Weighing academic freedom against funding: Breaking down the ‘Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education’ – Los Angeles Loyolan

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

Introduction to the Proposed Compact

A recent proposal from the Trump administration, titled the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” has become a focal point of discussion regarding the future of higher education. The compact offers universities preferential access to federal funding on the condition that they adhere to a specific set of terms aligned with the administration’s political priorities. This initiative has generated significant opposition from numerous academic institutions and associations, who argue it compromises institutional autonomy and conflicts with fundamental educational values.

Key Stipulations of the Compact

The proposal outlines several requirements for participating institutions. While the compact suggests these models are optional for institutions willing to forego federal benefits, the potential impact on funding, including student aid, is a significant concern. The primary stipulations include:

1. A five-year freeze on tuition fees.
2. An emphasis on ideological neutrality for all university employees.
3. The official recognition of gender as being defined by biological and reproductive functions.
4. A 15% cap on the enrollment of international undergraduate students.
5. A commitment to restructure or abolish institutional units perceived to be critical of conservative ideas.

Analysis of Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The terms of the compact raise critical questions about its alignment with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to education, equality, and institutional integrity.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The compact’s provisions present several challenges to achieving inclusive and equitable quality education.

  • Target 4.7: The proposal’s emphasis on “American and Western values” potentially conflicts with the goal of promoting education for global citizenship and sustainable development.
  • Target 4.b: The 15% cap on international students directly undermines efforts to expand higher education opportunities for students from developing nations, limiting global academic exchange and partnership.

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The requirement to define gender strictly according to biological processes is in direct opposition to the principles of SDG 5, which aims to achieve gender equality and empower all individuals, recognizing the importance of social and cultural dimensions of gender identity.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  Several aspects of the compact could exacerbate existing inequalities.

  • Target 10.2 & 10.3: Limiting international student enrollment restricts opportunities for global talent and reduces diversity on campuses, potentially increasing inequality among nations. Furthermore, threats to federal student aid could disproportionately harm students from marginalized and low-income backgrounds, hindering efforts to ensure equal opportunity.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The compact is viewed by critics as a challenge to the autonomy and integrity of academic institutions.

  • Target 16.6: By making funding contingent on adherence to specific political ideologies, the proposal could weaken universities as effective, accountable, and transparent institutions, compromising the principles of academic freedom and self-governance essential for their public service mission.

Institutional Responses and Counter-Proposals

The reaction from the higher education community has been predominantly negative, highlighting a significant rift between the administration’s vision and the sector’s values.

• Widespread Opposition: A majority of the nine institutions initially invited to sign the compact, including MIT, the University of Pennsylvania, and Dartmouth College, have rejected the proposal. The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) issued a statement opposing the compact, which was endorsed by Loyola Marymount University (LMU) President Thomas Poon, Ph.D.
• Alternative Framework: In response, the AAC&U issued its own compact outlining seven “shared principles for the common good,” including affordability, excellence, and partnership. This alternative aligns more closely with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by promoting collaboration rather than conditional compliance.
• Minority Support: A small number of institutions, such as the New College of Florida, have expressed support for the administration’s compact, viewing it as a positive step for American higher education.

Conclusion

The “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” represents a significant policy initiative that challenges the foundational principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. An analysis through the lens of the Sustainable Development Goals reveals substantial misalignments, particularly concerning the promotion of quality education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), and the maintenance of strong, independent institutions (SDG 16). The widespread opposition from leading universities underscores a commitment within the sector to uphold values that foster global partnership and inclusive, equitable education for all.

1. SDGs Addressed or Connected

• SDG 4: Quality Education: The article’s central theme is higher education policy, focusing on issues of affordability, access, and the content and values promoted within universities. The proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” directly impacts these aspects.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: The compact includes a specific requirement for universities to define gender in a particular way, which directly relates to policies on gender identity and equality.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article discusses policies that would affect specific groups, namely international students and minority-serving institutions, connecting the debate to the goal of reducing inequalities.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The conflict between the government and higher education institutions over principles of academic freedom, self-governance, and autonomy touches upon the goal of building effective and accountable institutions free from undue political influence.

2. Specific Targets 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.
     
     Explanation: The article highlights the compact’s proposal for a “tuition freeze for five years,” which directly addresses the affordability of tertiary education. It also mentions that federal funding, including potential “student aid,” could be at stake, which is crucial for ensuring access.
   • Target 4.b: By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries… for enrolment in higher education.
     
     Explanation: While not about scholarships specifically, the compact’s proposed “15% cap on international undergraduate student enrollment” directly contradicts the spirit of this target by seeking to limit, rather than expand, access for international students in U.S. universities.

2. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.
     
     Explanation: The compact’s requirement for universities to recognize “gender as biological” and define it “according to reproductive function and biological processes” can be interpreted as a discriminatory policy against individuals who do not conform to this definition, particularly transgender and non-binary people.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… origin… or other status.
     
     Explanation: The proposal to implement a “15% cap on international undergraduate student enrollment” is a policy that would limit inclusion based on national origin. Furthermore, the article notes that “minority-serving institutions have faced roadblocks,” indicating existing challenges to inclusion for minority groups within the higher education system.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.
     
     Explanation: The entire debate around the compact is a debate over a proposed policy. Opponents argue that its stipulations, such as the cap on international students and the definition of gender, are discriminatory practices that would create inequalities of opportunity and outcome.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article features a statement from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) opposing the compact. The statement argues that “Principles of academic freedom and self-governance… are essential for the public good” and opposes making universities “subject… to the changing priorities of successive administrations.” This reflects a struggle to maintain universities as strong, autonomous, and accountable institutions based on established principles rather than political shifts.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Indicator related to Target 4.3: Cost of tuition.
     
     Explanation: The article explicitly mentions the compact’s requirement of a “tuition freeze for five years,” making the rate of tuition a direct, measurable indicator of affordability.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Indicator related to Target 10.2: Proportion of international students in tertiary education.
     
     Explanation: The proposed “15% cap on international undergraduate student enrollment” provides a specific, quantifiable metric that can be used as an indicator to measure the level of inclusion for students based on national origin.

3. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Indicator related to Target 5.1: Existence of laws, policies, or administrative rules that define gender.
     
     Explanation: The article implies this indicator by discussing the compact’s demand for universities to “recognition of gender as biological.” Whether an institution adopts such a policy is a measurable, albeit qualitative, indicator of its stance on gender identity and potential discrimination.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Indicator related to Target 16.6: Degree of institutional autonomy and academic freedom.
     
     Explanation: This is an implied, qualitative indicator. The opposition from the AAC&U and various universities, based on protecting “principles of academic freedom and self-governance” from the “priorities of successive administrations,” suggests that the level of freedom from government control is a key measure of institutional strength. The number of universities rejecting or accepting the compact could serve as a proxy for this indicator.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: laloyolan.com