Christina Paxson has announced that she is stepping down as Brown’s president, and the Corporation has asked the Brown community for input on the search for a new leader. This is a crucial moment to tell the Corporation that we want a president who will vigorously defend Brown’s values and autonomy against the Trump administration’s ongoing authoritarian pressure. Please sign our open letter below!
(Signer names may be published online to help publicize our concerns).
Dear Members of the Brown Corporation,
As you embark on the important and difficult job of choosing Brown’s next president, we write to share our thoughts about the “qualities and characteristics of leadership the Brown community is seeking in our 20th president.” While the next leader of Brown will face numerous challenges, we view the Trump administration’s authoritarian attacks on academic freedom, free speech, and institutional autonomy as the single greatest issue facing not just Brown but all of higher education. We encourage you to seek a president who will tackle this issue head on, with courage and conviction.
As you know, during the past two years, the federal government has used grant cancellations, baseless investigations, and other coercive threats to pressure Brown and other schools into limiting student speech, withdrawing support from historically marginalized communities, and restricting what can be taught in the classroom. And despite acquiescence from Brown and other schools, these attacks have only grown in aggression and scope.
We believe that Brown needs a leader who will staunchly defend academic freedom, free expression, and institutional autonomy, even when doing so is costly. That person should be prepared to challenge unlawful government action in court, to work collectively with other universities rather than negotiate in isolation, and to protect members of the Brown community whose speech or identity makes them targets of political power.
In highlighting this concern, we urge a departure from the accommodation that has often marked President Paxson’s tenure. Even before the Trump administration’s pressure campaign, President Paxson restricted the kind of dissent and dialogue central to Brown’s culture, most notably in her decision to press criminal charges against student protestors in 2023. Of even greater concern is the July 2025 settlement with the Trump administration, in which Brown agreed to a number of the administration’s ideological priorities and validated the government’s use of unrelated research funding to obtain university policy changes.
This settlement looks especially troubling as we watch other universities and organizations successfully fight back. Harvard overturned a similar funding freeze in court, while plaintiffs defending the University of California secured an injunction against the government’s use of funding threats to impose ideological conditions. Recent whistleblower allegations further suggest that Brown had a strong case, given that federal investigators reportedly found no evidence of a Title VI violation.
We recognize that President Paxson has taken a stand when authoritarian overreach was so egregious that she had no other choice, most notably rejecting the Trump administration’s so-called “Compact for Excellence in Higher Education.” And, under her leadership, Brown has joined some multi-university lawsuits against the Trump administration. But Brown’s response at several of the most consequential moments has been capitulation rather than resistance. The result has been bad for Brown, and bad for the country.
As you undertake the presidential search, our greatest concern is that this pattern of accommodation may become a guiding principle in selecting Brown’s next president. We fear the Corporation will favor a candidate who is viewed as acceptable by the current administration and who promises to keep federal funding flowing, regardless of the cost to Brown’s values and independence.
We do not underestimate the risks involved in choosing a president who will take a stronger stance against federal attacks. Resistance may jeopardize funding, invite retaliation, and require difficult financial choices. But the alternative carries a greater risk: that universities will gradually surrender their independence, one ostensibly prudent compromise at a time. Institutions such as Brown exist in part to preserve the conditions in which knowledge can be pursued and authority can be questioned. If Brown won’t defend those conditions during a period of democratic erosion, who will?
The selection of Brown’s twentieth president is more than a leadership transition. It is a decision about what kind of institution Brown will be in a period of profound national uncertainty. We need a courageous president with the moral clarity to defend dissent, due process, and the rule of law, regardless of which party holds power. We ask you to make those qualities central to every stage of the search.