A Bad Deal for American Universities, with an added Postscript
The White House has sent a ‘Compact for Excellence in Higher Education’ to nine universities across the US.[1] The Trump administration wants to make a deal with them that is likely to be extended to many, if not all, American universities. The Trump administration offers the prospect of financial benefits to universities that agree with the compact. Those that do not can elect to ‘forego federal benefits.’ This is a bad deal, right in line with the spirit of the gangster film, The Godfather.
Aspects of the compact might sound compatible with the values of American higher education, such as in defending academic freedom, viewpoint diversity, and equal treatment of applicants for admission. However, the concrete dictates for achieving these ends will dramatically limit academic freedom – even what faculty can speak about. It will impose a diversity of viewpoints on all academic units and subjects – as if all viewpoints on science, history, literature, and other subjects are equally valid. It would micromanage admissions, such as the percentage of international students admitted and the use of a standardized test. These are just a few of the poorly thought-out ideas that would undermine the quality of America’s universities – recently regarded as being world leading.[2] The faculty of universities focus huge efforts on carefully designing ways to ensure the fairness and enhance the quality of admissions, curricula, and discussion within the university. They are not likely to be improved by top-down governmental edicts.
The Chronicle of Higher Education published a piece that sampled viewpoints of the top administrators and faculty of these 9 universities receiving this letter. Most administrations were guarded and some, remained in a listening mode. But the faculty at these universities were far more uniformly objecting to consideration of this compact. It obviously clashes with the values and processes that have enabled American universities to excel. Unbelievably, the Chronicle shamefully failed to take a position on this compact, when its readers are linked to higher education. This speaks volumes about the fear the administration generated in existing institutions of higher education. Clearly, in the political arena, the Chronicle’s response is reminiscent of several American newspapers, such as The Washington Post, that refused to publish editorials that supported Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.
Searching online, I found one exception to the more general opposition to this compact. An academic at Harvard, one of the top ranked universities, saw this as an ‘opportunity’ for a coalition of top universities to ‘secure a good, mission-aligned agreement with the federal government’.[3] This view seems incredibly naïve.
Keep in mind that the Trump administration through DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) has already seriously undermined funding for university research and teaching programs. Having taken away major federal funding from most research universities, the administration is not offering federal funding for those willing to comply with the proposed compact.
I was a professor at the University of Southern California (USC) for 22 years, retiring in 2002 to take a new position at a British university. When I was a professor at USC, I was elected President of the Faculty Senate, so I have spent much of my career at USC and cared about this university a great deal and continue to do so. As one of the nine universities, sent this ‘compact’, I applaud the many USC faculty who expressed their opposition to signing on to what is a patently bad deal.
But across academia, it is clear to me that top administrators and many faculty are afraid to speak out. That says it all. Intimidating – in many respects extorting – universities and their faculty is not the way to inspire the academic community.
The United States is presently in a strange place. Prior to Trump’s second term, these federal government challenges to American universities would have been unimaginable. We are in a time when truth is in doubt across multiple domains. Academic institutions are one of the major remaining sources of expertise in critically analyzing taken-for-granted assumptions and deriving empirically and theoretically evidenced perspectives on reality. If we undermine these institutions, we lose one more basis of our economic, social, technological, and political compasses directing our futures.
Don’t take it from me or even my former university. The President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), arguably the top university in the USA, said MIT could not “support the proposed approach” as “leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence …”. This compact would undermine ‘freedom of expression’, core values of the university, and the ‘independence’ of the institution. Bravo! Tear up this letter.
Postscript
I am pleased to report that in a letter on 16 October 2025, the Interim President of USC, Beong-Soo Kim, respectfully declined to participate in the proposed compact. And on 17 October 2025, a Financial Times editorial entitled ‘Trump’s compact threatens to quash academic freedom’ said in part: “The compact is part of the administration’s wider campaign against dissent and Trump’s personal vindictiveness towards criticism. … Universities are communities of enquiry: their first job is to foster environments of civil disagreement in the pursuit of objective truth. Signing Trump’s compact would do the opposite.”
Lecturing the University
Notes
[1] Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu, ‘MIT rejects federal funding deal with Trump administration’, BBC News, 11 October 2025: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62qp10ln63o
[2] Austin Sarat, ‘Trump’s blueprint for tyranny’, The Contrarians, Austin Sarat https://contrarian.substack.com/p/trumps-blueprint-for-tyranny
[3] https://ash.harvard.edu/articles/why-im-excited-about-the-white-houses-proposal-for-a-higher-ed-compact/