A group of professors from the University of Pittsburgh is urging university leaders to reject a proposal from the Trump administration. This proposal would allow colleges to access federal funding if they agree to certain conditions aimed at supporting the president’s agenda.
Recently, several universities, including MIT, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Southern California, have publicly turned down this offer. They argue that the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” threatens academic freedom.
The compact offers schools benefits like increased funding and the promise to freeze tuition rates. However, it comes with strings attached—like limiting campus protests and requiring schools to protect “conservative ideas.” One of its more controversial points is that schools would need to restrict international students to just 15% of the undergraduate population.
The deadline for universities to provide feedback on this compact was October 20, with a signing deadline set for November 21. Some institutions, like Vanderbilt and the University of Texas, haven’t made their positions clear yet. However, feedback from officials at the University of Texas suggests some are open to signing.
Pitt’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) strongly opposes the compact. They believe it undermines academic autonomy and imposes too much federal influence over universities. Michael Goodhart, acting president of AAUP Pitt and a political science professor, said, “This compact is at odds with the core values of higher education and democracy.”
Their statement emphasizes concerns that this proposal might create a chilling effect, making educators hesitant to express ideas or critique the compact. They view it as corrupt—a means of enforcing a partisan agenda on academia.
The American Council on Education agrees, stating that any preferential treatment based on political alignment is unacceptable in higher education.
The compact is part of a broader trend where the Trump administration has sought to influence universities by imposing restrictions for resource access. This has included targeting schools for various issues, such as protests or diversity initiatives.
The compact itself claims that American higher education is a global model. It ties federal benefits—like loans and research funding—to compliance with its terms. Schools agreeing to this compact will have to make significant changes, including how they define gender and what they allow in discussions on campus.
Notably, other institutions, including the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis, have already declined to participate.
Professor Goodhart views the compact as a test balloon for the administration’s strategy to reshape higher education. He believes that a strong rejection by universities could prevent future attempts at government control over academia.
This ongoing debate reflects broader tensions between political influence and the independence of educational institutions, affecting how education is approached in the U.S. today. The outcome could have lasting implications for academic freedom and the structure of higher education in the coming years.
For more information on the latest debates surrounding this compact, you can visit reputable sources like The New York Times.
