Report on Proposed Academic Alliance in Response to Administrative Pressures on Higher Education

Introduction

A resolution to establish a “Mutual Defense Compact” among the 18 universities of the Big Ten Conference was debated at a University of Michigan Faculty Senate meeting. The proposal aims to create a unified front to protect academic freedom, institutional integrity, and research activities from perceived threats by the Trump administration, including the reduction of research funding and the revocation of student visas. This report analyzes the proposal and its surrounding events through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly focusing on Quality Education (SDG 4), Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10), and Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions (SDG 16).

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 4: Quality Education

The core of the debate directly impacts the mission to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Actions by the administration are seen as a direct threat to the pillars of higher education.

• Academic Freedom: Professor Fred Terry noted that administrative actions threaten to gut any research area or curriculum that the president opposes, fundamentally undermining the academic freedom essential for quality education and innovation.
• Research Enterprise: The proposed compact explicitly seeks to defend the “research enterprise,” which is critical for generating knowledge and contributing to global progress, a key component of advanced education.
• International Student Mobility: The cancellation of student visas at institutions including the University of Michigan and Michigan State University creates significant barriers to global educational partnerships and deprives the academic environment of diverse perspectives, hindering the goal of inclusive education. U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell highlighted the timing of these revocations just weeks before graduation.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The events described highlight a significant regression in efforts to reduce inequality within and among countries. The dismantling of policies designed to promote equity is a central concern.

• Closure of DEI Offices: Professor Sandra Levitsky stated that the University of Michigan’s administration shut down its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) office in what was described as “preemptive capitulation” to administrative demands. This action directly reverses progress on SDG 10 by removing institutional structures designed to support underrepresented groups.
• Discriminatory Practices: The debate included opposing views on discrimination. Professor Keith Riles argued that faculty had “provoked the understandable anger of voters” by tolerating what he termed “discrimination against whites and Asian Americans,” indicating deep divisions on how to achieve equity on campus.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The conflict between the universities and the administration underscores the fragility of academic institutions and fundamental freedoms, which are central to SDG 16.

• Institutional Integrity: Proponents of the compact, such as Professor Yi-Li Wu, argue that higher education is facing an “existential moment” and that silence or compliance are not viable strategies for preserving democratic institutions. The compact is framed as a necessary measure to ensure universities remain strong and independent.
• Fundamental Freedoms: Student organizer Amber Henson noted that the First Amendment rights of students are on the line, referencing the historical role of college campuses in social movements. The fear of visa revocation for attending a rally illustrates a chilling effect on freedom of speech and assembly.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The proposed “Mutual Defense Compact” is a direct application of SDG 17, which encourages and promotes effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.

• Inter-University Alliance: The resolution seeks to create a formal partnership among 18 major research universities. This alliance would leverage collective strength to achieve the shared goal of protecting academic and institutional integrity.
• Growing Coalition: The report notes that Michigan State University, Indiana University, and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln have already adopted similar resolutions, indicating a growing movement toward this partnership model.

Stakeholder Analysis and Debate

Arguments for the Compact

Supporters presented the alliance as a crucial strategy for survival and integrity.

1. Strength in Unity: The primary rationale is that an alliance would make it more difficult for the administration to target individual schools.
2. Countering Capitulation: Professor Levitsky argued that most universities have been “cowed into this kind of preemptive capitulation” and that collective action is needed to encourage institutions to “speak up.”
3. Existential Necessity: Professor Wu framed the choice as a moral imperative, stating that compromising on core values has not protected other institutions, such as Columbia University, from punitive measures.

Arguments Against the Compact

Opposition to the resolution was also voiced during the faculty senate meeting.

1. Risk of Retaliation: Professor Keith Riles described the resolution as a “mutual suicide pact,” arguing that it would provoke further retribution from the administration.
2. Internal Culpability: Riles contended that the university “has much to answer for” regarding its own anti-discrimination policies, suggesting the external pressure is a consequence of internal actions.

Conclusion

The debate at the University of Michigan over a “Mutual Defense Compact” encapsulates a critical struggle over the future of higher education and its role in society. The proposed alliance and the administrative actions prompting it have profound implications for the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals. The conflict directly challenges the foundations of Quality Education (SDG 4), reverses progress on Reducing Inequalities (SDG 10), and tests the resilience of Strong Institutions (SDG 16). The proposal itself, an inter-university partnership, exemplifies a strategy aligned with SDG 17. The outcome of the faculty vote will be a significant indicator of the strategic path these key institutions will take in navigating pressures on their academic and social missions.

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 several issues that directly and indirectly connect to multiple Sustainable Development Goals. The primary themes of threats to higher education, academic freedom, diversity and inclusion, international cooperation, and the integrity of public institutions are central to the following SDGs:

• SDG 4: Quality Education: The core of the article revolves around the challenges faced by higher education institutions, including threats to research funding, academic freedom, and equal access for all students, particularly international ones.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The debate over Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, the alleged discrimination against certain groups, and the specific targeting of international students through visa revocations are all directly related to reducing inequalities.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article highlights an “existential moment for higher education,” framing universities as democratic institutions under attack. It discusses threats to fundamental freedoms (like the First Amendment), the need for institutional integrity, and the response of these institutions to political pressure.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The proposed “Mutual Defense Compact” among Big Ten universities is a clear example of a partnership created to achieve a common objective—defending academic freedom and the research enterprise against external threats.

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

Based on the specific problems and solutions discussed in the article, the following SDG targets can be identified:

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 article addresses threats to this target by highlighting the cancellation of student visas, which impedes access for international students, and the dismantling of DEI offices, which were established to promote equal access.
   • Target 4.7: “By 2030, 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 article mentions the importance of “diverse students and diverse perspectives” and the university’s mission to “cultivating citizens for the betterment of the future,” which are being threatened by the shutdown of DEI policies and pressure on curricula.
   • 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 actions described, such as “threatening student visas” and the “crackdown on visas,” directly undermine the principle of facilitating international student mobility and access to higher education in developed nations.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race, ethnicity, origin…” The article’s focus on the shutdown of DEI offices, the targeting of international students, and the debate around discrimination (as raised by Professor Riles regarding “whites and Asian Americans”) directly relates to this target of inclusion.
   • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… policies and practices…” The executive orders from the Trump administration are presented as discriminatory policies that threaten students and universities. The article also mentions the arrest and deportation of students for their speech, which represents an inequality of outcome based on political expression.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The proposed “Mutual Defense Compact” is an effort to strengthen university institutions to defend their “institutional integrity” and resist being “beaten into submission,” thereby making them more effective and accountable to their core mission.
   • Target 16.10: “Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.” This is a central theme, with direct references to threats against “academic freedom,” the “First Amendment rights of students,” and the risk of being arrested or deported for speaking “out against his policies.”
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Target 17.17: “Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships…” The resolution to create an “alliance between the 18 universities in the Big Ten Conference” is a direct example of a civil society partnership designed to pool resources and present a unified front to protect shared values and institutional missions.

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

The article provides several explicit and implicit indicators that could be used to track the issues and measure progress toward the identified targets:

• Amount of Federal Research Funding: The article explicitly states that the administration’s strategy includes “pulling research funding” and gives the example of “Columbia University, which has had hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding pulled.” This serves as a direct financial indicator of political pressure on universities.
• Number of Student Visas Revoked: The text mentions the “cancelling [of] student visas in recent weeks at schools across the country” and a student’s fear that “their visa status would be revoked if they attended” a rally. This is a quantifiable indicator of restricted access to education for international students.
• Status of DEI Policies/Offices: The article points to the University of Michigan having “quickly folded to Trump’s demands to shut down diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, policies, shuttering the doors of the school’s DEI office.” The number of universities with active versus closed DEI offices can serve as an indicator of commitment to equality and inclusion.
• Number of Arrests/Deportations of Students for Political Speech: The article notes that Trump is “calling for the arrest and deportation of students who speak out against his policies” and mentions “several Pro-Palestinian students arrested.” This is a direct indicator of the suppression of fundamental freedoms on campus.
• Number of Institutions in the Alliance: The article states that Michigan State University, Indiana University, and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln have already “adopted such a resolution” for a mutual defense compact. The number of universities that join this alliance is a clear indicator of the scale of the partnership and collective action.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: yahoo.com