Friends:
As a faculty member at the University of Texas at Austin, I want to commend Professors Drs. Liliana Garces, Leslie Gonzalez, and Julie Posselt for this powerful and principled essay. Their analysis in U.S. News & World Report captures exactly what’s at stake—not only for higher education, but for democracy itself. The so-called “Compact for Academic Excellence” represents a dangerous attempt to trade public funding for political loyalty, undermining the autonomy that has long defined the American university.
At a time when Texas faculty are already navigating the fallout from SB 17 and other policies designed to suppress equity and critical inquiry, this essay reminds us that academic freedom is not negotiable. It is the moral foundation upon which genuine learning and democratic life depend. I join these colleagues in calling on every institution to reject coercion masquerading as reform and to reaffirm our shared commitment to truth, inclusion, and independent thought.
— Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.
All Colleges Must Reject the White House ‘Compact’
Submitting to ideological constraints would undermine U.S. universities.
 |
| DAVID L. RYAN|THE BOSTON GLOBE|GETTY IMAGES Signs at a MIT Grad Student Union press conference on Oct. 10. |
The Trump administration this week offered U.S. colleges and universities preferential access to federal funding if they accept ideological conditions laid out in what the White House dubbed the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” A few days earlier, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – one of nine universities that were first approached with the offer on Oct. 1 – rejected the compact on the grounds that it would “restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution.”
All colleges and universities must follow MIT’s example and reject this compact. That’s because bowing to the demands of any government, political party or interest group in exchange for money undermines the highest values that U.S. universities teach and uphold. America’s global leadership in higher education rests on a commitment to academic freedom – independent scholarship, teaching and self-governance – as well as equal access to opportunity. These core principles ensure that we serve the public interest regardless of the political winds.
As faculty at three of the nine universities that were first urged to accept the White House proposal earlier this month – the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Arizona and the University of Southern California – we speak for ourselves, not for our institutions. As professors who study higher education policy, we are convinced the proposed compact would create a two-tiered system, privileging universities that accept the politically motivated deal in exchange for government funding and penalizing those that refuse. That means every U.S. institution of higher learning – from local community colleges to internationally recognized research universities – will be pressured to comply with ideological strings attached to federal funding.
The White House proposal, reportedly drafted in part by Marc Rowan, a Trump supporter and billionaire co-founder of private equity firm Apollo Global Management, calls for universities to commit to ignore “sex, ethnicity, race, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious associations” in both admissions and hiring, and to protect those with “conservative ideas.” The aim appears to be to eliminate “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs vilified by the political right for allegedly disadvantaging white male and conservative students and faculty. Yet, ironically, the compact’s prohibition on considering applicants’ political views would in fact hamper efforts to bring more conservative students and faculty onto campuses.
Another paradox of the White House proposal is that it forbids considering nationality in admissions – while at the same time requiring institutions to cap international student visas at no more than 15% of the student body and no more than 5% from any one country other than the U.S. How do we square this with a commitment to admitting the best candidates anywhere in the country and anywhere in the world?
For decades, the government has invested in financial aid, research and institutional support for universities, and institutions have stewarded those resources to serve the public good. This partnership has yielded extraordinary benefits. Consider the creation of land-grant universities, which offered a pathway to higher education to the working class and fueled innovation in agriculture, transportation and technology, growing the U.S. economy into a global leader in each of those sectors. Or federal student aid programs, such as Pell Grants and Work-Study, which enable millions of Americans to access higher education and contribute more to society and to our tax base.
Federal research funding, awarded on the basis of merit and free from political interference, has empowered scholars to ask bold questions and pursue transformative discoveries that challenged conventional wisdom, such as Albert Einstein’s ideas – initially mocked – that were foundational for the invention of laser technology. By requiring universities to sign the compact and annually “certify their adherence” to its principles, the White House is imposing ideological litmus tests on which institutions will be funded to pursue scientific breakthroughs – and which will not.
If federal support is withheld from institutions such as MIT that refuse to sign, those institutions and their students will become the “have-nots.” Some universities may be able to backfill the loss of some federal funds, but most cannot.
Cynically, the compact also promises “excellence” without any evidence that its provisions would advance it. In truth, it would diminish institutions’ autonomy and ability to achieve academic excellence.
This compact is not a good-faith effort to improve higher education. It would subject colleges and universities to government control, unilateral and arbitrary review by the Department of Justice and the threat of losing essential federal resources through a coercive process that is an affront to the rule of law.
Higher education is not above scrutiny. We welcome robust, democratic conversations about how to improve our institutions. But that won’t be achieved through coercive actions by the executive branch that leading legal experts have called unconstitutional.
We urge every American – students, parents, faculty, alumni and concerned citizens to act now. Contact university leaders, governing boards and elected officials. Insist that colleges and universities reject this compact and reaffirm their commitment to opportunity, academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Organize on campuses and in communities.
Now that every U.S. college and university is being asked to adopt the White House compact, it is all the more urgent that we take collective action to defend the future of colleges and universities as engines of innovation, economic vitality and, most importantly, democracy.
Liliana M. Garces is the Ken McIntyre Professor for Excellence in School Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin.
Leslie D. Gonzales is a professor of higher education at the University of Arizona.
Julie R. Posselt is a professor of education policy at the University of Southern California.
No comments:
Post a Comment