Hudes ’27: Brown’s democratic gesture falls flat when democracy itself is on the line

The latest announcement from President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 about the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” frames the University’s next move as an open question. Paxson seeks to “hear from members of our community” before deciding how Brown will respond to the proposed deal. But by asking the community whether Brown should comply with an authoritarian demand, the University is already halfway to doing so.

Brown’s call for community input might be seen as a commitment to its values of openness and shared governance. But there’s a point at which consultation stops being democratic and starts being evasive — a way to distribute moral responsibility so that no one must bear it alone. Genuine leadership sometimes means shielding the community from having to entertain questions that should already have answers. To deliberate over whether to comply with authoritarianism is not a gesture of openness but an abdication of judgment and an attempt to outsource moral courage to process. And in this case, the University’s inclusivity functions less as a principle than as a procedural smokescreen.

This August, I argued that Brown’s settlement with the federal government laid the groundwork for the erosion of the institutions which are necessary for maintaining a healthy democracy. Each accommodation teaches the White House that universities will deliberate their own subordination while inviting the next escalation. And that’s what’s happening: We gave President Trump an inch. Now, he’s back for a mile.

The editorial page board viewed Brown’s settlement with Trump favorably, but not this offer. Last week, we argued that the compact offers a false bargain — continued access to research funding and political favor in exchange for federal supervision over admissions, curricula and governance. It is not an invitation but a threat, an intrusion dressed as collaboration.

And yet Brown’s response has been to protect the process rather than the principle. The irony is almost too neat: The University invokes democratic consultation to decide whether democracy itself should be put on the chopping block.

Authoritarian power often works this way. It exploits precisely the liberal reflex toward inclusion, the belief that hearing every voice guarantees moral clarity. But when the issue is whether to submit to coercion, substituting judgment with process can be corrosive. To deliberate over autonomy is to validate the attack — it’s a concession no matter the democratic result. 

In this case, Brown’s reliance on procedure takes on the core danger of an extensive bureaucracy. As Hannah Arendt warned, authoritarianism rarely declares itself openly. It creeps in through bureaucracy, what she called the “rule by Nobody,” a form of domination in which the abdication of responsibility becomes tyranny itself. Of course, the danger for universities isn’t quite as extreme as the danger is when the bureaucracy is the state, but the principle still applies. And even in such systems as our own, “the greater the bureaucratization of public life, the greater will be the attraction of violence.” Each time a university agrees to review the terms of its freedom, it treats coercion as a legitimate option and thereby normalizes it. 

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has already refused to participate in the compact. Brown should do the same — not after consultation, but before it. Because what good is a democratic gesture if the question it entertains threatens democracy itself?

Trump will keep coming back for more. The answer must be clear enough that he no longer has reason to ask.

Paul Hudes ’27 is The Herald’s editorial page board chief and can be reached at paul_hudes@brown.edu. Please send responses to this opinion to letters@browndailyherald.com and other op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.