Yes. The agreement affirms that the government does not have the authority to dictate teaching, learning or academic speech in the following critical provision: “No provision of this agreement, individually or taken together, shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate Brown’s curriculum or the content of academic speech.”

There is no change to Brown’s enduring academic independence and, through this agreement, we were committed to protecting academic freedom — the ability of our faculty and students to study, research and learn academic subjects of their choosing, free from censorship. Scholars will continue to shape their own research and course of instruction at Brown as the University continues to uphold the bedrock principles of academic freedom as essential for challenging and testing ideas to promote new paths of learning and discovery. 

No. The agreement does not include any requirements to change any academic programming or academic units, or establish any monitoring of any academic programs or curriculum that appear in agreements developed by the federal government with other higher education institutions. While the agreement commits the University to reporting data and updates on some provisions to the federal government, no independent monitor has any oversight role. 

No. The agreement preserves the ability of our faculty and students to study, research and learn academic subjects of their choosing, free from government intrusion and censorship. As noted in other responses in these FAQs, the agreement specifically states that "no provision of this Agreement, individually or taken together, shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate Brown’s curriculum or the content of academic speech." 

No. The agreement places no limits on the ability of Brown scholars to conduct research on topics of their choosing. One principle that is core to research at Brown is the ability for scholars to explore and discuss contested topics and themes, and to have those topics openly debated. This remains unchanged. The agreement sustains what is defined in Brown's Statement of University Values and Voice as "the freedom to investigate and learn without interference or censorship" and the academic freedom "necessary for the production of knowledge and understanding." 

A lot was at stake if Brown had not reached an agreement. A federal funding freeze that began in April 2025 posed enormous challenges for Brown’s research mission and financial sustainability, and if left unaddressed, would have undermined our ability to conduct life-saving research and to offer our students a world-class education, while also costing hundreds of employees their jobs. The resolution agreement reinstated payments for active research grants from the National Institutes of Health (which make up 70% of Brown’s research portfolio) and restored Brown's ability to compete for new federal grants and contracts, while also meeting the core imperative of preserving the ability for Brown’s students and scholars — both domestic and international — to teach and learn without government intrusion into our core academic mission. 

Embarking upon this agreement was not an easy decision for Brown, but Brown’s commitment to preserving academic freedom and freedom of expression has never wavered. As noted elsewhere in these FAQs, a major aspect of the agreement is that it explicitly states that the federal government will not interfere in what we teach and study at Brown and what views members of our community can express. 

No. The resolution agreement evolved as Brown was engaged in ongoing interactions with the government relating to two federal agency reviews of the University's compliance with laws prohibiting discrimination in undergraduate admissions and a third, separate review of all Brown departments and programs targeting alleged shared ancestry discrimination. The agreement resolves those reviews with no finding of wrongdoing and no fees or other violations imposed. At the same time, the agreement restores essential funding and safeguards Brown’s ability to sustain the core principles fundamental to its academic mission.

The resolution agreement commits the government to permanently close “any and all pending investigations or compliance reviews” of Brown, and releases claims relating to those reviews, meaning that any future investigations or reviews would not look back at Brown’s actions preceding the execution of the agreement. This was an important step that ended three open reviews that had been initiated or expanded by the federal government in recent months, while at the same time restoring funding for the University's federally sponsored medical and health sciences research.

The government retains the prerogative to open new compliance reviews or other enforcement actions targeting Brown’s actions occurring entirely after the effective date of the agreement, as with any university at any time. However, our belief is that the resolution agreement will enable Brown to move forward after a period of considerable uncertainty.

There were non-negotiable red lines that Brown would not cross for the current federal agreement, and these are the same red lines that Brown will not cross to resolve any future action the government might pursue. While continuing to comply with federal antidiscrimination laws, we would not and will not accept any terms that dictate the content of our curriculum; anything that dictates the topics students and faculty can study; anything that dictates who we can and cannot admit to or employ at Brown; or anything that would cede Brown’s governance authority to the federal government. These are core aspects of Brown’s academic freedom and institutional autonomy that we will not compromise. 

The agreement specifies that student course evaluations “will be regularly reviewed to identify any reports of antisemitism, which will be promptly referred to [Brown’s Office of Equity Compliance and Reporting] for appropriate action.” This provision aligns with Brown’s existing obligations under the Nondiscrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy and applicable law and does not reflect any additional government oversight of course material or curriculum.

Neither course evaluations nor the reporting of discrimination or harassment should inhibit or restrict free expression or the free exchange of ideas. Unless speech or expression rises to the level of discrimination or harassment (as defined in the policy noted above and reinforced in our annual training module), it is not subject to discipline and is protected by the University’s statement on academic freedom. 

Course evaluations will continue to be reviewed at the department or program level. This remains unchanged by the agreement. Academic department chairs or their designees continue to review course feedback to improve the curriculum, support teaching improvement, and nominate instructors for Brown teaching awards. The instructions for Brown’s course feedback form (available on the website for the College) clearly indicate that it is not intended as a tool to report misconduct, and the instructions direct students to use dedicated reporting tools for that purpose. 

However, reflecting the strength of Brown’s commitment to preventing and remedying discrimination and harassment, if an evaluation includes a potential report of harassment or discrimination based on a protected class, the report must be promptly referred to the Office of Equity Compliance and Reporting (OECR). Likewise, comments that could be discriminatory or harassing toward the instructor are also reported to OECR. Additional information is available on the Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning’s Interpretation of Course Feedback webpage, and the University will update other academic program webpages and resources (those that offer guidance on course evaluations) as needed to align with these instructions. 

All reports of discrimination and harassment — including, but not limited to, those related to antisemitism — are addressed as described in responses to questions provided in a separate federal agreement FAQ on Title VI, Nondiscrimination and “DEI.” The data Brown is obligated to report to the federal government under this agreement continues the requirements of the agreement Brown entered into in 2024 with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights — namely, requiring data regarding reports of national origin discrimination, including shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics, and Brown’s response to those reports, omitting personally identifiable information. 

No. Brown’s resolution agreement places no limits on the ability of our faculty and students to study, research and learn academic subjects of their choosing, free from censorship. Brown’s normal faculty governance processes for review and approving academic courses remain unchanged, and Brown does not and will not ask instructors to change their courses for non-academic reasons.

We recognize that in a national climate characterized by increasing polarization and partisanship, some subjects continue to attract new levels of scrutiny at colleges and universities across the country, whether from elected officials, interest groups or individual community members. Brown will continue to be an advocate for the right of students and faculty to engage freely in teaching, research and scholarship. 

Brown has established a Research Resilience Fund to provide small grants to our faculty through the Division of Research, with priority consideration for research in areas that the federal government has discouraged its funding agencies from supporting. This fund will support research spanning all disciplines and will address grant terminations outside the National Institutes of Health, which were not covered by Brown’s federal agreement, including from such agencies as the National Endowment for the Humanities.

No. The agreement does not in any way affect what Brown faculty or students can research, teach or learn about any topic, including those related to gender, gender identity, gender expression or gender-affirming care. It does not affect any training in the Warren Alpert Medical School. The agreement also applies only to Brown and does not apply to any hospital system or physician practice, as no hospital system or physician practice in Rhode Island or elsewhere is owned by the University. 

No, with few exceptions. The language of the agreement applies to the curriculum and “academic speech” — i.e., speech in the context of teaching, learning, or scholarship.  The agreement does not apply to staff whose work supporting administrative or business operations advances unit-level and University priorities and is conducted under the direction of supervisors. In some cases, staff may be charged with conducting independent research, or independently developing and/or teaching a course in an area aligned with their scholarly expertise, and these activities may fall within this provision of the agreement. In addition, staff who take Brown courses are regarded as engaging in academic speech in their role as students.

All Brown employees who fulfill the qualifications and obligations of the University’s Employee Defense and Indemnification Policy are eligible to receive the protection of a University-provided defense and indemnification for legal actions against them for duties performed in their University administrative role. Please consult the Policy for more details about the conditions and process for defense and indemnification and please contact the Office of General Counsel if you have any questions about whether the Policy applies to you.

The individual “voice” of faculty and students is well established as being separate and distinct from the institutional voice of the University. However, given that the opinions and statements of Brown staff members are generally interpreted as Brown’s position on an issue,  individuals serving in administrative roles may not be able to make statements in a private capacity separate from that role at Brown. Section 3.4 of Brown’s Public Statements Policy offers guidance on how statements from individuals in other roles at Brown can be made in a private capacity. 

Yes, as long as the protest abides by time, place, and manner conditions specified in Brown’s Protest and Demonstration Policy. Protest and demonstration cannot obstruct the basic exchange of ideas, nor disrupt or materially interfere with the normal functions of the University. 

No, the federal government cannot determine which students Brown can admit. For all colleges and universities nationwide, including Brown, the federal government continues to maintain oversight of universities’ compliance with federal antidiscrimination law, including in admissions processes. This remains unchanged by the agreement. All universities have an obligation to comply with the June 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which prohibits universities from making individual admission decisions based on race. The provision in the federal agreement prohibiting Brown from using any mechanism in its admissions process that would use race, color or national origin “to introduce or justify discrimination” aligns with existing law. 

Brown has consistently complied with the law in its admissions processes, and will continue to do so. This is not new. The agreement specifies that Brown must “maintain merit-based admissions policies.” Racial preferences in admissions — and proxies for race-based admissions — are prohibited, and Brown also is prohibited from using various admissions tools “as a means to introduce or justify discrimination.” 

Further, the agreement requires Brown to provide the government with admissions data consistent with the data the government is currently authorized to access under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This includes sharing anonymized data of “applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students broken down by race, color, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests, in a form permitting appropriate statistical analysis by October 1 of each year” of the three-year period of the agreement. Brown is also required to make publicly available non-individualized statistical information regarding admissions each year for the duration of the agreement. 

The expanded set of data is information the federal government is already entitled to request and receive from Brown or any other university as part of compliance with Title VI (the law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin), though it will mark a shift in the level of information Brown provides separate from an ongoing government review. We expect that colleges and universities across the country will be asked to provide similar data in the years ahead.

Members of Brown’s senior administration have initiated discussions with the Office of Admission, Office of Institutional Research and Office of General Counsel to work through questions about any changes that may be necessary as the University ensures its full compliance with the agreement. The University will provide additional details to the Brown community as leaders make decisions related to implementation. 

We expect the data provisions of the resolution agreement to allow us to demonstrate the strong academic qualifications of the classes we admit while remaining committed to welcoming students with a wide range of ideas, perspectives and experiences.