Brown Redefines Diversity: From Selection Criteria to Support System
Benjamin Marcus
In 2016, Brown released a Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) intended to reshape the language of hiring and admissions at the University. This plan encouraged departments to consider applicants based on “diversity related experience” and to expand the composition of historically underrepresented groups across the University. Over the next decade, those goals shaped faculty searches, student recruitment, and promotion reviews.
Documents from 2024 and 2025 show that Brown is now drawing this program to a close, separating its commitment to diversity from the process of evaluating individual candidates. This change re-centers academic merit as the deciding factor in hiring and admissions decisions while treating diversity as a value to be cultivated once students and faculty are already on campus.
The University’s course correction reflects a national moment. After the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on race-conscious admissions, institutions have faced pressure to demonstrate that their processes are both equitable and compliant with civil rights law. In Brown’s case, formalizing merit-based evaluation while maintaining post-selection support offers one model for reconciling those demands.
In August 2024, the Diversity and Inclusion Oversight Board (DIOB), tasked with progressing goals set forth in the DIAP, cautioned in a memo addressed to President Christina Paxson that “the broader U.S. climate on diversity and inclusion could eviscerate Brown’s commitment” to the plan. The Board cited the reinstatement of standardized testing as evidence of changing priorities, describing the SAT as “a tool proven to be discriminatory” and criticizing the decision for taking place “without public conversation.”
The University’s response marked a decisive change in tone. President Paxson argued that standardized tests, when interpreted “in the context of a student’s background and record,” could “serve to redress some disadvantages” and that strong results from those at under-resourced schools “may actually serve to demonstrate [a student’s] ability to succeed at Brown.”
The 2025 correspondence between the DIOB and the administration makes Brown’s shift away from DEI-based assessment practices unmistakable. In its final memorandum, the DIOB noted that the DIAP had been conceived as a ten-year plan and that “it is time to move forward.” Shortly after that memo, on July 30, 2025, Brown signed a federal resolution agreement that restored research funding and permanently closed all pending federal investigations and compliance reviews related to its compliance with anti-discrimination laws, including Title VI’s prohibitions on discrimination in undergraduate admissions and hiring.
In its subsequent response to the DIOB, the University articulated its new direction within the legal requirements of the federal agreement. The response stated that the University’s commitment to cultivating a diverse community “operates in tandem with our commitment to comply with legal prohibitions against discrimination and harassment reflected in federal laws and the resolution agreement.” Additionally, the response pointed to Section 3.3 of the University’s Nondiscrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy, which “makes clear that we implement our educational and employment decisions without regard to any protected characteristic and that our programs and operations are open to all and advertised as such.” Together, these statements show that Brown’s post-DIAP framework is being shaped by both internal priorities and binding federal obligations.
President Paxson’s October 2, 2025 message to the community confirmed the end of the DIOB’s work and the DIAP era. This announcement outlined the creation of a new Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity and Inclusion, composed of faculty, staff and students, that would develop recommendations for a replacement framework by May 2026. The creation of this new committee signals that Brown intends to maintain diversity as an institutional priority even as it redefines how that priority is pursued.
Taken together, these correspondences between the University and the DIOB outline a new equilibrium. Brown continues to describe diversity and inclusion as “essential for advancing knowledge and discovery,” but its official documents now place academic performance and legal neutrality at the center of decision-making. Diversity work is being redirected towards initiatives that come after, rather than before, admission or hiring like mentoring programs, first-generation support, and inclusive pedagogy.
The impact of Brown’s shift will depend on how the University defines diversity going forward and whether it can avoid replicating the same ideological pitfalls under a new structure. In correspondence with The Spectator, Ilya Shapiro, Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute, argued that “it’s of course good that Brown isn’t defying a Supreme Court ruling by continuing to use racial preferences, but the devil will be in the details of how it pursues ‘diversity.’” He added that “the problem with DEI isn’t programs meant to help disadvantaged students or underrepresented minorities but an ideological structure that teaches students to view all issues through identitarian lenses,” warning that while “it’s a good thing to celebrate different cultures,” it becomes “a bad (and illegal) thing to create a culture where your rights and benefits are determined by where you are in a privilege hierarchy or whether you belong to a class deemed oppressor or oppressed.”
For students and faculty, Brown’s changes mean that admissions and hiring will rest primarily on achievement, research promise, and potential for scholarly contribution. Once members join the community, diversity initiatives will continue to ensure that opportunity and belonging are accessible. The University’s leadership presents this not as retreat, but as continuity through adjustment, using diversity as a tool for building community rather than a prerequisite for entry.
In closing her October statement, President Paxson framed the next stage of Brown’s diversity programs as a collective effort, writing that “the creation of a new action plan will offer an opportunity for a broader conversation across campus about the meaning and significance of the concepts of diversity and inclusion as drivers of our academic mission.” That language captures the University’s new direction that keeps diversity within its educational mission while reaffirming that merit and accomplishment are the basis for entry into the Brown community.