“It’s extortion, plain and simple,” said Paja Faudree, an anthropology and linguistics professor at Brown. “There will be no end to the demands he makes of our university, and of other universities. This compact violates all of our values as a community.”
The 10-point document was sent to Brown, the University of Texas, MIT, Dartmouth, the University of Arizona, Vanderbilt University, the University of Virginia, the University of Southern California, and the University of Pennsylvania. In addition to demands about tuition and admissions, it would limit university employees’ actions and speech related to societal and political events, commit to Trump’s definitions of gender, and includes requirements against political demonstrations that disrupt study locations or harass individual students or groups. The schools have until Nov. 21 to make to sign or reject the compact.
Though other universities said last week that their officials are reviewing the Trump administration’s proposal, Brown has yet to comment publicly on whether it will reject or sign the compact. Brown President Christina H. Paxson said this week during a faculty meeting that she plans to hear from members of the Brown community.
If Brown signed the compact, said Denise Davis, a gender and sexuality studies professor at Brown, “We’d become an instrument of the state.”
A protest Thursday was organized by Brown Rise Up, a group of faculty and students working to “resist authoritarianism in higher education,” according to sophomore Francisco Ramirez, one of the organizers.
“As the child of an immigrant, I have seen firsthand how systems use fear and policies to keep people silent and subservient,” said Ramirez. “This proposed compact is no different.”
Alex Shieh, a former student at Brown who recently dropped out to launch a private sector version of DOGE, said he supports a tuition freeze at Brown, which the compact requires.
“The fact that sky-high tuition at Brown has persisted for so long is why Americans no longer trust elite institutions to serve their interests,” Shieh told the Globe. “The compact promotes the fundamental American ideal of equality: equal access to education regardless of socioeconomic background, equal ability to voice one’s views, and equal opportunity to go to a top school irrespective of one’s race.”
But many higher education leaders and workers view the compact as a threat to academic freedom. On Thursday, Dartmouth professors and faculty members delivered a petition with more than 500 signatures to President Sian Leah Beilock calling on her not to sign the compact.
“In order to preserve the integrity of our academic mission, you must refuse all unlawful demands and political threats that would undermine our academic freedom and self-governance,” the petition read.
The compact would also require schools to abolish “institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”
Some Brown professors pointed out that they already welcome conservative viewpoints.
Encouraging all viewpoints is “critical discourse that is at the center of universities and colleges that are doing their job,” said Faudree, the Brown anthropology and linguistics professor. “I think all of that would be subject to some kind of vague, nebulous, unclear litmus test for whether or not it rose to the level of belittling conservative ideas or in any other way, silencing what this administration considers to be disprivileged voices.”
Some professors also worry the compact could chill open discussion on politically charged issues, such as climate change and gender identity.
J. Timmons Roberts, an environmental studies and sociology professor and director of the Climate and Development Lab at Brown, said if Brown was to sign the compact, he’s unsure he would be able to teach.
Climate change policies were not always partisan, said Roberts. In the 1990s, he said, both sides of the political aisle agreed that it was an important issue that needed to be addressed. Since then, “the Republican party turned into one that resisted action on climate change, and even denied the reality of the issue,” said Roberts.
“Who is deciding what’s ‘belittling?’” asked Roberts. “To be able to talk about energy and climate politics, you have to identify who’s saying what and what they’re doing. And I can’t do that if I’m worried about belittling conservative ideas if someone else decides what belittling means.”
Free speech advocates also raised alarms. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said while campus reform is necessary, the compact raised red flags, and could violate the First Amendment.
“Let’s be clear: Speech that offends or criticizes political views is not violence,” said Tyler Coward, FIRE’s lead counsel for government affairs, in a statement. “Conflating words with violence undermines both free speech and efforts to combat real threats.”
Signing this compact would “compromise the integrity of my lectures and conversations in all of my classes,” said Michael P. Steinberg, a history and music professor, who said he was also concerned about the restricting of international student enrollment. Last year, he taught a lecture on politics and psychology and had one student from Russia and another from Ukraine.
“They were both very vocal and wonderful students, and I think just the very presence of these two young men in the room and the fact they addressed each other with great rigor and respect, made a huge difference to the whole class,” said Steinberg. “Quality of dialogue, both inside and outside the classroom, really depends on having international students.”
Amanda Gokee of the Globe Staff contributed to this report from New Hampshire.