The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to sign on to the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which would mandate sweeping changes across campus in exchange for preferential treatment on federal funding.
MIT president Sally Kornbluth announced the move in a Friday morning letter to the campus community, which included a copy of her response to Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
Kornbluth highlighted a number of areas the White House had emphasized in the compact, such as focusing on merit, keeping costs low for students and protecting free expression.
“These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent. We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission—work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law,” Kornbluth wrote.
She also noted that MIT disagreed with a number of the demands in the letter, arguing that it “would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution” and that “the premise of the document is inconsistent” with MIT’s belief that funding should be based on merit.
I laugh every time I read the demands of the “compact.” Espcially this one: Shut down departments that “punish, belittle” or “spark violence against conservative ideas.” I seriously doubt there is any college that actually does any of these things.
A college that agrees to it is then complicit with a certain project.
Since consequences can be severe, I do wonder whether a blanket rejection of the compact is the best course of action or whether engaging in negotiation might prove more beneficial to the university and its community.
Negotiations never end. Brown and Penn made deals with the government, and now they got hit with this “compact.” UVA forced the president to resign. It’s never enough. The only answer is to say no—and preferably for all universities to say no, as collective action makes a big difference.
The known cost is dignifying this administration’s indefensible bullying of universities. It’s up to fabulously wealthy institutions like MIT to respond in a way that doesn’t further weaken the position of less-wealthy colleges and universities.
The unknown costs relate to “negotiating” with an entity whose only mode of negotiation is in bad faith.
Although they have not officially responded yet, University of Texas representatives signaled an enthusiastic response and were “honored” to be selected. (Of course, this may still imply a rejection.)