STATEMENTS

October 7, 2025

Statement Urging the University to Reject the Federal Government's “Compact”

Brown, along with eight other universities, has been presented with what the federal government is calling their “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” We have been told that failing to sign would jeopardize Brown’s federal funding. The “invitation” to participate in such a pact is the very definition of extortion: sacrifice your principles or face material consequences that will compromise your capacity to fulfill your mission. The day that Brown can no longer choose which faculty to hire, which students to admit, how much tuition is charged, and what standards are used to evaluate academic work is the day we cede the academic freedom at the heart of the university’s mission. Moreover, since the Faculty Rules and Regulations make clear that the faculty have charge of the curriculum at Brown, the university administration does not have the authority to make many of the changes demanded by the compact without a faculty vote. The Brown University Chapter of the AAUP joins the ACLU of Rhode Island, the American Council of Learned Societies, the national executive of the AAUP, and countless other organizations in urging Brown administrators not to betray the values expressed in its own policy statement by signing what amounts to an oath of loyalty to a bullying federal government.

The deal Brown signed with the federal government barely nine weeks ago already demanded serious compromises to academic freedom in the form of government intrusion into the intellectual life of the university, a course whose risks our AAUP chapter noted at the time. Rather than satisfy the government, that resolution agreement seems to have marked Brown as a target for further attempts at control. Compliance with this most recent set of threats would effect a further slide toward becoming the instrument of a state with little tolerance for the free exchange and expression of ideas and no respect for the mission of higher education.

The Trump government is touting what it calls viewpoint diversity, which will presumably be measured by party affiliation. Given recent government actions to suppress the expression of ideas with which it disagrees—such as the unconstitutional policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting noncitizen students and faculty members for political criticism; the use of military force against U.S. citizens and residents; and U.S. involvement in internationally recognized criminal acts—the demand for compliance can only be interpreted as an attempt to restrict freedom of speech to those who express government-approved views, defeating the very purpose of higher education as a whole. According to the compact, those on campus who criticize conservative ideas can be silenced through the transformation or abolishing of the institutional unit with which they are affiliated or risk jeopardizing the prize money promised to the university in exchange for its fealty. Similarly, this pact demands acquiescence to the government’s new definitions of domestic terrorism and terrorist organizations and an endorsement of their definition of women and men as biologically and reproductively determined categories. The only way to comply with these stipulations would be to entirely stifle free speech at Brown, violating not only academic freedom but also the First Amendment.

We cannot overstate the precarious position the university will find itself in should we agree once more to try and meet vaguely worded and possibly unconstitutional standards and rules. Brown has always been committed to following the law; however, it would be wrong to agree, under threat, to these new and arbitrary obligations of questionable legality. Agreeing would only leave us in constant fear of liability for the compact’s ill-defined offenses and of ensuing punishments that would severely damage our operations, not to speak of the integrity and autonomy of our mission. In signing this so-called invitation, Brown would be forfeiting academic and administrative control to a federal government that has shown itself hostile to scholarship, free speech, dissent, and truth.

We urge the Brown administration to preserve the university’s identity as a space for free and earnest inquiry and its ability to perform its vital education and research work, even while we recognize that the financial costs of doing so may be steep. We also implore the administration to seek direct and broad input from faculty in making decisions that stand to irrevocably shape the structure, function, and values of our institution. We urge our administration to collaborate with other institutions to sue for the restoration of unconstitutionally withheld funds, noting that both Harvard and the AAUP have successfully challenged similar instances of federal overreach.

While the material consequences of refusal may be significant, the alternative is far worse. Sacrificing our values and principles would irreparably damage the foundations upon which our university has been built. We must, together, find another way.

September 2, 2025

Statement on Brown’s Agreement with the Federal Government 

President Christina Paxson’s letter of July 31, 2025 on Brown’s agreement with the federal government assured members of our community that the university’s foremost priority was "remaining true to our academic mission” and “preserving our academic independence.” The Brown University chapter of the AAUP is committed to the rule of law, but it must be emphasized that both the government’s withholding of funds and the negotiation of this agreement occurred outside the legal system. Brown was never formally charged with breaking any law and this document addresses no legal policy. The document is, in the parlance of President Trump himself, a “deal,” and one made under enormous financial pressure, given the millions in research funds at stake. Brown University, faced with the power of the federal government, was forced to protect its financial interests at the expense of the principles that the University has long endorsed. While we are relieved to see many salaries and research funds restored, we note the following clause, written directly into the agreement: "nothing in this Agreement prevents the United States from conducting subsequent compliance reviews or investigations.”

President Paxson's letter claims that this agreement has made Brown “free from government intrusion,” but the letter also details instances of government intrusion that Brown has agreed to, such as mandatory campus climate surveys and visits from the Office for Civil Rights. Other forms of surveillance include the collection of complaints made to the Office for Equity Compliance and Reporting, allegations of discrimination in anonymous student evaluations of their professors, and admissions data, all of which will be “subjected to a comprehensive audit by the United States.” This information will almost certainly be used by off-campus groups to attack faculty as part of an effort to influence what is being taught at the university. On matters of sex and gender, the agreement accepts and thereby legitimates executive orders that are matters of ongoing legal challenge and debate. Hoping to avoid further “defunding and litigation,” the university has agreed to prove compliance by taking “appropriate action” and documenting its implementation for government review. These elements together amount to a blatant violation of academic freedom.

In addition, this agreement makes it easier for the federal government to continue its attacks on free speech. Given that Trump has a long record of antisemitism, it is clear that his abuse of the term “antisemitism” is simply a cover for dismantling diversity and inclusion initiatives. Such disingenuous uses of “protection" risk increasing, not mitigating, antisemitism. We are concerned that, by singling out one ethnic and religious group, the agreement does not address the rights of other religious, ethnic, and racial minorities, including non-U.S. citizens, who are vulnerable to discrimination and other civil rights violations. We therefore call upon the University to support with equal vigor and commitment the rights of all members of the Brown community.

Looking to the future, we would first like to see Brown’s administrators work with other universities rather than striking independent deals with the federal government. Second, given the importance of shared governance for the preservation of academic freedom, we expect to see faculty from all ranks and divisions included in major decisions that will have far-reaching consequences for our University. Third, we urge the University to work closely with faculty to discuss ways the University might seek greater financial independence through longer-term restructuring of its finances. To ensure that any future attempts to use federal funds to blackmail the university will not have such powerful leverage, core functions of the university should be funded by established sources of revenue. Fourth, we call for actions to protect faculty, students, and staff from outside surveillance as we teach and learn together. These are fundamental to remaining a genuinely independent university.