A memo from Brown’s diversity oversight board calls on Brown for transparency and public engagement on its reinstatement of test-mandatory policy, demographic data from admissions and anti-discrimination policies.
The memo, written by the University’s Diversity, Inclusion and Oversight board, also highlighted national threats to diversity efforts and was released Monday night, alongside a response from President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 and Provost Francis Doyle.
Since its formation eight years ago, the DIOB has served to provide accountability for and oversee Brown's implementation of its Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan goals. The board is made up of 10 faculty and staff, as well as four students and three ex-officio members. Vice President for Institutional Equity and Diversity Sylvia Carey-Butler and Associate Professor of Religious Studies Andre Willis chair the committee. The memo summarized campus-wide progress on the DIAP since May 2022.
The memo criticized a lack of “ongoing conversations as a way to care for and reduce the collective fears of our community,” listing three “recent noticeable silences” from the administration regarding the reinstatement of mandatory standardized testing in applications, the Supreme Court decision to strike down race-based admissions policies and the campus conflict surrounding the war in Israel and Palestine.
Last March, Brown announced that it would require standardized test scores for most applicants, beginning with the class of 2029 — a decision by the closed Ad Hoc Committee on Admissions Policies, which reevaluated existing test-optional policy for more than half a year.
The DIOB defined the SAT as “a tool proven to be discriminatory.” The board argued that a conversation with the Brown community to accompany the Ad Hoc Committee’s deliberations would be more reflective of DIAP values.
“Why there was no public conversation about reinstating the SAT is puzzling, particularly in light of the highly collegial and reflective nature of Brown as an institution,” the memo read.
Paxson and Doyle acknowledged the evidence for a correlation between test scores and socioeconomic background, expressing hopes that the Office of Admission could mitigate disparities by contextualizing test scores with a student’s background. They also stated that a lack of a score may harm a student’s application, while particularly strong testing might offer a boost.
“We will take to heart your advice that one or more open forums, or additional targeted outreach, would have been valuable,” their response read. “We will continue to evaluate this decision, along with all of our admissions practices, as the full impact of the U.S. Supreme Court decision banning the consideration of race in admissions becomes clearer.”
The DIOB also alleged a similar lack of transparency around recent admissions data concerning the race and ethnicity of admitted students following the end of affirmative action. The memo claimed that keeping that data in a “black box” raised anxiety and suspicions on campus.
According to Paxson and Doyle, Brown admissions made matriculation information available earlier this year due to “intense interest.” Typically, such data would be released in October. The response also noted “new protocols that followed from the Supreme Court ruling” restricting the sharing of admissions-related data until “the entire admissions process, including any waitlist activity, was concluded.”
The absence of community discussions addressing campus conflict relating to the Israel-Hamas war also left faculty and students “in the dark,” the DIOB wrote. In light of a sharp increase in Title VI complaints, DIOB members wondered how Title VI considerations would impact DEI activities at Brown.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color and nationality in programs receiving federal financial assistance.
“The links between (DIAP) and anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Arab, anti-Middle Eastern as well as anti-Palestinian sentiments have not, to our knowledge, been addressed in public,” the memo read.
The DIOB also warned Brown’s administration that “the broader US climate on diversity and inclusion could eviscerate Brown’s commitment to the principles of DIAP.”
“The attacks on the grammar and substance of the phrase ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ have resulted in institutions reneging on their previous commitments to engage in the discourse of diversity,” the DIOB wrote. “Further, the threat of legal action looms over efforts to create communities that are broadly diverse and effectively inclusive.”
The president and provost’s response acknowledged growing pressure on higher education institutions “to suppress free speech and open discourse to advance specific political ends.” It reiterated Brown’s inclusion policy, which states that all students are accepted due to “their enormous potential as scholars and leaders” and deserve equal opportunities at Brown, as well as the University’s commitment to academic freedom.
In response to the DIOB’s warning that Brown’s principles of diversity and inclusion may falter, Paxson and Doyle wrote that the University “simply can’t and would not allow this to happen.”
The memo also commended three initiatives that furthered diversity and inclusion at Brown in the past few years. These included the Sheridan Center’s Equitable Learning Inquiry, the Pre-College and Undergraduate Programs’ efforts to enroll more students from Providence public schools and low-income backgrounds and the University’s efforts to amend “disparities in the racial background” of Meiklejohn Peer Advisors.
Paxson and Doyle agreed, writing that the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity contributed to the success of these initiatives. Brown must “consider what the next strategic vision for diversity and inclusion should be” after 10 years of the DIAP, they added, pointing to the University’s search for a new VP for institutional equity and diversity.
The DIOB memo ended with a call to preserve the DIAP’s guiding principles by amending future diversity and inclusion plans. They recommended the University create space for community dialogue, set new DEI goals and commit to “leading the national conversation.”
“Brown University casts a long shadow,” the memo read. “Its legacy demands that our expert faculty and top administrators take a leadership role in the national debate on these issues.”
Additional reporting by Ryan Doherty.
Correction: A previous version of this article said Brown's DIOB was tasked with implementing the DIAP. That responsibility belongs to the OIED, not the DIOB. The Herald regrets the error.
Anisha Kumar is a section editor covering University Hall. She is a junior from Menlo Park, California concentrating in English and Political Science who loves speed-crosswording and rewatching sitcoms.
