Assessing the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education on Intellectual Freedom – Military.com

Report on Proposed Higher Education Reforms and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

An analysis of recent White House initiatives concerning higher education in the United States reveals significant tensions with internationally recognized frameworks, particularly the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” alongside executive orders targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), challenges the principles of SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). This report examines the provisions of these initiatives, stakeholder responses, and their potential impact on achieving sustainable and inclusive educational systems.

Policy Initiatives and SDG Implications

Executive Orders and Educational Frameworks

The “Restoring America’s Fighting Force” Executive Order of January 2025 aims to eliminate perceived ideological extremism from the Armed Forces by rejecting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) principles in favor of unit cohesion and meritocracy. This policy direction raises concerns regarding its alignment with several SDGs:

• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The rejection of DEI frameworks, which are designed to address systemic barriers and promote equality, directly conflicts with the goal of reducing inequality within and among countries.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): Policies that de-emphasize equity can disproportionately affect efforts to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls within institutional structures.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): Building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions is a core target of SDG 16. A move away from inclusive policies may undermine the development of such institutions.

This approach is part of a broader effort to reform American education, including accreditation, historical curricula, and transparency in foreign funding, all of which have implications for the autonomy and inclusivity of educational institutions.

The Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education

A White House initiative, the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” was proposed to an initial group of nine universities in October 2025. The proposal was met with universal rejection from the invitees and opposition from over 35 higher education organizations, citing concerns over government overreach and threats to institutional autonomy, a key component of SDG 16. The failure to secure partners highlights challenges related to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), indicating a disconnect between government objectives and the educational community.

Invited and Potentially Interested Institutions

The stakeholder landscape illustrates a significant divide in the higher education community.

Original Invited Institutions (Declined)

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Brown University
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of Southern California
• University of Virginia
• University of Arizona
• Dartmouth College
• The University of Texas at Austin
• Vanderbilt University

Institutions with Potential Interest

• Valley Forge Military College
• New College of Florida
• Grand Canyon University
• St. Augustine University

Analysis of Compact Provisions and SDG Conflicts

Core Tenets of the Proposed Compact

An examination of the Compact’s mandatory provisions reveals direct conflicts with the foundational principles of the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Promotion of Merit-Based Practices: The mandate to replace DEI-focused language with merit-based systems in accreditation, admissions, and employment could undermine progress on SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by potentially reinforcing existing disparities and limiting access for marginalized groups.
2. Institutional Neutrality: A requirement for neutrality on political and social issues challenges SDG 4.7, which calls for education that promotes sustainable development, human rights, gender equality, and a culture of peace and global citizenship. Such education necessitates active engagement with social and political topics.
3. Removal of Gender Ideology: This provision is in direct opposition to SDG 5 (Gender Equality), which seeks to end all forms of discrimination and ensure full participation and equal opportunities for all genders.
4. Mandatory Credit Transfer: The requirement for full acceptance of Joint Service Transcripts supports lifelong learning pathways, aligning with a component of SDG 4. However, its mandatory nature may compromise academic standards and institutional autonomy, a key tenet of SDG 16.

Conclusion

The proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence” and associated executive orders represent a significant policy shift that places national objectives in tension with global commitments to sustainable development. While aiming to strengthen national security and promote specific values, these initiatives risk eroding the principles of inclusivity, equity, and institutional autonomy that are central to achieving SDG 4, SDG 5, SDG 10, and SDG 16. The widespread opposition from the higher education sector suggests that for partnerships (SDG 17) to succeed, future policies must better align with the established goals of fostering quality, equitable, and inclusive education for all.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues related to higher education policy, academic freedom, discrimination, and institutional governance, which connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These include:

• SDG 4: Quality Education: The entire article focuses on higher education institutions, discussing policies on academic freedom, accreditation, admissions, and curriculum content.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: The proposed Compact’s aim to “remove gender ideology” directly relates to policies affecting gender issues within educational institutions.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article discusses the rejection of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) ideals in favor of meritocracy and the goal of operating “free of discrimination,” which are central to the debate on reducing inequality.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The text addresses themes of institutional autonomy, government oversight, transparency (foreign funding), and the protection of fundamental freedoms like free speech and intellectual freedom.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion of government policies and their impact on higher education, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

SDG 4: Quality Education

• Target 4.3: Ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. The article touches upon this through its discussion of admissions practices and the mandate that “Joint Service Transcripts transfer credits be fully accepted,” which directly impacts access for military-connected students.
• Target 4.7: Ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including…human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity. The debate over DEI, “truth and sanity in American history,” and the protection of “discourse on conservative values” all relate to the content and values promoted through education.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. The Compact’s provision to “remove gender ideology” is a policy action that relates to how gender and potential discrimination are addressed within institutions.
• Target 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality. The Executive Orders and the proposed Compact represent policies from the federal government that would directly influence institutional rules regarding gender.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of…race, colour, ethnicity…or other status. The article directly contrasts the government’s rejection of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) ideals with a push for meritocracy, which is central to the debate on how to achieve inclusion and equality.
• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory…policies and practices. The Executive Order aiming for the Armed Forces to be “free of discrimination” and the promotion of “merit-based…admissions, and employment practices” are actions aimed at this target.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article mentions new rules requiring the “disclosure of foreign funding and propaganda from foreign governments,” which is a direct measure to increase transparency in higher education institutions.
• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms. The core theme of the article is the tension between government oversight and the protection of “intellectual freedom,” “academic freedom,” and “free speech” within universities.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article implies several indicators that could be used to measure the implementation of the discussed policies and their impact on the identified targets:

Indicators for SDG 4 (Quality Education)

• Policy adoption rates: The number of colleges and universities that sign the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” The article notes that of the nine original invitees, “none have accepted,” but others have “expressed their desire to support the Compact.”
• Credit transfer policies: The rate of acceptance of Joint Service Transcripts by higher education institutions, as the Compact mandates they “be fully accepted.”

Indicators for SDG 5 (Gender Equality)

• Existence of specific institutional policies: The number of signatory institutions that revise their policies to “remove gender ideology,” as stipulated by the Compact.

Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

• Changes in admission and employment policies: The number of institutions that formally adopt “merit-based” practices in contrast to DEI-focused policies, as promoted by the White House’s Executive Orders.

Indicators for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

• Compliance with transparency rules: The number of institutions reporting on foreign funding, in line with the government’s disclosure requirements.
• Measures of institutional opposition: The number of higher education associations and organizations that formally oppose government policies on the grounds of protecting academic freedom. The article explicitly states that “Over 35 higher education associations and organizations… opposed this Compact.”

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: military.com