Well, that didn’t take long. The bully who took your lunch money is back, and this time he wants your backpack, too.
On July 30, threatened with the loss of more than $500 million in federal research funding, Brown signed an agreement with the federal government that led to the “permanent closure” of reviews of the University’s compliance with antidiscrimination laws alongside an affirmation that “the government does not have the authority to dictate teaching, learning and academic speech.” At the same time, other aspects of the agreement — especially those regarding the rights of transgender students — raised concerns among Brown community members. Still, it may not have seemed like a bad deal at the time.
If you thought that was the end of Trump’s demands on Brown, you were mistaken. As a result of the July agreement, President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 wrote that Brown can now “move forward with fulfilling critical aspects of our mission with the confidence that the hallmarks of what makes Brown, ‘Brown’ will continue to flourish.” This sounded great until Oct. 1, when the Trump administration “invited” Brown and eight other schools to sign a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” in exchange for preferred access to federal funds in the future. Despite the appeal, the University must reject this proposal to protect its independence and academic integrity.
The danger of this 10-point memo is how reasonable much of it seems to be. It requires a five-year freeze on tuition, even offering free rides to students in the “hard sciences.” It speaks of maintaining a “vibrant marketplace of ideas” and an “intellectually open campus environment” — ideals that already define Brown. The memo also includes a cap on international student enrollment which would mean more opportunities for American students, a commitment many might find compelling.
But the danger is that accepting these conditions establishes a precedent that the federal government can dictate any aspect of university governance, including admissions policies, hiring, promotion, student discipline, grading and curriculum, among others. And it can do this anytime it likes by the threat of withholding funding for research or other purposes.
Remember that assertion about not dictating “teaching, learning and academic speech?” Well, the compact actually restricts free speech by requiring that University employees “abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.”
Several months ago, before the July 30 agreement, I wrote an op-ed titled, “What if Brown just says no?” Since then, the relationship between the federal government and universities has become even more precarious. The temptation to sign on to the Trump administration’s compact for preferred access to federal support is understandable. But I feel compelled to suggest again: If not us, then who? Who will stand up and decry these extortionate tactics that hold research funding hostage and seek to place American universities under direct government supervision, crushing dissent and independent thought in the process? Brown must respond and reject the compact with an unequivocal, overwhelming “No!” while encouraging the other eight universities to do the same.
Kenneth Miller ’70 is an emeritus professor of biology. He can be reached at kenneth_miller@brown.edu. Please send responses to this op-ed to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
