Key points:
- Reform is welcome, coercion is not
- Democracy’s future and the fate of higher education
- Integrating your college’s Title IX and Title VI policies and processes
- For more news on higher ed policy, visit eCN’s Campus Leadership hub
I have spent a career studying how policy shapes higher education, but rarely has the federal government offered such a stark quid pro quo as the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”
The White House framed the Compact as a path to “merit,” “excellence,” and a renewed partnership; in reality, it conditions preferential treatment for federal funding on sweeping ideological concessions–eliminating DEI policies, imposing institutional “neutrality,” and reshaping admissions, hiring, and curricula to privilege a specific political worldview. Most strikingly, America’s leading universities are, on the whole, refusing to play along. As the Washington Post reports, six of the nine institutions initially targeted had publicly rejected the offer by the Oct. 20 deadline, with two opting only to “continue the conversation” rather than sign on (Oct. 20 report).
The rejection is not mere symbolism; it is an affirmation that research funding must be awarded on scientific merit, not political compliance. Leaders at the University of Virginia and Dartmouth emphasized that tying research benefits to ideological checklists undermines peer review and academic freedom. The initial roll-out made the coercive logic explicit: Institutions that sign would enjoy “competitive advantage” for federal grants and other benefits; those that do not would be free to “forego federal benefits”. This is not a neutral incentive structure; it is a lever to reorder university governance–and, by extension, scholarly inquiry–around the preferences of the executive branch.
The terms themselves are sweeping and punitive. As summarized by Inside Higher Ed, signatories would be expected to freeze tuition for five years, cap international undergraduate enrollment at 15 percent, ban consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions, impose institutional neutrality, clamp down on so-called “grade inflation,” require standardized tests, and even shutter departments that “belittle” conservative ideas. Enforcement would rest with the Justice Department, and alleged violations could trigger loss of benefits and clawbacks of government funds–plus the return of private donations upon request. These provisions are not incidental; they are the machinery through which policy orthodoxy would replace academic self-governance.
Pushback has come from every corner of the higher education ecosystem. More than 30 associations led by the American Council on Education issued a joint statement urging the administration to withdraw the Compact, warning that it would “hamper the ability of colleges and universities to innovate,” “hinder, not safeguard, freedom of expression,” and impose unprecedented litmus tests for funding. This is not reflexive partisanship; it is a defense of the pluralistic conditions under which diverse ideas compete and the nation’s research enterprise thrives. Even leaders who endorse reform in areas like affordability and viewpoint diversity have rejected the mechanism. Brown University President Christina Paxson, for example, declined to join, citing provisions that would restrict academic freedom, undermine governance autonomy, and tie grants to criteria other than research merit.
Why is the Compact failing? First, it attempts to use federal money as a censor’s pen, replacing discipline-grounded standards with political directives. Universities know that once merit allocation gives way to ideology, credibility and global competitiveness erode. Second, the document’s legal posture is shaky. Many elements, such as compelled neutrality, speech restrictions, and departmental closures on viewpoint grounds–invite constitutional challenge and contradict long-standing principles of academic freedom, which courts have recognized as integral to the First Amendment’s protection of inquiry and expression. Third, the fiscal planks are unworkable. Tuition freezes paired with enrollment caps on international students would destabilize budgets, especially at institutions already navigating demographic decline and inflationary pressures.
Where might the administration go from here? Recent reporting from the Washington Post suggests a pivot from one-off funding freezes toward a broader bid to “effect change nationwide,” inviting more campuses into a revised compact while publicly extolling a return to “Truth and Achievement.” But the core problem remains: any framework that conditions federal advantages on ideological compliance will continue to collide with law, institutional mission, and public trust.
What should colleges and universities do now? First, keep rejecting the compact while articulating concrete, institution-led reforms on affordability, transparency, and open inquiry. Second, double down on merit-based, peer-reviewed research allocation and make that process more legible to the public. Third, adopt robust, viewpoint-neutral free-expression commitments and due-process protections that address legitimate concerns without yielding to government scriptwriting. Finally, coordinate through associations to defend the constitutional and statutory boundaries that prevent federal micromanagement of academic life.
The message from higher education to Washington should be unmistakable: reform is welcome, coercion is not. America’s research universities are engines of discovery because they are messy, competitive marketplaces of ideas, places where methods, not mandates, decide what counts as knowledge. If this administration insists on linking federal benefits to ideological oaths, it will not usher in a “golden age” of excellence; it will trigger a season of litigation, uncertainty, and lost talent. The only true path to excellence–for our students, our universities, and our nation–is through the preservation of academic freedom, not its surrender to politics.
- 2045: A day in the life of a student - December 31, 2025
- The rise of AI-native universities - December 29, 2025
- Why AI-driven education must replace an outdated learning model - December 22, 2025