The Trump administration late Wednesday sent a letter to nine institutions asking them to sign
a compact with the federal government requiring them to meet certain conditions in exchange for preferential access to some types of federal funds and other benefits. ACE President Ted Mitchell and others in the higher education community responded by noting that this is yet another instance of the administration weaponizing federal funding to achieve its ideological and political aims. They made clear that the goal of this effort is to pressure higher education leaders in ways that are wholly inappropriate and threatening to core concepts of academic freedom.The compact acknowledges that “American higher education is the envy of the world and represents a key strategic benefit for our Nation.” It goes on to say that, “To advance the national interest arising out of this unique relationship, this Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education represents the priorities of the U.S. government in its engagements with universities that benefit from the relationship. Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits.”
It is not entirely clear just what federal funds and benefits might be withheld from institutions that elect not to sign the compact. May Mailman, senior adviser for special projects at the White House, told
The Wall Street Journal that the Trump administration doesn’t plan to limit federal funding solely to schools that sign the compact but that they would be given priority for grants when possible as well as invitations for White House events and discussions with officials.
The compact’s conditions include a range of major demands including that institutions: ban the use of race or sex in hiring and admissions; freeze tuition for five years; cap international undergrad enrollment at 15 percent; require that applicants take the SAT or a similar test; and quell grade inflation. It also focuses on issues around free speech, asking institutions to ensure a “vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus” and change governance structures or close departments that “punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”
ACE’s Mitchell told
The New York Times that the document seemed to him like a naked exercise of power, lacking internal coherence. He said that if institutions agreed to the compact, it would set “a horrible precedent to cede power to the federal government.”
Mitchell added in an interview with
The Washington Post that the administration’s new initiative violates campus independence and undermines free speech. “It’s not worth the compromises that they would have to make,” he said. “This is a Faustian bargain.” And in other comments in
USA Today, he added that, “Any effort to reward or punish institutions based on their adherence to the views of government officials should trouble all Americans.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an op-ed in
The New York Times that the compact and its conditions are “extortion, plain and simple,” noting that a White House official indicated the administration wants to extend the compact to all institutions of higher education.
Larry Summers, a former Treasury secretary and Harvard University president, told
The Washington Post that while “elite universities” need to undertake some reforms the compact is like trying to “fix a watch with a hammer—ill-conceived and counterproductive,” adding that, “The backlash against its crudity will likely set back necessary reform efforts.”
ACE Senior Vice President for Government Relations and National Engagement Jon Fansmith told
The Chronicle of Higher Education that the compact might not hold up in court because it involves placing criteria into a grant program that gives an advantage for aligning with the administration’s priorities. In addition, some grant programs, as well as direct student loans and Pell Grants, have eligibility standards that are set in law, and it is not clear if the compact can circumvent that.
It might not be worth it, in any case, for institutions to sign the compact, Fansmith suggested. The compact asks colleges to hold tuition flat for five years and to admit undergraduate classes composed of no more than 15 percent international students—terms that might cost some colleges more than the funding they’d get back.