Trump’s Higher Education Compact Faces Backlash from Conservatives

The Trump administration’s latest initiative to reform higher education in the United States has encountered significant backlash, even from some conservative circles. The proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” aims to offer nine prestigious universities substantial federal funding in exchange for compliance with a set of new institutional values and policies. This strategy, designed to reshape the higher education landscape, has been criticized as a modern-day “loyalty oath.”

On October 20, 2023, the administration presented its proposal to nine elite institutions, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dartmouth College, and the University of Southern California. Under the compact, universities are required to commit to a series of institutional priorities, which include maintaining neutrality, adhering to Civil Rights laws, and enforcing standardized testing requirements for admissions. Notably, the plan also introduces new stipulations such as a 15 percent cap on international undergraduate students, mandates to curb grade inflation, and a freeze on tuition for five years.

In exchange for agreeing to these terms, participating universities would gain a competitive advantage, which includes priority access to federal grants and invitations to White House events. Institutions that choose not to sign the compact are free to adopt differing models and values but will forfeit any federal benefits associated with the agreement.

Critics of the compact have emerged from various sectors, including academia and politics. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, described the compact in a New York Times op-ed as “extortion, plain and simple.” Michael Roth, President of Wesleyan University, also condemned the agreement, labeling it a “loyalty oath.” In a more political response, California Governor Gavin Newsom stated he would cut state funding to any university that elects to sign the compact.

Interestingly, the backlash also stems from individuals and organizations that traditionally support reform initiatives. Steve McGuire, a fellow at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, expressed reservations about the proposal, despite acknowledging the need for reform in higher education. He emphasized the potential legal and constitutional issues associated with the compact’s vague terms and unclear implementation process.

Frederick Hess, Director of Education Policy Studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, echoed similar concerns. He noted that while the compact may aim for admirable goals, its execution raises serious questions about statutory legitimacy and bureaucratic overreach. Hess remarked, “In this instance, they have a point,” referring to the criticism from higher education leaders who have previously accepted federal funds under prior administrations.

The impending deadline for the nine universities to make a decision on the compact raises critical questions about their next steps. Will they sign the agreement, negotiate for modifications, or reject it outright? The outcomes of these decisions will likely have far-reaching implications for the future of higher education and its relationship with federal funding in the United States.