Four leading universities have officially declined a substantial federal funding offer from the Trump administration. This offer came with a catch: adherence to strict conditions detailed in the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” While the compact was initially proposed to nine institutions this month, only four—the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania (Penn), and the University of Southern California (USC)—have publicly announced their rejection.
Presented as an opportunity for priority funding and a seat at White House policy discussions, the proposal demanded a range of policy overhauls from universities. These included eliminating race and sex as considerations in admissions and hiring processes, placing a cap on international student enrollment, and implementing ideological reforms designed to reshape campus culture. However, deep-seated concerns over academic freedom, institutional independence, and the merit-based allocation of research funds have led these institutions to firmly resist the proposition.
Deciphering the ‘Compact’ and Its Requirements
The compact mandated extensive reforms for participating universities. Central to its provisions was a prohibition on using race, sex, or other demographic characteristics in admissions, financial aid, and hiring. Furthermore, it required institutions to freeze tuition rates for five years, restrict international undergraduate enrollment to a maximum of 15% of the student body, and enforce stringent gender definitions rooted in “reproductive function and biological processes,” as reported by CNN.
The agreement also called for the dismantling or restructuring of campus departments that the administration alleged were responsible for “punishing, belittling, and even inciting violence against conservative ideas.” To ensure compliance, faculty, students, and staff were expected to complete annual anonymous surveys. In return, universities that signed the compact were promised preferential treatment for federal grants and exclusive invitations to White House engagements.
Why Universities Are Standing Firm Against the Proposal
Each university presented distinct justifications for rejecting the compact, primarily centering on their unwavering commitment to academic freedom, institutional governance, and the principle that research funding should be awarded solely on merit.
MIT President Sally Kornbluth articulated in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon that the compact encompassed “principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution.” She underscored that “the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone,” as reported by The Hill.
Brown University’s President Christina H. Paxson echoed these sentiments, writing that the compact, “by its nature and by various provisions, would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown’s governance, critically compromising our ability to fulfill our mission.” She further voiced apprehension that the compact’s framework “contemplates funding research on criteria other than the soundness and likely impact of research, which would ultimately damage the health and prosperity of Americans,” as detailed by The Hill.
University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson confirmed the university’s decision to decline the offer after extensive consultations with students, staff, and faculty. He reaffirmed Penn’s dedication to “merit-based achievement and accountability,” drawing attention to the enduring partnership between American higher education and the federal government, as cited by CNN.
USC Interim President Beong-Soo Kim recognized the administration’s efforts to tackle challenges in higher education but conveyed serious concerns regarding the compact’s potential repercussions. “Tying research benefits to it would, over time, undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote,” Kim stated in a letter to Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon, according to CNN. He cautioned that “other countries whose governments lack America’s commitment to freedom and democracy have shown how academic excellence can suffer when shifting external priorities tilt the research playing field away from free, meritocratic competition.”
What Lies Ahead for the Compact and Other Universities?
The Trump administration originally distributed the compact to nine universities, including Dartmouth College, Vanderbilt University, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Arizona, and the University of Virginia. As of now, these institutions have not publicly confirmed their acceptance or rejection of the proposal. Reports indicate that some, like Vanderbilt and Arizona, are currently reviewing the compact. The University of Texas at Austin has expressed interest in the opportunity but has not yet committed to signing the agreement.
Ultimately, the compact represents a strategic effort to influence higher education policy through a blend of ideological changes and financial inducements. The continuing discourse underscores significant underlying tensions regarding academic freedom, institutional oversight, and the extent of federal government involvement in universities throughout the United States.