On 1 October, Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, sent a letter, entitled, “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” to nine universities: Brown, University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Pennsylvania, University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, University of Virginia, and Vanderbilt University.

The recipient institutions were given until 20 October to decide if they would sign the compact in exchange for preferential status for federal funding. On 12 October, after the first institutions stated that they would not sign, President Trump posted a message on Truth Social opening the Compact to all higher-education institutions.

The Compact outlines ten commitments that on face value seem reasonable and good, but as is often the case, the devil is in the details.

Some, like “financial responsibility,” would be fiscally ruinous, including a commitment to freeze tuition for the next five years. Such a freeze compounded by inflation would break already stressed budgets, which would necessitate closures or significantly underfunding academic programs to the detriment of students.

Others like “Marketplace of Ideas & Civil Discourse,” insist that a broad range of perspectives be presented and supported, not just institutionally, but in every discipline and teaching unit. In some arenas this could be ideal, but in others it is intellectually disingenuous. Over centuries, peer review and rigorous research have built strong consensus within the legitimate scientific community. Mandating that countervailing perspectives be included in those disciplines is academically reckless.

That same section supports academic freedom unless it involves hate speech (which is already the standard practice in the academy), but it also prohibits speech supporting organizations that the administration deems terrorist. Academic freedom means that every question can be explored. This is also one of the fundamental tenets of Lutheran higher education.

There are many ways that higher education as a sector and institutionally can and should improve. That is the foundation of peer accreditation: continuous improvement. The strength and integrity of American higher education are the diversity of the sector and institutional autonomy.

In his written opinion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), Justice Frankfurter outlined the “Four Essential Freedoms” of a University, which became the legal framework that has defined institutional autonomy ever since. Universities have the right to determine for themselves, on academic grounds: 1) who may teach, 2) what may be taught, 3) how it shall be taught, and 4) who shall be admitted to study.

This independence coupled with the variety of institutional types is what made American higher education great. Adopting the Compact would diminish us on both fronts. This is why our national education organizations have been advocating against it, and they have been joined by other groups committed to the preservation of the First Amendment.

Earlier this month, I signed on to a letter from AAC&U expressing our disappointment in the Compact. It is a follow-up to the widely publicized letter of April requesting constructive engagement with the Department of Education and the White House. The current epistle echoes the Sweezy decision:

“As stewards of America’s system of higher education, college and university presidents cannot bargain with the essential freedom of colleges and universities to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom. They cannot trade academic freedom for federal funding—and should not be asked to do so. They cannot abandon the American model of self-governance, which guarantees meaningful roles for faculty, administration, and governing boards in academic and institutional decision-making. Principles of academic freedom and self-governance, as long recognized by American policymakers and the Supreme Court, are essential for the public good provided by higher education through its research and teaching.”

American higher education is far from perfect, but it has led global innovation and technology. Many of our institutions have been recognized as the best in the world, which is why so many international students have come to our shores to study and learn. In recent months mandate after mandate have seemingly sought to remove the United States as the world leader in higher education. Adoption of the Compact would make that a reality.

Addendum

Hours after this was initially posted, AAC&U and Phi Beta Kappa issued a statement following on the heels of a conversation among college presidents convened by AAC&U and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, in which I was fortunate to participate. Entitled “Higher Education’s Compact with America: Shared Principles for the Common Good,” it is a good-faith counterproposal embracing the best of what higher education has and can be.

The scheduling of Vice President Mike Pence as the Pope-Shade Lecturer in February 2026 has begun to elicit internet protestations that reveal a number of commendable passions and some misunderstandings about the roles and processes of campus speakers.

An invitation to speak on campus is not an endorsement of that speaker by the University. With the exception of the commencement speaker, whom I select, guest lecturers and performers are selected by faculty/staff committees or academic departments. The senior leadership does not influence those decisions, but we strive to provide institutional support to assure these events are as successful as possible.

Tuition dollars are not used to support lectures or cultural events. The Student Government Association (SGA) allocates some student-activity funds to support their campus events, but the remainder of the speakers and performers who visit our campus are funded through endowments or other gifts.

As a living-learning community, we can’t become an echo chamber. We need to hear voices with which we disagree to broaden our world views and to sharpen our own perspectives and arguments.

As I said at this year’s opening convocation:

We have to be willing to ask difficult questions, we need to listen to countervailing voices and consider different perspectives, and we need to realize that we are not always right.

To do the right thing, we must also acknowledge that a legitimate, healthy diversity of ideas does not mean that every position or conclusion deserves equal billing or any billing at all.

This is the foundation of the academy: we observe, we hypothesize, we research, we experiment, and we subject our conclusions to repeated peer review. The Latin word for science, scientia means knowledge, those things we know through testing and review.

Scientia is knowing what is, and what is not. Anyone has the right to believe the sun revolves around the earth, but as a community of scholars, we should and do reject that uninformed view, but wholesale rejection of ideas because we don’t like them undermines academic freedom and threatens society.

During the past 8-plus years, we have hosted a wide range of speakers. A few were truly inspiring, most were meaningful and informative, a handful were disappointing. I agreed with many, wrestled with many more, and was offended by a handful. That’s how it should be. We almost always learn more from those whose views differ from our own. It is how we stretch our worldview and/or strengthen our resolve. That is the nature of an academic community.

In the 1980s, Senator Jesse Helms led an attack on the National Endowment of the Arts, noting that throughout its then 20-plus-year history, out of tens of thousands of sponsored projects, fourteen had sparked controversy. I penned an op-ed at the time bemoaning how few controversies there had been. Arts (and speakers) are supposed to make us challenge or affirm our beliefs and our boundaries.

The committees that assemble Susquehanna’s offerings each year reflect on what we have seen and heard over the previous few years, and they think about what we will learn individually and collectively from the visitors they bring to campus. When they have done their job well, some of us may be thrilled, some may be outraged, and all of us should become a little wiser.

This letter ran in today’s Daily Item (our local paper).

As we welcome thousands of college students back to the Susquehanna Valley, it is a good time to reflect on the ways our higher-education institutions and our communities make each other stronger.

Students on our campuses benefit from experiential learning opportunities throughout the region including internships, service-learning projects, and research in support of public and private entities ranging from environmental analyses to business feasibility studies. Many of them also work in our surrounding communities.

Students and their families patronize local retailers, restaurants, and hotels. These offerings make our campuses more attractive destinations, and many of our neighboring businesses thrive because of the patronage associated with our campus communities.

Higher education is the 5^th largest sector of Pennsylvania’s economy. The Commonwealth is the number 2 importer of college students in the country, and the educational offerings across the state are among the most diverse and best in the nation.

Pennsylvania boasts the state-owned PASSHE system, the state-affiliated institutions (Penn State, Pitt, etc.), numerous community colleges, and arguably the most impressive collection of independent (private) colleges and universities in the U.S.

The role of independent higher education in Pennsylvania is unique. These institutions educate 53% of all 4-year degree-seeking students in PA, 46% of all Pell recipients, 52% of all working-age adult students, and 55% of all minority students. They educate 69% of our nurses, 45% of our teachers, and provide 58% of the STEM degrees in the state.

This summer, AICUP (The Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania) released a new economic impact study assessing the financial benefits the independent higher education sector has on the Commonwealth.

This report, independently prepared by the Parker Strategy Group, shows that these 80+ schools have an annual economic impact of $29 billion, which includes $1.5 billion in generated state and local taxes, $5.3 billion in annual student spending, and over 195,000 jobs being supported and sustained throughout the state.

In our own back yard, the AICUP schools are Bucknell, Lycoming, and Susquehanna. Through direct spending and that of our employees and students, these three institutions have an economic impact of over $755 million, and they generate over $38 million in state and local tax revenue each year. We all benefit.

As a university leader, I am so grateful for the support and partnerships of our surrounding community, and we should all be grateful when each new school year begins.

Jonathan D. Green, President, Susquehanna University