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.