Fact Check Team: 7 out of 9 universities reject Trump’s new campus policy – The National Desk

University Policy Proposal and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent U.S. Department of Education policy, the ‘Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,’ has been rejected by seven of nine major universities. The proposal links federal funding to stringent campus policies, raising significant concerns regarding its alignment with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

The ‘Compact for Academic Excellence’: Provisions and University Response

Policy Conditions

The proposed compact requires participating universities to adhere to a set of conditions in exchange for expanded access to federal research funding and student aid. These conditions include:

• A five-year freeze on tuition.
• A 15 percent cap on international undergraduate enrollment.
• A ban on considering race or sex in admissions and hiring processes.
• Adoption of a “biological definition” of gender.
• Mandatory disclosure of graduate earnings data.
• Enforcement of stricter free speech and leadership oversight policies.

Non-compliance could lead to a Department of Justice review and the mandatory return of all federal funds received during the year of the violation.

Institutional Response

A significant majority of the invited institutions have declined to endorse the policy. The universities rejecting the compact are:

1. University of Arizona
2. Brown University
3. University of Southern California
4. Dartmouth College
5. University of Virginia
6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
7. University of Pennsylvania (expressed partial support with “serious concerns”)

Vanderbilt University and the University of Texas at Austin have not yet issued a full rejection, with the latter indicating a willingness to “engage in dialogue.”

Analysis of the Compact in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 4: Quality Education

The compact presents a direct challenge to the principles of SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education.

• Target 4.3 (Equal access to affordable tertiary education): While a tuition freeze appears to support affordability, university leaders argue that other provisions undermine the overall quality and autonomy of education.
• Target 4.7 (Education for sustainable development and global citizenship): The proposed 15 percent cap on international undergraduate enrollment directly conflicts with fostering global citizenship and cross-cultural understanding. It also hinders international academic partnerships, which are critical for SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).
• Academic Freedom: University leaders have expressed concern that tying research funding to political alignment rather than scientific merit threatens academic freedom, a cornerstone of quality higher education.

SDG 5 (Gender Equality) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

Several provisions of the compact are in direct opposition to the goals of achieving gender equality and reducing inequalities.

• SDG 5: The mandate to adopt a “biological definition” of gender is a significant setback for gender equality and the inclusion of transgender and gender-diverse individuals, contradicting the spirit of Target 5.1 (End all forms of discrimination).
• SDG 10: The prohibition on considering race or sex in admissions and hiring undermines established policies aimed at promoting diversity and rectifying historical disadvantages. This measure directly conflicts with Target 10.2 (Promote the inclusion of all) and Target 10.3 (Ensure equal opportunity).

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The policy’s framework raises questions about institutional integrity and governance, central themes of SDG 16.

• Target 16.6 (Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions): The administration presents the compact as a tool for accountability. However, universities view it as an overreach that erodes their institutional autonomy, a key component of a strong and effective institution.
• Target 16.7 (Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making): The widespread rejection of the compact by higher education leaders suggests a lack of participatory and inclusive decision-making in its development.

Conclusion

The widespread rejection of the ‘Compact for Academic Excellence’ by leading U.S. universities highlights a fundamental conflict between the proposed federal oversight and the core missions of higher education institutions. The policy’s provisions are seen as undermining progress toward key Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those focused on ensuring quality education, reducing inequality, promoting gender equality, and building strong, autonomous institutions. The ongoing debate signals a critical juncture in the relationship between the U.S. government and its research universities, with significant implications for global academic collaboration and sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article’s central theme is a new policy proposal affecting higher education in the U.S. It discusses issues of university funding, tuition affordability, access to education, and the quality and relevance of degrees, all of which are core components of SDG 4.

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The proposed compact directly addresses gender issues by requiring universities to ban the consideration of sex in admissions and hiring and to adopt a “biological definition” of gender. These provisions are directly linked to policies aimed at achieving gender equality and non-discrimination.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The policy’s requirement to ban the consideration of race in admissions and hiring directly pertains to efforts to reduce racial inequality in access to higher education. Furthermore, the proposal to limit international student enrollment touches upon inequalities based on nationality and access to education for foreign students.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article highlights a significant conflict between a government department and major universities over institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and accountability. The debate over the compact’s terms, the threat of withdrawn funding, and the role of the Department of Justice in enforcement all relate to the principles of developing effective, accountable, and transparent institutions and upholding fundamental freedoms.

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

SDG 4: Quality Education

• Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.

  The proposal’s condition to “freeze tuition for five years” directly addresses the affordability aspect of this target, aiming to make higher education more financially accessible.

• Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship.

  The requirement for universities to “disclose graduate earnings” is a mechanism to measure the economic relevance and outcome of the education provided, linking the skills gained to employment outcomes.

• Target 4.b: By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries… for enrolment in higher education… in developed countries.

  The proposal to “limit international undergraduate enrollment to 15 percent” runs counter to the spirit of this target, as it restricts the capacity of U.S. universities to enroll international students, potentially limiting opportunities for those from other nations.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.

  The compact’s provisions to “ban consideration of… sex in admissions and hiring” and adopt a “biological definition of gender” are direct policy interventions that relate to discrimination and equal opportunity on campus.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

  The proposed ban on “consideration of race… in admissions and hiring” is a specific policy approach aimed at ensuring equal opportunity, directly engaging with the principles of this target.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

  The article frames the entire conflict around this target. The Department of Education argues the compact promotes “accountability and transparency,” while universities contend it erodes “institutional autonomy” and threatens their effectiveness as independent institutions.

• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

  University leaders’ warnings that the compact “threatens academic freedom” and the requirement to enforce “stricter free speech” policies are directly related to the protection of fundamental freedoms within academic institutions.

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

SDG 4: Quality Education

• Tuition rates: The proposal to “freeze tuition for five years” makes the rate of tuition change a direct and measurable indicator of affordability.
• Graduate earnings data: The requirement to “disclose graduate earnings” establishes a specific indicator to measure the economic value and outcome of a university education.
• Percentage of international students in the student body: The explicit “15 percent” cap on international undergraduate enrollment serves as a quantitative indicator for measuring student mobility and diversity.

SDG 5: Gender Equality & SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• University admission and hiring policies: The existence and enforcement of policies that “ban consideration of race or sex in admissions and hiring” serve as a direct indicator of a university’s approach to equality and non-discrimination.
• Demographic data of students and faculty: While not explicitly mentioned, tracking the racial and gender composition of the student body and staff would be an implied indicator necessary to measure the impact of the proposed policy changes.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Results from campus surveys: The requirement for “conducting annual campus surveys” provides a measurable indicator of the campus climate, including perceptions of free speech, safety, and institutional accountability.
• Institutional acceptance or rejection of government policies: The article notes that seven of nine universities rejected the compact. This rate of acceptance/rejection can serve as an indicator of the state of institutional autonomy and the relationship between government and higher education.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thenationaldesk.com