Brown University recently signed a deal with the U.S. government, agreeing to pay $50 million to get its federal funding restored. This deal comes with several significant concessions that the university previously opposed.

Key Takeaways:

• Brown University paid $50 million and agreed to end its government investigation problems.
• The school gave up its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, particularly in its admissions policies.
• Brown agreed to specific changes regarding transgender students, defining gender based on sex assigned at birth, and stopping particular medical care for minors.
• The deal included special promises to support Jewish students and combat anti-Israel views on campus.
• Critics argue the agreement forces universities to bend to the government’s will, even after the deal ends, and that these schools prioritize money over principles, betraying students, faculty, and staff who rely on them.

The Big Deal: Brown Sells Out for Cash

In July, Brown University made a significant deal. They promised $50 million to the Trump administration in exchange for having the government stop investigating them and give back funding they had lost because of political actions. It’s a familiar story now at universities across the country, but Brown’s agreement has drawn significant criticism.

More Than Just Money: Ending DEI Programs

This agreement wasn’t just about money; it forced Brown University to do some particular things the school had previously opposed. In return for the $50 million and the promise of restored funding, Brown agreed to:

• Drop DEI Efforts: End giving special consideration to students based on race or income in admissions. This means undoing programs aimed at helping Black, Hispanic, and low-income students. It’s like removing affirmative action from the admissions process.
• Transgender Students: Change policies regarding transgender students. Brown decided that “male” and “female” must be defined strictly according to sex assigned at birth. This meant agreeing not to provide gender reassignment surgery or puberty blockers, or hormones to minors who want them for gender transition. Critics say this is a direct attack on trans students’ healthcare.
• Special Promises to Jewish Students: The agreement also included a long section about supporting Jewish students and fighting antisemitism specifically. Brown promised to strengthen its Jewish studies program, partner with Israeli academics, provide support for Jewish student groups, and even host a big event celebrating Jewish life on campus. This focus on Jewish students, critics point out, mirrors demands previously made regarding racial minorities but now benefits a different group.

It’s All About Power and Appeasement

People who follow these events say the agreements like Brown’s are just a way for universities to appease the government. The money involved is enormous, but critics see it as a sign that universities believe the government can dictate their policies.

The Legal Stuff? Mostly Just More Worries

You might think signing this big agreement gives Brown a lot of legal protection. But critics argue it does the opposite. The agreement explicitly says the government can still investigate, review, and even sue Brown in the future for its admissions policies, even if it happens after the deal. It’s like the government is saying, “We’ll play nice for now, but we can come back and criticize you anytime.” This means universities can’t count on the agreement to protect them from future government actions. If the government decides to punish Brown again, they might find another excuse.

Universities Don’t Have Strong Beliefs Anymore

This whole situation makes people wonder what higher education stands for. Critics suggest these agreements prove universities are primarily focused on their survival and money, rather than having strong, guiding principles. These schools, once seen as bastions of liberal values, are now seen as willing to change their positions drastically, even on core issues like diversity and LGBTQ+ rights, to keep funding. They are accused of valuing their financial and political safety much more than upholding their stated educational ideals. Critics argue these schools are essentially non-ideological players in an ideological fight, making them easy targets for the government’s changing agenda.

Why This Matters

These agreements raise fundamental questions about universities’ independence and their commitment to principles like free speech and diversity for all students. Critics fear that by agreeing to these deals now, universities might find it harder to resist future demands, potentially opening the door for more restrictions in other areas. The sight of prestigious Ivy League universities making concessions often derided by conservative groups is deeply troubling for many, who see it as a betrayal of core academic values.

These agreements highlight a clash between institutions claiming to uphold certain standards and a government demanding compliance with specific political priorities. The long-term impact could be a weakened higher education landscape, potentially eroding trust and core missions.