“Faculty are really concerned that the compact opens a door to vast meddling in academic freedom,” said Dr. Brian Stiltner, professor of theology and religious studies at Sacred Heart University (SHU) and secretary of the SHU chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “That’s really the top concern.”
The Trump administration released a higher-education compact proposal on Oct. 1 that, if enacted, would condition federal funding on institutions’ compliance with a set of newly defined policies. The compact outlines rules that would affect key areas of university operations, including student admissions, faculty hiring, academic programs, and financial responsibility.
Source: Jacquelyn Martin, AP News
The “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” includes 10 components, eight of which outline new policy requirements. One provision mandates that all undergraduate applicants must submit a widely used standardized test or program-specific measures of accomplishment, and that admissions decisions would rely on academic criteria rather than factors such as sex, race, nationality or political views.
Another proposed policy limits the international enrollment to 15 percent of a university’s undergraduate population, and no more than five percent can be from a single country.
Faculty and university leaders in Connecticut have raised concerns that the compact could undermine autonomy and academic freedom, particularly through policies on institutional neutrality and student learning.
“Political powers are trying to get universities to go along with something that would be like swallowing a poison pill, that might look like it’s okay at the moment, but that is sowing the seeds for your own lack of freedom down the line,” said Stiltner.
There are also broader implications for how the proposal intersects with growing political polarization over the role of higher education.
“From a political standpoint, the so-called compact raises serious issues pertaining to academic freedom and will only further divide the two major parties,” said Dr. Gary Rose, professor and scholar-in-residence of Political Science and Global Affairs at SHU.
Advocacy groups are also taking a stand, including the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), a national organization with an advocacy chapter at SHU, who commits “to protecting academic freedom, strengthening shared governance, and offering thoughtful solutions to the pressing issues facing higher education,” according to their website.
On Nov. 7, as part of a series of nationwide events, members of higher education unions and advocacy chapters from across Connecticut gathered to speak out against the proposal, which the Connecticut State University chapter of the AAUP called “an assault on higher education.” Speakers included representatives from Connecticut chapters at Quinnipiac University, Yale University, and Connecticut State University, as well as Stiltner from Sacred Heart.
“It’s very hard to compete with the federal government, so people are stronger by holding together,” said Stiltner. “The network of the American Association of University Professors was one natural way for us to stick together with other institutions.”
According to the Associated Press, the White House contacted nine private universities, including Vanderbilt University and Dartmouth College, inviting them to become “initial signatories” of the proposal in exchange for “more favorable access to federal money.” The universities were asked to provide feedback by Nov. 21. As of the end of October, eight have formally rejected the proposal or noted reservations towards it, while the University of Texas has yet to officially decide.
“This does not fit with the traditional relationship between the federal government and higher education,” said Rose. “It is an entirely new phenomenon that the Trump administration is attempting to introduce.”
The proposal also includes a section called the “marketplace of ideas & civil discourse,” which requires signatories to “acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility” and to ensure “protections against institutional punishment or individual harassment for one’s views.”
“This is a reaction, and unfortunately an over-reaction, to the political correctness that was imposed on college campuses prior to the election of Trump. That period was also an assault on academic freedom,” said Rose. “But that was not the function of a presidential compact, but rather the ideological orientation of faculty who attempted to impose their views on students and other faculty.”
The proposal also states that governance structures could be revised, as necessary, to transform environments at institutions that “purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”
“A critique that has been made by those who support President Trump in this endeavor is that universities in the past have sometimes suppressed conservative speech or ideas, and I think that is a valid critique, but the solution to that problem is not to swing the other way,” said Dr. Christel Manning, professor of theology and religious studies at Sacred Heart and president of the SHU chapter of the AAUP.
“I think that what we need to work on is preserving and protecting the freedom to express all ideas — that’s what makes for a good university,” said Manning.
Opponents of the compact have continued public action, organizing events and advocacy efforts across universities to communicate concerns about the proposal’s impact on academic freedom and governance of higher education.
“Our overall message is that we want to preserve the highest standards of excellence in both teaching and research that American universities have historically represented,” said Manning. “The way to do that is to maintain the kind of academic freedom that enables people to speak, write, and pursue the truth, rather than a particular ideology.”
