After Brown’s decision this summer to strike a “deal” with the Trump administration, I unhappily predicted that Trump would soon return with more demands. It didn’t take long.
Last week, Brown was one of nine universities invited to sign Trump’s proposed “Compact for Excellence in Higher Education,” which would offer federal funding preference and other benefits in exchange for sweeping changes to who can attend, or teach at, Brown and what ideas can be expressed on campus. If President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 is serious about defending academic freedom, free speech and institutional autonomy, she will immediately and forcefully decline to participate.
The moral and legal arguments against this compact are numerous and well-covered elsewhere. Those alone should be enough for Brown to reject the compact out of hand. But I want to note one additional reason that should appeal to Paxon’s pragmatic posture: Joining this compact would be catastrophic for Brown’s brand.
Thirty years ago, I accepted my offer to attend Brown without ever having visited campus. I was ready to commit based purely on Brown’s reputation for attracting the most interesting, independent and diverse group of academically elite students. I was not disappointed. On College Hill, I met students designing their own concentrations, launching companies, recording hip-hop albums and founding social ventures. And in the years since, I’ve continued to meet innumerable Brown alums — from artists and entrepreneurs to scientists and activists — who went on to accomplish extraordinary things.
These uniquely diverse, collaborative and inventive students chose Brown because it stands for something unique in elite higher education — freedom, creativity and intellectual curiosity. Brown’s brand as the hip, happy and creative Ivy has been a magnet for generations of students who represent the very best of that spirit.
The strength of that brand shows up in hard numbers. In 1995, Brown admitted about 20% of its applicants. Today, the University’s acceptance rate sits at 5.7%, making it one of the most selective institutions in the country. These impressive statistics are brand power at work: Tens of thousands of the world’s top students have been drawn to apply to Brown because of what it represents.
And what it represents is precisely what Trump’s offer would destroy. The compact’s provisions — capping international enrollment, banning consideration of gender or race in admissions and hiring, mandating standardized testing, privileging hard sciences over liberal arts and subjecting universities to federal oversight of curriculum and speech on campus — would gut the openness and autonomy that define Brown.
Will those same students apply and commit to Brown if it leads the way in legitimizing an authoritarian takeover of higher education? Of course not. Curious and intelligent students — the very foundation of Brown’s reputation — will find an alternative. The University’s brand promise will erode quickly once the signal changes from fearless and free to fearful and compromising. When we lose those students, we lose Brown itself.
Brown has survived more than two and a half centuries. The Trump administration should be history in three years’ time. Paxson’s job is not only to balance this year’s budget or preserve access to today’s research grants. It is also to safeguard Brown’s reputation for the long term. Brown’s brand has long been one of the strongest in higher education because it has always stood true to its values: openness, independence and creativity. Signing Trump’s compact would destroy that legacy, and once lost, no amount of money can buy it back.
Daniel Souweine, '01 is the founder of Stand Strong Brown, which organizes members of the Brown community to defend academic freedom and free speech. He can be reached at dsouweine@gmail.com. Please send responses to this op-ed to letters@browndailyherald.com and other op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
