Oregon colleges say no to Trump administration higher ed compact – Oregon Public Broadcasting – OPB

Report on the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report analyzes the response of U.S. higher education institutions, particularly those in Oregon, to the federal “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” The widespread rejection of this compact is examined through the framework of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting a fundamental conflict between the compact’s provisions and the principles underpinning SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Analysis of the Federal Compact

Key Provisions and Incentives

The U.S. Department of Education proposed a compact requiring signatory institutions to adhere to specific federal mandates. These mandates directly impact the autonomy and operational principles of universities, which are essential for fostering quality education as outlined in SDG 4.

• Mandated Policies: The compact stipulates changes to institutional policies, including new admissions requirements, revised campus free speech rules, and altered faculty hiring processes.
• Financial Constraints: A significant provision requires a five-year freeze on tuition rates, a measure that superficially addresses affordability (related to SDG 4, Target 4.3) but fails to account for systemic underfunding and inflation, potentially compromising the long-term quality of education.
• Alluded Benefits: In return for compliance, the compact suggests preferential access to “federal benefits,” such as student loan programs, research funding, and visa approvals, creating a transactional relationship that institutions argue undermines their core mission.

Institutional Responses and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Upholding SDG 4: Quality Education

The response from the academic community has been overwhelmingly negative, with institutions framing their refusal as a necessary defense of the principles required to deliver on SDG 4.

1. Protecting Academic Freedom: Institutions and advocacy groups like the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) argue that academic freedom is non-negotiable. They contend that trading institutional autonomy over curriculum and admissions for federal funding would fundamentally compromise the quality and integrity of education.
2. Ensuring Institutional Sustainability: While the tuition freeze addresses concerns about student debt, universities argue it is an unsustainable model that could degrade educational quality by straining resources, thus failing the core objective of SDG 4.

Defending SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Strong Institutions)

The refusal to sign the compact is rooted in a commitment to creating inclusive and equitable learning environments, a cornerstone of SDG 10, and maintaining the integrity of universities as strong, independent institutions, as envisioned in SDG 16.

• Commitment to Equity and Inclusion (SDG 10): Portland State University stated its “unwavering” commitment to equity and inclusion, refusing to endorse any measure that hinders its work to build a campus where every student can thrive. This position directly supports SDG 10’s goal of reducing inequality.
• Preserving Institutional Integrity (SDG 16): The compact was described by faculty leaders as a “loyalty oath” that undermines the role of universities as accountable, transparent, and independent institutions. By rejecting it, universities are defending their function as pillars of a just and democratic society, in line with SDG 16.

Alternative Frameworks and Partnerships (SDG 17)

Forging a Path Aligned with the Common Good

In response to the federal proposal, stakeholders have demonstrated a commitment to collaborative action (SDG 17) to develop frameworks that better align with sustainable development principles.

• Collective Advocacy: The joint statement by the AAC&U, signed by presidents from Portland State, Reed College, and Willamette University, exemplifies a partnership among institutions to protect the foundational values of higher education.
• The Oregon Compact on Higher Education: A counter-proposal initiated by faculty unions calls on the academic community to protect and defend institutions based on a commitment to “education for the common good,” a vision that resonates deeply with the holistic and human-centric approach of the SDGs.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

The article discusses issues related to higher education policy, institutional autonomy, affordability, and equity, which connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs identified are:

• SDG 4: Quality Education: The entire article revolves around higher education institutions, policies affecting them, and the core mission of providing education. It touches upon affordability, access, and the values underpinning the educational system.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article highlights the commitment of universities to “equity” and “inclusion.” The proposed compact’s changes to admissions requirements and the universities’ resistance to measures that might contradict these values directly relate to ensuring equal opportunity and reducing inequalities within the education system.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The conflict between the federal administration and universities over the proposed compact is a clear example of issues related to institutional integrity and governance. The article discusses “academic freedom,” “institutional autonomy,” and the role of universities as independent institutions that should not be subject to political “loyalty oaths,” which are all central to the principles of strong, accountable, and independent institutions.

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

Based on the article’s discussion, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 4.3: Ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.
   • The article directly addresses the affordability of higher education. The compact’s “financial responsibility” provision calls for signatories to “freeze tuition rates for five years.” This is presented in the context of a decade of universities consistently raising tuition and the problem of “massive student debt.” This discussion is central to the goal of making university education affordable and accessible.
2. Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all.
   • Portland State University’s statement explicitly mentions its “commitment to equity, inclusion” and its goal to “build a campus where every student and employee can thrive.” The university’s refusal to sign any measure that contradicts these “core values” shows a direct link to promoting inclusion. The compact’s proposed changes to “admissions requirements” are a key point of concern for universities committed to this target.
3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The resistance from universities is rooted in maintaining their institutional integrity. The article notes that “compromising institutional autonomy is a non-starter for many schools.” The characterization of the compact as a “thinly veiled bribe” and a “loyalty oath” suggests it is seen as a threat to the development of transparent and accountable institutions that are loyal to the “common good” rather than a political administration.
4. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.
   • The article repeatedly emphasizes the importance of “academic freedom” as a fundamental principle that universities are unwilling to compromise. The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) statement, which several Oregon university presidents signed, explicitly states, “University presidents cannot bargain with the essential freedom of colleges and universities to determine… what is taught, how, and by whom.” This is a direct defense of the fundamental freedoms central to this target.

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

Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• For Target 4.3 (Affordable Education):
  • Indicator: University tuition rates and student debt levels.
  • Explanation: The article explicitly mentions the compact’s proposal to “freeze tuition rates for five years” and the fact that public universities have “consistently raised tuition every year for the past decade.” It also refers to the “problem of massive student debt.” These are direct, measurable indicators of the affordability of higher education.
• For Target 10.2 (Inclusion):
  • Indicator: Number of higher education institutions with explicit policies on equity and inclusion.
  • Explanation: While not providing a number, the article implies this is a key metric for universities. Portland State University’s statement about its “unwavering” commitment to “equity, inclusion” suggests that the existence and strength of such institutional values and policies are a measure of progress.
• For Targets 16.6 and 16.10 (Strong Institutions & Fundamental Freedoms):
  • Indicator: Number of institutions resisting government policies that compromise institutional autonomy and academic freedom.
  • Explanation: The article provides concrete numbers that serve as an indicator. It states that out of “nearly 6,000 institutions in the U.S., just three have indicated interest in joining the compact.” Furthermore, it lists numerous Oregon universities that have publicly stated they will not sign, and it notes that the presidents of Portland State, Reed College, and Willamette University “signed onto the AAC&U statement” condemning the compact. This collective action is a measurable indicator of the defense of institutional autonomy and academic freedom.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: opb.org