Last week, Yale released a report arguing that universities share responsibility for the nation’s loss of trust in higher education. Trust in private universities — along with the reputation of the Ivy League — is especially depressed. Faith in higher education reached a historic low of 36% in 2024. Even though we are no longer facing immediate funding threats from the federal government, Brown should not ignore the American public’s skepticism. As the University is able to refocus on its institutional goals, Brown has the opportunity to meaningfully reflect on its relationship with the United States. The University should take the initiative to consider the central themes of Yale’s report by commissioning its own to examine Brown’s role in the current landscape of higher education.
The University reached an agreement with the White House last year to restore federal funding and rejected President Trump’s invitation to join the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. These were both pragmatic decisions that the editorial page board commended. We contend that the state of public trust in higher education demands scrutiny, but the Trump administration’s coercive methods only exacerbate the issue. By forcing Universities into agreements, Trump was able to paint them as resistant public enemies that conceded to his power. Additionally, the White House’s many investigations into colleges and universities and accompanying funding cuts were sweeping and rash — they were meant to fulfill a political agenda, rather than trying in good faith to make universities better for the sake of the American public. By conducting a report of Brown’s role in the public distrust of higher education, we can not only counter the image that Trump made of us, but also inspire more effective University-led reforms than the White House did.
The report can also shield against further attacks from the Trump administration by eliminating some of the president’s political leverage: The University can prove that it is actively working to address the concerns of the American public. Brown has real issues that are worth addressing, and we have the opportunity to improve our institution on our own terms.
According to the report, the increasing cost of tuition has significantly contributed to the American public’s negative perception of elite universities. Brown, like Yale, adopts a “high tuition-high aid” model. The University’s displayed cost of $97,284 presents a Brown education as a luxury good. Yet around 45% of Brown students are on financial aid, with the average family responsibility for the class of 2029 being $32,160. Many assume from the sticker price that most Americans are priced out of a private education, and thus, the high cost undermines public trust in the institution. Since Yale’s report notes that “nearly half of Americans believe that colleges and universities demand the same payments from all students, regardless of income,” it should come as no surprise that the high sticker price has led to tension between Brown and the American public. While the University has wrestled with this issue through initiatives such as Brown Promise, which eliminates all loans from aid packages, and the elimination of tuition costs for households earning $125,000 or less, its ability to effectively communicate its affordability to the American public remains incomplete.
Beyond cost, free speech concerns must also be an area of investigation for Brown. Yale’s committee found that concerns about free speech on campus also contribute to a negative public image. Despite some improvement, Brown remained in the bottom half of universities in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s most recent free speech rankings. The University received an “F” grade for both administrative support and political tolerance on campus. In addition, Brown was called out for having “vague written policies” regarding the regulation of student speech. While the University has tried to foster more discourse across campus through its Discovery Through Dialogue project, The Herald’s Fall 2025 Poll still found that over 45% of students have felt uncomfortable expressing their political beliefs on campus. Trump won nearly 50% of the popular vote in the 2024 election. Since then, he has continuously attacked universities — especially Brown and its peers — for being liberal hegemons. When the public sees that Brown continues to face free speech controversies, they are likely to assume that their perspectives aren’t valued by our institution.
Beverly Gage, co-chair of the committee and a professor of history at Yale, explained that Yale’s study also considered the school’s peer institutions. Though Brown can rely on Yale’s report as a starting point, we are ultimately two different institutions with distinct goals — we have different approaches to undergraduate education, types of graduate programs and public images. Creating our own committee ensures that we can arrive at actionable recommendations specific to the unique nature of Brown. The University has made commendable efforts in recent years to address some of the most prevalent concerns in higher education, but the Yale report shows that our work is not finished. For the University to fulfill its mission in this landscape, we must demonstrate a clear commitment to addressing these concerns. This promise could be a win-all: graduates, administrators and faculty alike will benefit from a stronger public image, and the American public can trust that their tax dollars are going toward a research institution that shares their values.
Addressing these many concerns through one committee will signal a clear priority to confront the ongoing issues facing higher education. The committee’s report can also serve as a self-audit — since Brown has already shown intention toward these reforms, it can identify whether our current initiatives bring us closer to our goals and also point to areas that demand further policy change. If the concerns surrounding higher education are damaging Brown’s relationship with the public, our response to them should be organized comprehensively.
Editorials are written by The Herald’s editorial page board, and its views are separate from those of The Herald’s newsroom and the 136th 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.
