The Trump administration recently released the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” a document that invites universities to receive preferential treatment in exchange for compliance with the federal government's wishes.
Reports state the universities that sign would gain preferential treatment, such as “substantial and meaningful federal grants.” The universities would also be invited to the White House for events and discussions with the administration.
The 9-page compact spells out several regulations the federal government would place on institutions, such as inhibiting colleges from considering race, sex, nationality, sexual orientation, among other qualities. It would also require universities to adopt and implement the administration's definition of gender for sports teams, locker rooms and bathrooms.
According to the Associated Press, the Trump administration initially invited nine universities across the country to sign the compact on Oct. 2. Seven of these universities declined the offer, including Brown University, MIT, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Virginia. The remaining two, the University of Texas at Austin and Vanderbilt University, have neither declined nor accepted the offer.
The compact has since been extended to any interested higher education institution in the U.S.
Theresa Kulbaga, English professor and president of the faculty alliance at Miami University, wrote a commentary article in the Ohio Capital Journal expressing her initial worries regarding the compact. Kulbaga discussed her article with The Post.
“First of all, it's an unprecedented executive overreach into higher education in the U.S. that has never been seen before,” Kulbaga said. “That was my initial feeling, that this is against what higher education stands for, and the freedom to teach and learn that we stand for.”
On the first page of the compact, it is established that if universities do not agree with the requirements and choose not to sign the document, they effectively forfeit receiving federal benefits. These benefits include access to student loans, grant programs, research funding, approval of student visas and preferential treatment under the tax code.
“That is the downside of not signing on, is that the federal government has put in writing that it will take away these federal benefits that it has listed in this introduction to the compact,” Kulbaga said. “I don't know if it actually will do that. But even if it does do that, I think not signing is better. There are other ways of getting funding and securing those kinds of things than to give up your autonomy and let the federal government just have all the control over your university.”
The compact comes after Senate Bill 1, recent legislation that banned diversity, equity and inclusion programs at all public universities within the state, provided stricter rules on teachers discussing bias, regulated classroom discussions and more.
Hans Meyer, Director of the Ohio University E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, said due to SB1, the compact has not been highly discussed at OU.
“Ohio has its own challenge right now with SB1 and how we're going to comply with that, I don't think that we have really talked about the compact,” Meyer said. “Ohio University, I mean, I'm sure we get some federal funds and some federal research dollars, but not to the same extent as some of those big research institutions that were part of that original nine.”
OU has not been invited to sign the compact, according to Dan Pittman, an OU spokesperson
“Ohio University has neither received official information nor an official invitation to participate in the ‘Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education’ from the Department of Education,” Pittman wrote in an email.
Meyer said he does not believe OU will sign the compact and that it does not fall in line with the values of university leaders.
Kulkbaga commented on what this compact signals for future relations between institutions of higher education and the federal government.
“I think it's a sign that the federal government is attempting to secure loyalty, not just from higher education, but also from lots of other institutions, in exchange for doing what it wants,” Kulbaga said. “It’s a form of trying to centralize the federal government and take away the rights of states, the rights of individual universities, the rights of individual students, the rights of individual faculty and administrators.”
