‘Nothing less than government control’: Higher ed responds to Trump’s compact – Higher Ed Dive

Report on the Proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education”

Introduction: A Challenge to Sustainable Development Goals in Higher Education

A recent proposal by the Trump administration, titled the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” presented a significant challenge to the principles underpinning several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The compact offered preferential federal grant funding to an initial group of nine research universities in exchange for adopting sweeping policy changes. This report analyzes the compact’s conditions and the subsequent response from the higher education sector through the lens of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Analysis of the Compact’s Conditions and SDG Implications

The conditions stipulated in the compact would fundamentally alter university governance, academic policies, and financial structures, with direct consequences for the advancement of key SDGs.

SDG 4: Quality Education

Several conditions directly impact the accessibility, quality, and inclusivity of higher education as outlined in SDG 4.

• Affordability and Access (Target 4.3): While a five-year tuition freeze could be seen as a measure to enhance affordability, the mandatory requirement for standardized tests like the SAT could erect barriers for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, potentially hindering progress toward equitable access.
• Education for Global Citizenship (Target 4.7): The proposal to cap international student enrollment at 15% and screen applicants for “hostility to the United States” directly contravenes the goal of fostering global citizenship and intercultural understanding. Such measures risk undermining the global partnerships essential for sustainable development.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The compact’s stipulations on admissions criteria pose a direct challenge to efforts aimed at reducing systemic inequalities.

• Equal Opportunity (Target 10.3): The commitment to not consider race, gender, or religion in admissions decisions, while framed as promoting neutrality, was widely interpreted as a move to dismantle affirmative action policies designed to address historical disadvantages and promote inclusion for underrepresented groups.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The proposal raised significant concerns regarding institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and fundamental rights, which are central to SDG 16.

• Institutional Autonomy (Target 16.6): The compact sought to impose government control over core university functions, including curriculum, governance, and internal policies. The potential for dissolving academic departments and enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice represents a significant threat to the development of effective, accountable, and independent institutions.
• Fundamental Freedoms (Target 16.10): Conditions requiring universities to forcefully manage protests, adopt a policy of institutional neutrality on political events, and accept that “academic freedom is not absolute” were viewed as direct infringements on the freedoms of expression and assembly. Legal analyses, such as that from the Knight First Amendment Institute, concluded that these conditions were unconstitutional.

Institutional and Sector-Wide Response

The proposal was met with widespread opposition from universities, higher education associations, and political leaders, who defended the principles of institutional autonomy and academic freedom as essential for achieving sustainable development objectives.

Rejection by Invited Universities

As of the reporting deadline, a significant majority of the initially invited institutions had formally rejected the compact. The following universities declined the offer:

1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
2. Brown University
3. University of Pennsylvania
4. University of Southern California (USC)
5. Dartmouth College
6. University of Virginia (UVA)
7. University of Arizona

Leaders of these institutions cited the compact’s incompatibility with core values. MIT’s president stated the premise was “inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.” Dartmouth’s president noted the compact “would compromise our academic freedom, our ability to govern ourselves.” These rejections underscore a commitment to maintaining the strong, independent institutions envisioned in SDG 16.

Broader Community Concerns

• A coalition of three dozen higher education associations issued a statement expressing deep concern that the compact’s prescriptions “threaten to undermine the very qualities that make our system exceptional” and amounted to “government control of a university’s basic and necessary freedoms.”
• Political leaders in states like California and Pennsylvania threatened to withdraw state funding from any institution that signed the compact, highlighting a multi-level governance response to protect educational autonomy.
• In a constructive counter-proposal aligned with the collaborative spirit of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), the American Association of Colleges and Universities and the Phi Beta Kappa Society offered an alternative compact based on principles of opportunity, affordability, and freedom.

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

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • The article’s central theme is higher education policy in the United States. It discusses conditions that would directly impact the financial accessibility, academic environment, and admissions processes of universities, all of which are core components of quality tertiary education.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • The proposed “Compact” includes a condition to not consider “race, gender, religion and other characteristics ‘explicitly or implicitly’ in admissions decisions.” This directly engages with policies aimed at addressing inequality and ensuring equal opportunity in access to education, which is a key aspect of SDG 10.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article extensively covers themes of institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and freedom of expression. The conflict between the government’s proposed compact and the universities’ rejection based on principles of self-governance and constitutional rights (First Amendment) relates directly to the development of accountable institutions and the protection of fundamental freedoms, which are central to SDG 16.

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

1. 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 compact’s condition to “freeze tuition for five years” directly addresses the “affordable” aspect of this target. The requirement for standardized tests like the SAT is presented as a measure related to the “quality” and access criteria for university education.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The compact’s proposed policy of banning the consideration of race and gender in admissions is a direct attempt to influence policies related to equal opportunity. The debate highlighted in the article revolves around whether such a policy would reduce or exacerbate inequalities of outcome.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article details a struggle over the governance of universities. The compact attempts to impose external government control, while universities like MIT and Dartmouth reject it to preserve their “independence as an institution” and their “ability to govern ourselves,” which they see as essential for being effective and accountable.
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. This is the most prominent target. University leaders and organizations like the Knight First Amendment Institute explicitly cite threats to “academic freedom,” “freedom of expression,” and First Amendment rights as reasons for rejecting the compact. Conditions like requiring institutional neutrality and breaking up protests are seen as direct infringements on these fundamental freedoms.

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

1. Indicators for SDG 4 (Quality Education)

   • Tuition Affordability: The article explicitly mentions the condition to “freeze tuition for five years.” A direct indicator would be the annual percentage change in university tuition fees.
   • International Student Enrollment: The proposal to “cap international enrollment at 15% of the broader undergraduate body” provides a clear, measurable indicator of policies affecting global engagement in education.
   • Admissions Standards: The requirement for applicants to take “standardized tests such as the SAT” serves as an indicator of the admissions policies being promoted.

2. Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Non-discriminatory Admissions Policies: The existence of a policy that commits “not to consider race, gender, religion and other characteristics ‘explicitly or implicitly’ in admissions decisions” is a key indicator mentioned in the article.

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

   • Protection of Freedom of Expression: The article implies several indicators, including the implementation of policies that “recognize ‘academic freedom is not absolute’,” the number and nature of “swift, serious, and consistent sanctions” used to handle protests, and the results of “broad, public assessments of the viewpoints of employees and students.”
   • Institutional Autonomy: An indicator of institutional integrity is the number of academic units or departments that are dissolved or taken over for political reasons, as the compact suggests for units that “‘purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.'”

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: highereddive.com