University of Pittsburgh Professors Challenge Trump Education Proposal

A group of professors from the University of Pittsburgh is urging the institution’s leadership to publicly reject a proposal from the Trump administration that would condition federal funding on compliance with a controversial set of conditions. The proposal, known as the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” was presented on October 1, 2023, to nine universities across the United States.

So far, seven institutions, including the University of Southern California and the University of Pennsylvania, have formally rejected the compact, citing concerns over academic freedom. The compact offers enhanced access to federal funds and various benefits to schools that agree to its stipulations, which include limiting campus protests, protecting conservative viewpoints from criticism, freezing tuition rates for American students for five years, and restricting international students to 15% of the undergraduate population.

The document was sent to nine universities, which were asked to provide feedback by October 20, 2023, and were given a deadline of November 21, 2023, to sign on. Officials at Vanderbilt University and the University of Texas have not yet disclosed their decisions regarding the compact, although some at the latter have shown enthusiasm for it. The Trump administration maintains that any school, not just the original nine, is free to sign the compact, and at least one institution appears ready to do so.

Concerns Over Academic Freedom

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) chapter at the University of Pittsburgh has issued a statement calling on Chancellor Joan Gabel and the university leadership to “unequivocally reject” the compact. The statement argues that the compact “inappropriately limits academic autonomy,” placing universities under unprecedented federal oversight in exchange for vague promises of preferential treatment in federal funding.

Michael Goodhart, acting president of AAUP Pitt and a political science professor, emphasized the implications for academic discourse, stating, “We think it’s important for universities including our own to be explicit about the fact that this compact is antithetical to the values not just of higher education but of a democratic society.” He expressed concern that the compact could have a chilling effect on educators, making them hesitant to engage in critical discussions.

The national leadership of the AAUP, alongside Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, condemned the compact, stating that it “stinks of favoritism, patronage, and bribery.” They argue that it fosters a corrupt relationship between the federal government and educational institutions.

Implications for Higher Education

The compact is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to exert influence over higher education, often citing issues like alleged anti-Semitism related to protests against Israel and ongoing debates about diversity and inclusion initiatives. The document claims that “American higher education is the envy of the world” and underscores the benefits institutions receive from their relationship with the federal government, such as access to student loans, grants, and federal contracts.

Schools that agree to the compact would be required to avoid using factors like race, gender, and political views in admissions and financial support decisions. However, exceptions are made for institutions primarily composed of students of a specific sex or religious denomination.

Participating schools would also need to prevent representatives from engaging in discussions about societal and political events that do not directly affect the institution. The compact argues that these measures would eliminate discrimination in admissions while promoting a “vibrant marketplace of ideas” and student equality.

As some institutions like the New College of Florida indicate a willingness to cooperate with the administration’s agenda, others, including the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis, have stated they will not sign the compact. Goodhart, reflecting on the situation, described the compact as a “trial balloon” for the administration’s efforts to reshape academia.

He concluded, “The more resoundingly that trial balloon is shot down, then the better off we’ll be for what comes next, because this won’t be the last attempt to influence or reform higher education.”