Several universities are turning down a memorandum that the Trump administration sent out in early October, which promised preferential funding in exchange for certain policy changes.
This memo, called “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” outlines a 10-point plan that includes demands such as altering recruitment and admissions processes, shifting campus culture, and decreasing international student enrollment.
As of now, at least seven institutions—among them the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Virginia, Dartmouth College, and the University of Arizona—have rejected this proposal. These universities expressed concerns that the initiative would alter the “governmental structure” in ways that could hinder free speech and allow monitoring of vandalism and disruptions to free speech.
Vanderbilt University has hesitated about the agreement, neither fully accepting nor rejecting it, although they shared feedback by the October 20 deadline.
The University of Texas at Austin has not publicly stated its stance yet.
In addition, the administration is pushing for a freeze on tuition for five years, an assessment of the earnings of students who graduate from specific majors, and enhanced opportunities for military personnel.
Conditioned upon signing the agreement, universities would be limited to having no more than 15 percent international students, and institutions with endowments over $2 billion would have to refrain from charging tuition for undergraduates enrolled in hard sciences.
In return for these adjustments, universities would gain priority access to funding decisions, with indications that the administration plans to offer this agreement to additional schools in the future.
White House officials mentioned that they initially approached nine universities: Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, Penn, USC, MIT, UT Austin, Arizona, Brown, and UVA.
Responses from the universities that declined the agreement varied:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
On October 10, MIT became the first university to officially reject the administration’s proposal. President Sally Kornbluth wrote in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, expressing that the document contains “principles with which we disagree.” She highlighted that it restricts freedom of expression and institutional independence.
Moreover, she remarked that the essential premise of the document contradicts their belief that scientific funding should be strictly merit-based.
Brown University
Brown followed suit, voicing similar concerns that the agreement contradicted their core values. On October 15, President Christina H. Paxson wrote to officials, stating that the provisions limit academic freedom and compromise governance autonomy.
She asserted, “A fundamental part of academic excellence is to award research funding based on merit.” She indicated that conditions based on anything other than research integrity could harm public welfare.
University of Pennsylvania
President J. Larry Jameson announced the university’s refusal after gathering input from students and staff. He informed the U.S. Department of Education on October 16 that Penn respectfully declined to sign, also providing specific feedback regarding concerns.
He emphasized their commitment to accountability and the benefits that a longstanding partnership with the federal government brings.
University of Southern California
On October 16, Interim President Kim Bong-soo conveyed the university’s decision to reject the compact. Expressing gratitude for shared perspectives, he noted, “Although USC has declined to participate in the proposed compact, we look forward to contributing to this important national conversation.”
The California governor, Gavin Newsom, pressured state universities against signing the agreement, threatening a loss of funding if they complied.
University of Virginia
On October 17, UVA declared it wouldn’t sign the compact. Interim President Paul Mahoney noted that while some principles were agreeable, the university did not seek preferential funding, emphasizing that evaluations based on anything but merit undermine the integrity of important research.
Dartmouth College
On October 18, President Sian Leah Beilock confirmed that Dartmouth would not enter into the agreement. She stated that it could compromise academic freedom and the core principle of granting research funding based on merit.
University of Arizona
President Suresh Garimella stated on October 20 that the university did not agree to the terms, although he acknowledged that several proposed reforms deserve attention. His concerns ultimately lay in the implications for academic freedom and independent research funding.
Updated October 21st at 9:27 a.m. (Eastern Daylight Time).
