5 Things to Know About Trump’s Higher Ed Compact – Inside Higher Ed

 

Report on the Proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education”

Executive Summary

A proposal by the Trump administration, titled the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” offers universities preferential federal funding in exchange for adopting a range of specific policy changes. This initiative has been met with significant opposition, with a majority of the nine initially invited universities publicly rejecting the terms. The compact’s requirements have raised substantial concerns regarding their alignment with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). Critics argue the proposal undermines institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and principles of equity, thereby conflicting with the global agenda for sustainable development.

Analysis of the Proposal and Institutional Response

Overview of the Compact

The administration initially invited nine universities to provide feedback on the proposal, which was presented as being in its final form. The compact suggests that signatory institutions would receive benefits such as increased federal grants and partnerships. Following initial rejections, the invitation to sign the compact was extended to all higher education institutions in the country. To date, no institution has publicly agreed to the terms.

Stakeholder Rejection and Criticism

Six of the original nine universities, including the University of Virginia and Dartmouth College, have formally rejected the compact. The remaining institutions—the University of Arizona, the University of Texas at Austin, and Vanderbilt University—have yet to issue a public response. The proposal has drawn widespread criticism from dozens of higher education associations, academic freedom experts, civil rights groups, and university leaders. The core objections center on the perceived federal overreach into institutional governance and the threat to merit-based funding systems.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 4: Quality Education

The compact’s provisions present a direct challenge to the achievement of quality and equitable education for all.

• Target 4.3 (Equal Access to Tertiary Education): While a proposed five-year tuition freeze could be seen as promoting affordability, other clauses create significant barriers. Mandating standardized tests and banning the consideration of race in admissions could disproportionately affect marginalized students, undermining the goal of equal access.
• Target 4.7 (Education for Global Citizenship): Limiting international undergraduate enrollment to 15% of the student body directly contravenes the objective of fostering an appreciation for cultural diversity and promoting global citizenship. This restriction curtails the global exchange of ideas essential for a comprehensive, quality education.
• Institutional Autonomy: The imposition of wide-ranging policy dictates threatens the academic freedom and institutional independence that are foundational to the integrity and quality of higher education systems worldwide.

SDG 5 (Gender Equality) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

Several requirements in the compact are in direct conflict with global goals for equality and non-discrimination.

• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): The mandate that institutions define “male” and “female” strictly according to reproductive function and biological processes opposes efforts to ensure inclusivity and end all forms of discrimination, particularly against transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The prohibition on considering race or sex in admissions and hiring processes threatens to dismantle affirmative action policies. Such policies are often implemented to address systemic and historical disadvantages, and their removal could exacerbate inequalities of outcome, contrary to Target 10.3.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The proposal raises fundamental questions about governance, the rule of law, and the strength of public institutions.

• Target 16.6 (Effective, Accountable, and Transparent Institutions): Critics argue the compact represents an attempt by the executive branch to bypass congressional authority in setting conditions for federal funding. This approach challenges the principles of separation of powers and undermines the accountability and integrity of governmental institutions.
• Target 16.10 (Ensure Public Access to Information and Protect Fundamental Freedoms): Requirements for “institutional neutrality,” restrictions on employee expression, and the threat of shutting down academic departments could severely curtail academic freedom and open discourse. These freedoms are vital for the function of universities as strong, independent institutions that contribute to a just and democratic society.

Key Provisions and Enforcement Mechanisms

Mandated Policy Changes

Institutions signing the compact would be required to adhere to a number of far-reaching stipulations. The key requirements include:

1. Ban the consideration of race or sex in all hiring and admissions processes.
2. Implement a five-year freeze on tuition.
3. Limit international undergraduate enrollment to a maximum of 15 percent.
4. Require applicants to submit standardized test scores, such as the SAT or ACT.
5. Define and interpret gender (“male,” “female”) according to biological and reproductive functions.
6. Commit to institutional neutrality and restrict employees from expressing political views on behalf of the university.
7. Shut down departments determined to “punish, belittle” or “spark violence against conservative ideas.”
8. Anonymously survey students and employees on compliance with the compact and publish the results.

Enforcement and Consequences

The terms of the agreement would be enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice. Institutions found to be noncompliant could face severe fiscal penalties. A first violation would result in a one-year loss of the agreement’s benefits. Subsequent violations would lead to a two-year punishment. Furthermore, the federal government could demand the return of all federal funds advanced during the year of any violation, and private donations could also be subject to return upon request.

Conclusion

The “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” represents a significant and controversial shift in the relationship between the federal government and higher education institutions. While presented by the administration as a voluntary measure to enhance academic quality, it has been widely condemned by the academic community as a coercive action that threatens institutional autonomy and merit-based principles. The compact’s specific provisions are in stark tension with the global framework of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those aimed at ensuring quality education, promoting gender equality, reducing systemic inequalities, and fostering strong, independent institutions.

SDGs Addressed or Connected to the Issues

• SDG 4: Quality Education – The article’s core subject is a proposed government compact that directly impacts policies on university admissions, tuition costs, curriculum, and academic freedom, all of which are central to the quality and accessibility of higher education.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality – The compact’s requirement for universities to define “male” and “female” based on reproductive function and to ban the consideration of sex in hiring and admissions directly relates to gender equality and non-discrimination policies.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The proposal to ban the consideration of race in admissions and hiring processes is directly linked to efforts to reduce inequalities and ensure equal opportunity for all racial groups within the higher education system.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The article highlights a conflict between the executive branch of government and higher education institutions, raising questions about institutional autonomy, government overreach, and the development of effective and accountable institutions. The debate over the compact is a debate about the proper governance and relationship between the state and universities.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals – The compact represents a proposed new model for the partnership between the U.S. government and universities. The widespread rejection of the compact by universities and higher education associations indicates a significant challenge to this partnership model.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

SDG 4: Quality Education

• Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.
  • Explanation: The article discusses several proposals that directly impact this target. The requirement to “Freeze tuition for a five-year period” addresses the affordability of university education. The mandate to “Ban consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions processes” and to “Require applicants to take standardized tests” directly influences policies related to equal access.
• Target 4.b: By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries… for enrolment in higher education…
  • Explanation: The compact’s proposal to “Limit international undergraduate enrollment to 15 percent of the student body” runs counter to the goal of expanding global access to higher education and promoting international student mobility.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.
  • Explanation: This target is relevant through the compact’s requirement to “Define and interpret ‘male,’ ‘female,’ ‘woman’ and ‘man’ according to reproductive function and biological processes.” This specific definition can be seen as a policy that could lead to discrimination against transgender and non-binary individuals within the university system.
• Target 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality…
  • Explanation: The compact itself is a proposed policy framework. The debate discussed in the article is whether its provisions—such as banning the consideration of sex in admissions and enforcing a biological definition of gender—would strengthen or undermine the promotion of gender equality.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…
  • Explanation: The compact’s mandate to “Ban consideration of race… in hiring and admissions processes” is a direct intervention in policies related to equal opportunity. The controversy highlighted in the article revolves around whether this policy eliminates a discriminatory practice or creates new barriers that could increase inequalities of outcome for racial minorities.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
  • Explanation: The article describes a power struggle between the executive branch and universities, with critics like Adam Harris stating, “This is the executive branch trying to circumvent and go around Congress… to change the agreement with higher education.” This raises questions about the accountability of government. The compact’s requirement to “Anonymously poll students and employees on compact compliance and publish the results” is a proposed mechanism for institutional accountability.
• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
  • Explanation: The process described in the article lacks participatory decision-making. The administration presented the proposal as “largely in its final form” and asked for “limited, targeted feedback.” The subsequent rejection by universities, faculty, and students demonstrates a demand for a more inclusive and representative process in shaping higher education policy.

Indicators Mentioned or Implied

• Tuition Rates: The proposal to “Freeze tuition for a five-year period” makes the cost of tuition a direct and measurable indicator of compliance.
• Percentage of International Students: The compact explicitly sets a measurable limit: “Limit international undergraduate enrollment to 15 percent of the student body.”
• Admissions Policies: The requirement to “Require applicants to take standardized tests” and “Ban consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions processes” implies that the existence and enforcement of these specific policies would be used as indicators.
• Student and Employee Survey Results: The article mentions a direct indicator proposed by the compact: to “Anonymously poll students and employees on compact compliance and publish the results.”
• Gender-related Institutional Policies: The requirement to “Define and interpret ‘male,’ ‘female,’ ‘woman’ and ‘man’ according to reproductive function and biological processes” makes the university’s official definitions and policies on gender a key indicator.
• Federal Funding Allocation: The entire premise of the compact is to tie federal funding to compliance. Therefore, the amount of “increased overhead payments,” “federal grants,” and other “federal partnerships” awarded to signatory schools would serve as an indicator of the program’s implementation.

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs	Targets	Indicators
SDG 4: Quality Education	Target 4.3 (Ensure equal access to affordable and quality tertiary education)	Tuition rates (via the proposal to “Freeze tuition for a five-year period”). Admissions policies requiring standardized tests.
SDG 4: Quality Education	Target 4.b (Expand globally the number of scholarships… for enrolment in higher education)	Percentage of international undergraduate students (via the proposal to limit enrollment to 15%).
SDG 5: Gender Equality	Target 5.1 (End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls)	Institutional policies defining gender based on reproductive function. Policies banning the consideration of sex in admissions and hiring.
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	Target 10.3 (Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome)	Policies banning the consideration of race in admissions and hiring processes.
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	Target 16.6 (Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions)	Published results from anonymous polls of students and employees on compact compliance.

Source: insidehighered.com