Op Ed: If a Nonconforming Tree Falls at Brown, Does Anyone Hear It

Kenneth Miller, professor emeritus of Biology and a member of the Class of 1970, has always been known for his rational, even-headed approach to science and world issues – often contrary to Brown’s usual far-left view. He is a true unicorn in Brown’s world. Given recent headlines, he fully understood what was at stake as most of his research was supported by federal funding for more than two decades. Initially, he was an outspoken voice in opposing what most of his peers argued was an overreach by the federal government under the guise of protecting Jewish rights on campus.

So it was with some surprise, given his long commitment to the sciences, that he wrote a letter in the Brown Daily Herald under the title “What if Brown Just Says No.” The key question he asked us to consider was “If not us, then who? Who will stand up and decry the unlawful tactic that holds scientific research hostage for political purposes, seeks to rob American universities of their independence, and crush dissent and independent thought?” (This powerful call to action was used by John Lewis, the youngest speaker at the 1963 March on Washington, who served for 30 years in Congress and helped shape civil rights in America for decades.)

Unlike many of his peers, Miller has the legitimate “chops” to raise this issue, previously opining on the political aspect of science denial, noting that people deny scientific facts on both sides of the political spectrum. “Why is it that depicting yourself as anti-science has become a viable political strategy? Science is powerful. Science can be misused by people on the right and people on the left.”

Miller has argued that on the left, some politicians use scientific denial to justify imposing regulation, while on the right, some use it to support opposing regulation. For example, despite overwhelming evidence that GMOs are not harmful to humans, those to the left of the political spectrum call for a ban or regulation of them. Those on the right use a similar denial tactic regarding climate change, despite extensive evidence proving its existence.

The government’s key issues are federal leverage via funding controls, a shift in how federal funding can be used as leverage to enforce policy changes – especially related to campus speech, admissions data transparency, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) removal and threats to academic freedom requiring universities to adopt specific policy definitions (e.g., IHRA) and curtail DEI programs potentially stifling academic and political discourse. Critics argue such measures prioritize ideological conformity over independent scholarship.

Brown was among the first to settle. And, it would appear under terms that are significantly better than their peers. When the deal was announced, Miller was asked by his friends and colleagues about his thoughts. “My preferred outcome would have been for Brown to hold up a defiant middle finger and take this rogue administration to court, standing with every other college and university with the guts to stand up for principles of academic freedom. Well, that’s not exactly what happened. But I’m still proud of how Brown handled the threat. President Paxson has a university to run, and one of her core responsibilities is to preserve the research functions of that university, particularly the life sciences.”

Many students and alumni feel Brown may have lost its way by agreeing to the settlement, even though it was relatively favorable to the university. But let’s look at it from the point of view of Providence residents. Under the deal, Brown will pay $50 million in grants over 10 years to Rhode Island workforce development organizations. Presumably, the Providence/Cranston Workforce Development Board, which was established in 2014 and is overseen by the city, will be the key beneficiary. Brown will continue to move forward without supervision by a “monitor” and without making any other payments.

The future of our city will depend in large part on Brown’s continued success. Probably the best news is that the university is selling 20 properties, which are assessed at $23,627,800. Getting these properties back on the tax roll will add a much-needed $830,000 to the city’s coffers and potentially even more.