Institutions cite threats to academic freedom and institutional independence
A growing number of leading universities are rejecting President Donald Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” a federal proposal that links preferential funding to sweeping changes in admissions, hiring, and campus governance.
The White House sent the 10-point compact to nine prominent universities on October 1, offering expanded access to research grants and government partnerships in exchange for adopting policies that align with the administration’s political agenda. The plan would require institutions to freeze tuition for five years, cap international undergraduate enrollment at 15 percent, and prohibit the consideration of race, sex, or religion in admissions and hiring. It would also require standardized testing for all applicants and compel universities to “revise governance structures that stifle free speech and ideological diversity,” according to a version of the document obtained by The Hill.
Trump has framed the initiative as an effort to “restore excellence and accountability” in higher education, writing on social media that “Higher Education has lost its way, and is now corrupting our Youth and Society with WOKE, SOCIALIST, and ANTI-AMERICAN Ideology.”
Rejections Mount
Seven of the nine institutions targeted by the proposal have now refused to sign, according to TIME. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was the first to act, with President Sally Kornbluth writing on October 10 that the compact “includes principles with which we disagree.” She added, “Fundamentally the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.”
Brown University followed days later. President Christina H. Paxson said the proposal “by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown’s governance.”
The University of Pennsylvania also declined to participate. “At Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability,” President J. Larry Jameson said, emphasizing that research partnerships “should remain rooted in shared goals and academic integrity.” Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro praised the decision, calling it “the right decision to maintain its full academic independence and integrity.”
The University of Southern California joined the growing list of rejections, with Interim President Beong-Soo Kim warning that “even though the Compact would be voluntary, tying research benefits to it would, over time, undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote.”
The University of Virginia and Dartmouth College issued similar statements last week. UVA Interim President Paul Mahoney said that “a contractual arrangement predicating assessment on anything other than merit will undermine the integrity of vital, sometimes lifesaving, research.” Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock added that “a compact — with any administration — is not the right approach to achieve academic excellence.”
On Monday, the University of Arizona became the latest to reject the offer. “Principles like academic freedom, merit-based research funding and institutional independence are foundational and must be preserved,” wrote President Suresh Garimella in a letter to the U.S. Department of Education. “We seek no special treatment and believe in our ability to compete for federally funded research strictly on merit.”
Autonomy at Stake
Of the original nine invitees, only Vanderbilt University and the University of Texas at Austin have yet to make a final decision. Vanderbilt Chancellor Daniel Diermeier signaled skepticism, writing that “academic freedom, free expression and independence are essential for universities to make their vital and singular contributions to society.”
For the universities that have rejected the compact, the message is unified: federal funding cannot come at the expense of institutional autonomy. Their resistance reflects a broader concern that political interference—whether through funding threats or regulatory leverage—undermines the independence that defines American higher education.
