For years, my mission as an English teacher was defined by a main objective: getting every one of my students college-ready. California’s A-G academic requirements were drilled into our freshman students on day one. Take the classes, get the grade, and go to college. I viewed a university degree as the non-negotiable ticket to a financially secure life. It pains me to think about how I rarely encouraged trade schools, apprenticeships, or even just working your way up in a company, rather than going to college. The current educational landscape has forced a significant pivot in my philosophy over the last 5 years. My focus shifted towards ensuring that young people are career-ready, rather than college-ready. The reality is that college is no longer the optimal path for everyone, particularly given the skyrocketing costs and increasingly left-leaning monoculture on most campuses.
I recently attended a webinar that highlighted these tensions, featuring Brown University president Christina Paxson and Frederick Hess from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a prominent center-right think tank known for its focus on maintaining American liberty, democracy and for advocating free enterprise. The conversation struck me as a rare moment of honesty, especially surprising considering Paxson is the leader of such a left-leaning university. While I may not agree with everything she said, I applaud the transparency and willingness to discuss these issues publicly.
Paxson began by acknowledging that public trust in education has lowered significantly over the last decade. Recent Gallup data from 2025 shows a modest reversal, with confidence in higher education rising to 42% after hitting a record low of 36% in 2023 and 2024. Despite this slight uptick, trust remains far below the 57% level seen in 2015. Paxson attributed this long-term decline to two things I have been worried about for years: the high cost of attendance, and concerns over indoctrination, particularly left-wing.
First, some context on the cost of attending college these days, using Brown as an example. The sticker price to attend Brown has reached $97,000 a year for tuition, room, and board. Paxson defended this by arguing that, adjusted for inflation, the cost has actually remained flat or declined for many due to financial aid. She even claimed that attending Brown can be more affordable than a state school. This is a claim that many middle-class families (the ones who don’t qualify for the “free” ride but aren’t wealthy enough to drop six figures) find very hard to believe.
Speaking of money, in July 2025, Brown University reached a significant settlement with the Trump administration to restore $510 million in federal research funding that had been frozen due to concerns over DEI programs and alleged antisemitism. This funding freeze was driven by federal investigations into reports that the university allowed a hostile antisemitic environment to continue.
In 2024, there were pro-Palestinian protests at the Warren Alpert Medical School, and an unauthorized encampment was allowed to remain on campus for weeks. The university was accused of negotiating with activists rather than protecting Jewish students. As part of the settlement agreement, Brown University agreed to stop programs that promoted race-based outcomes in favor of strict merit-based admissions. They also committed to adopting a binary definition of sex for athletic programs and housing, meaning no biological males in women’s sports and bathrooms. Paxson noted her support for transparency so the public can see that money is being used for real research rather than “administrative bloat.” It’s amazing how quickly “institutional values” can shift when half a billion dollars is on the line.
On the topic of indoctrination, Paxson cited a 2026 Gallup-Lumina poll that found only 2% of students felt unwelcome on campus because of their political beliefs. That number was only 3% for Republican students. She used this to argue that the hostile environment narrative is a public perception issue rather than a student reality. However, organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have found the opposite to be true.
The Gallup survey Paxson referenced focused on a general sense of belonging, which is not the same as the freedom to speak.
According to the FIRE report, after surveying nearly 300,000 students, a significant number self-censor on controversial topics. The data shows that self-censorship falls disproportionately on the right, with 34% of Republican students reporting they stay silent compared to 15% of Democrats.
Frederick Hess further countered Paxson’s optimism, claiming studies of humanities and social science syllabi show that conservative books are assigned only 10 percent of the time. I could not find a source to verify this stat that Hess mentioned. Still, it does align with broader data showing that conservative Humanities and Social Science college professors have dwindled to the single digits. To address this disparity, Paxson argued that faculty will “naturally evolve” to include more diverse perspectives, sharing an example of a professor who added women writers to his syllabi after 30 years.
I find it difficult to share her optimism. If it takes three decades to add a female author, how long will it take a heavily left-leaning faculty to incorporate more conservative scholars voluntarily?
The discussion also touched on grade inflation and the fact that Brown no longer includes GPAs on transcripts to “discourage competition.” Paxson dismissed the issue by retorting that employers often do not look at transcripts. Think about that logic. If the actual grades don’t matter and the employers aren’t looking at the academic record, it reinforces the idea that the traditional rigor of college is becoming secondary to the credential itself. We are moving toward a system where you pay for the name on the diploma, not the knowledge in your head.
Finally, they discussed institutional neutrality. Brown will no longer take official positions on social movements like Black Lives Matter unless the issue directly relates to higher education. Paxson argued that when an institution makes a political statement, it effectively shuts down diverse thought by signaling which opinions are “correct.” The cynic in me can’t help but notice she took this position now, after facing the reality her university losing $500 million if it continues to take one side on intensely polarizing and sensitive social issues.
Nevertheless, it’s a step in the right direction.
Generally, Paxson sounded like a leader who is finally embracing change. She hasn’t solved all of the problems in America’s universities today, not by far, but taking her comments at face value, she seems to argue that she would rather keep the university a safe space for all viewpoints, rather than a far-left echo chamber. I can respect that. And to be fair, there have been some actions to back these words, even if I would like to see more. If this trend of merit-based admissions and political neutrality continues, I may recommend colleges to my students again more enthusiastically. And surprisingly, that list might just include Brown University, even if it took the threat of financial loss to get them there.
