ideological regulation is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to conceal unacceptable government intrusion.
If the government ever decides that Brown is not in compliance, it can withhold federal support for at least one year with seemingly little due process. These are benefits that Brown is entitled to receive under federal law. Upon a second infraction, it can require the return of all federal funding provided during that calendar year, an amount that could total to hundreds of millions of dollars. It would place a sword over the University’s head and require that we always carry the fear of offending the government in the back of our minds.
This agreement is akin to a protection racket. It requires fealty and patronage to the government in exchange for protection from the government. It is an extraordinary attempt at a power grab — not through the legislative process but rather through executive edict and coercive threats. It misunderstands the role of federal research funding. Universities are not beneficiaries of handouts but rather are government contractors doing lifesaving research on behalf of the American people. It aims to destroy what makes American higher education great — the ability to speak freely, think critically and pursue knowledge.
Responding to this threat requires solidarity. If one university signs on, the entire system of higher education is in mortal danger. We strongly urge Paxson to reject this proposal and to set an example for peers to follow.
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. A majority of the editorial page board voted in favor of this piece. Please send responses to this column to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
