In April, the editorial page board called on the University to task a committee with examining Brown’s relationship with the United States, inspired by Yale’s “Report of the Committee on Trust in Higher Education.” We commended Yale for its report and public commitment to strengthening trust and transparency between Yale and the public.
On Aug. 3, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon released an open letter titled “A National Call to Action to University Presidents and Governing Boards.” She called on America’s postsecondary institutions to restate their commitment to the American public, inspired by the issues Yale’s report had “boldly acknowledged.” But instead of urging schools to commission their own reports, she asked that every school publish answers to seven questions about its academic and institutional values. In a report to the faculty earlier this month, President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 discussed the potential of a response to the call to action. Given how many times the Trump administration has attempted to interfere in Brown’s affairs in the past, the prospect of heeding the Trump administration now is far from enticing. The University needs to demonstrate its interest in fixing public trust on its own — not because of the Trump administration.
McMahon’s letter does point to a real problem: Public trust in higher education is abysmal. A June Gallup survey found that just 38% of respondents reported “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in U.S. higher education, up a measly two points from a historic low of 36% in 2024. Yale’s report found that the high cost of tuition, controversial admissions practices and concerns about free speech on campus drive the public’s unfavorable view of higher education. Brown is no stranger to these issues. This year, the full cost of attendance reached nearly $100,000, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression gave Brown a “D” in free speech. To say the least, we are not exactly inspired by the University’s current reputation in America. The relationship between Brown and the public cannot be strengthened unless the University addresses these concerns.
But by addressing these issues through the government’s framework, Brown risks becoming tethered to its demands, again. In April 2025, the Trump administration threatened to freeze $510 million in University funding and would not back down until we agreed to several of its demands. A few months later, having identified Brown as a “good actor,” the administration approached us to join the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” The compact went beyond the previous settlement, and Paxson rightfully rejected it. It is evident that the University’s initial agreement emboldened the Trump administration to further push its agenda at Brown. Entering into further discussion with the federal government will once again put us in a position where the White House feels entitled to influence our policies.
Unlike the compact, McMahon’s letter does not promise any preferential treatment to universities. But an anonymous White House official told Bloomberg that institutions that comply with the call could be more likely to be included in conversations about the apportionment of the federal government’s research funding. The Trump administration is, once again, dealing in a currency of favors to bully higher education into submission. By choosing to submit, we may be rewarded with preferential treatment, but we will have also affirmed a public commitment to the administration’s goals. They turned such a commitment against us last year — what is to say they will not do the same here?
Brown is already taking steps to begin addressing some of its most pressing issues. In her statement of goals for the 2026–27 academic year, Paxson prioritized Brown’s effort to incorporate student and faculty perspectives in the Statement of University Values and Voice, which guides the University’s expression of social and political issues, and the Discovery Through Dialogue project, which aims to improve Brown’s culture of free speech. Though it might take longer than simply writing up a response to the Education Department’s questions, gathering input from across the University community is essential to forming a response based on Brown’s values and its needs. Other issues raised by the call to action — like academic standards in the age of artificial intelligence and tuition transparency — certainly warrant University attention. But without taking the time to evaluate the state of these issues in the context of its mission, Brown cannot formulate a productive path forward.
When it comes to building trust between the University and the public, responding to the Trump administration’s demands would be detrimental. The answer to a public that has soured on academia is not embellishing our website with the answers to a few questions posed by the federal government. A recent Reuters poll placed Trump’s approval rating at a remarkable 32%, making this presidency one of the few things Americans actually dislike more than higher education. Any change that Brown makes to improve its public standing must come from a genuine internal movement, not because of a letter from an increasingly unpopular administration.
On Nov. 6, the University plans to hold a faculty town hall to discuss Brown’s response to the call to action. It may be tempting to simply ignore the federal government’s constant attacks on higher education altogether. But we still have room to improve on our commitment to a strong relationship with the public. We encourage the faculty and administration to keep this in mind going into next week’s town hall.
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 editorial to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
