Trump’s college compact is a trap
The administration is hoping to divide and conquer America’s universities. Schools need to unite and keep saying no
Academics, of all people, should be able to recognize a Faustian bargain when they spot one. So it’s disappointing to see that some colleges may be jumping at the chance to enlist in the Trump administration’s latest scheme to reshape America’s universities.
On Monday, the Department of Education offered all colleges the opportunity to join its “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which would give schools a leg up on access to federal funding in return for adopting a far-reaching list of reforms advocated by Republicans.
The contract is a staggering intrusion of federal power into America’s universities. It aims to reshape hiring, admissions, grading, campus speech rules, and more, with an emphasis on stamping out diversity initiatives and protecting conservative ideas from criticism. It would force institutions to toe Trump’s line on gender issues and could even require them to shutter some departments seen as unfriendly to the right.
The deal has yet to find any takers since the Department of Education first invited nine universities to sign it on Oct. 2. MIT officially rejected the offer on Oct. 10, saying it would “restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution.” The University of Pennsylvania, USC, and Brown followed suit in subsequent days. The most positive response came from the chair of The University of Texas’ Board of Regents, who said UT Austin was reportedly “honored” to be approached, and said “We enthusiastically look forward to engaging with university officials” on it.
Now, with the administration widening its net, Bloomberg reported that “a number of schools had reached out to express interest in the agreement,” citing “a person familiar with the matter.” If so, they are playing into Trump’s game of divide and conquer.
Colleges that accept the terms could see their federal funding for research and other pursuits swell, while others risk finding themselves starved. The more institutions that agree, the more pressure there will be on others to follow suit, lest they miss out on federal money. Unless schools can keep a united front, much of higher education will be forced to adhere to the White House’s ideological tests.
The administration and its allies have said the compact is merely intended “to promote excellence in core academic pursuits and to protect free speech.” That’s how private equity boss Marc Rowan, the Apollo Global Management CEO who helped write the document, put it in a New York Times op-ed that urged schools to embrace the deal as a course correction away from progressive excesses of recent years.
Some college presidents might agree that their universities need serious reform; in fact, parts of the compact align with steps schools are already taking. For instance, the document sent to colleges would require institutions to remain officially neutral on political issues — professors and other employees could only comment in their personal capacity. That’s not far off from Harvard’s decision to no longer issue statements on hot-button current events topics.
Likewise, the compact would require schools to impose new limits on when and where students stage protests, so that they don’t interrupt classes or heckle other students. That’s similar to steps many large universities took in the wake of last year’s Gaza protests.
But it’s one thing for colleges to embrace these steps on their own. It’s another for the government to use money as a carrot and stick to impose them — especially as part of an agreement that, according to its text, would be enforced through Department of Justice oversight.
And other parts of the compact would impose breathtaking impositions on speech that should be seen as automatic poison pills.
The compact’s worst provisions are in the Orwellian section on academic freedom, which says that in order to foster diverse viewpoints, schools must commit to “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”
It’s not hard to imagine what those requirements might mean for, say, a gender studies or climate science department. As Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs with the free speech group FIRE, told me, schools could find the “DOJ sniffing around saying, ‘That professor over there is being awfully hostile to conservative ideas. What are you going to do about it?’”
Whether such a standard would even be legal under the First Amendment is an open question, since the Supreme Court has said that the government cannot force institutions to censor people on its behalf. But it is far from the document’s only assault on speech.
The compact would require that schools officially interpret “male” and “female” according to reproductive function and biological processes, for instance. Elsewhere, it says that they must screen out foreign students “who demonstrate hostility to the United States, its allies, or its values.”
The latter is obviously a shot at anti-Israel students, but one wonders how far schools would be expected to take it. Would students who criticize Saudi Arabia or Qatar on social media be banned from going to school in the U.S.? Would a South Korean student who has mixed feelings about Japan be a no-go?
And what exactly are American values in the age of Trump? And who precisely are our allies?
Many conservatives accused the Biden administration of imposing progressive ideology on colleges when it tried to add protections for trans students under Title IX. And some of them may see Trump’s demands as a case where turnabout is fair play.
But those cheering this on should think carefully about whether they would like to see a future liberal president threaten university funding if they don’t vocally support left-wing ideas. America has the best university system in the world, but this is an easy way to destroy it.
Setting aside its funhouse mirror version of academic freedom, much of the compact consists of more standard conservative fare, like a requirement that schools eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in hiring. But many sections devolve into obtrusive and confusing micromanagement.
Take its rules on admissions, which are largely aimed at stamping out any last remnants of affirmative action.
Under the compact, colleges must require applicants to submit standardized test scores. Fair enough: Many top universities are already bringing back the SAT after going test-optional. But the document then goes further, dictating that all admissions must be based on “objective criteria published on the University’s website.”
But what exactly counts as objective? Do extracurriculars or work experience or letters of recommendation make the cut? Can schools consider any part of a student’s personal experience at all? Who knows.
Along with banning consideration of race, sex, gender, or national origin in admissions, the compact says campuses can’t consider “political views.” Is that meant to be taken literally?
If a potential student is an ardent online fan of an antisemite like Nick Fuentes, do admissions officers just have to look the other way? Is this really supposed to be a groyper-protection clause? And what if they tweet “globalize the intifada” repeatedly?
Yet other pieces just seem half-baked (almost as if they were written by a businessperson who hadn’t given deep thought to running a university). For instance, it states that schools with large endowments “will not charge tuition for admitted students pursuing hard science programs (with exceptions, as desired, for families of substantial means).”
It’s a little rich for an administration that has been busy slashing science funding to demand that schools churn out more STEM graduates. But it’s also easy to imagine how a policy like this could backfire by encouraging students who might not be suited for a chemistry or physics program to try it out for the savings. (Relatedly, the compact also orders colleges to curb grade inflation.)
Again, it would be fine for schools to attempt these things on their own. But encoding them into the rules for getting federal funding is a terrible idea.
One big question hanging over the compact is whether there is room for serious negotiation over its contents. Rowan and other administration officials have said that the document itself is not finalized and that administration officials are still considering feedback from schools.
Harvard’s Danielle Allen, meanwhile, argued that while the compact is flawed, it could represent an opening bid in peace talks between the Trump administration and the wider world of higher ed:
We do need a new social compact between America and its universities — one that seeks to secure the foundations not only for national security, economic competitiveness, and health but also for civic strength. But a compact, in order for it to be a compact, must be a public document, and it must emerge from public discussion and debate. We are only at the very beginning of what will necessarily be a long negotiation.
Such a grand bargain would be welcome, but Allen’s argument is a bit Pollyannaish. Yes, we could use an official detente between colleges and conservatives, where schools take reasonable steps to be more welcoming to the right without crushing other kinds of speech.
But I am skeptical that it’s possible, both because Trump’s initial demands are so extreme and because his entire strategy seems aimed at pitting universities against each other for funding. Negotiations can only happen if there is the possibility of good faith. That’s not what’s happening right now.
One issue surely weighing on the minds of college administrators is that the compact could spare them the sorts of punishing investigations and legal bullying that the Trump administration has already used to force concessions from schools like Columbia and Brown, including expensive dollar settlements in some cases. If the Department of Education is going to use civil-rights enforcement to end DEI, why not just sign a deal that gets you into the administration’s good graces instead?
Why not take the carrot when there’s a stick already hanging over your head? Maybe one day a Democratic president will even come along and junk the whole thing before it becomes too institutionally onerous.
There’s a twofold problem with that line of thinking. First, the requirements in this compact — especially around “academic freedom” — are more intrusive than the deals schools like Columbia have struck after being put through the wringer. Second, each college that agrees to the plan is contributing to a potential domino effect that could leave much of higher education operating on Trump’s terms.
The only reasonable response for now is for colleges to show solidarity and refuse.
Why does this remind me of tariffs as a negotiation strategy.
I attended undergrad in the late 2010s and through the pandemic. I view university administrators as cowardly and unprincipled, creatures of bureaucratic bloat. Unwilling to stand up against social fashions and rowdy students, much less threats to funding from a hostile government in this era of shrinking undergrad enrollment. Dark times for our institutions.
On another note, it’s quite common (and constitutional as I understand it) to tie some *opt-in* federal funding to some types of otherwise unconstitutional requirements on states and public institutions. I’m not saying I agree with the requirements on universities described in the article (especially with respect to student protest), but I don’t see how this is legally different, even under the previous Supreme Court.