ASU meets with White House amid higher education reform talks – Deseret News

Report on the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Overview of the Proposed Federal Compact

A federal proposal titled the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” has been presented to several U.S. universities. The compact offers preferential access to federal funds in exchange for institutional compliance with a set of specific conditions. These conditions have significant implications for several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• Condition 1: Elimination of race and sex from admissions decisions.
• Condition 2: Acceptance of the federal government’s definition of “man” and “woman.”
• Condition 3: Assurance of “institutional neutrality” on campus.

Implications for SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The compact’s stipulations directly intersect with the principles of SDG 5 and SDG 10. The mandate to remove race as a factor in admissions challenges ongoing efforts to address systemic barriers and promote equal opportunity, a core target of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Similarly, the requirement to eliminate sex from admissions and adhere to federal gender definitions raises concerns regarding institutional autonomy in promoting SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and fostering inclusive environments for all students.

Assessing Impacts on SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 16 (Strong Institutions)

The proposal’s framework for funding has generated debate regarding its alignment with SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). In its rejection of the compact, the University of Arizona argued that linking federal research funding to policy alignment rather than merit could “weaken the world’s preeminent engine for innovation.” This perspective suggests that such a policy could hinder the advancement of quality education and research that contributes to solving national and global challenges.

Furthermore, the condition of “institutional neutrality” touches upon the role of universities as strong and independent institutions under SDG 16, raising questions about academic freedom and the capacity of higher education to engage in open discourse.

Institutional Responses and Partnership Dynamics (SDG 17)

In the context of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), the compact represents a proposed partnership between the federal government and higher education institutions. The response from the academic community has been mixed, indicating a complex negotiation of values and priorities.

1. Initial Invitation: Nine universities were initially asked to consider the compact, including Vanderbilt University, University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, University of Southern California, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Texas, Brown University, University of Virginia, and the University of Arizona. The majority of these institutions have rejected the proposal.
2. Expanded Invitation: Three additional universities—Arizona State University, the University of Kansas, and Washington University in St. Louis—were later invited to discuss the compact.
3. Current Status: Arizona State University has confirmed its engagement in dialogue with White House officials, stating it has “offered ideas” while considering the proposal. The University of Arizona has formally declined the offer.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article is centered on higher education institutions in the United States, discussing a federal proposal, the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which directly impacts university policies, funding, and the concept of “academic excellence.” The entire debate revolves around the principles that should govern universities, which is a core theme of SDG 4.

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  This goal is explicitly connected through the compact’s conditions. The article states that universities must agree to “eliminate… sex from admissions decisions” and “accept the federal government’s definition of a ‘man’ and ‘woman’.” These conditions directly engage with issues of gender equality, access to education for women, and the recognition of gender identity within institutions.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The proposal’s requirement to “eliminate race… from admissions decisions” directly addresses policies related to racial inequality and access to opportunities. The debate over this condition is fundamentally about the best way to ensure equal opportunity and reduce systemic inequalities in higher education, a central aim of SDG 10.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article highlights a tension between the federal government and universities, which are key public institutions. The discussion about the conditions for federal funding, “institutional neutrality,” and the rejection of the compact by several universities touches upon the principles of institutional autonomy, governance, and accountability. The University of Arizona’s statement advocating for a system based on “merit” rather than political conditions is a defense of a specific model of institutional integrity, which relates to building effective and accountable institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under 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. The article’s core subject is a proposal that seeks to redefine the terms of access to university education by stipulating that admissions decisions must eliminate considerations of race and sex. This directly relates to the methods for achieving “equal access.”

2. Under SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. The proposal’s condition to “eliminate… sex from admissions decisions” is a policy action directly related to preventing discrimination in education. Furthermore, the requirement to adopt a specific definition of “man” and “woman” impacts policies related to gender identity and potential discrimination against transgender and non-binary individuals.

3. Under SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The “Compact for Academic Excellence” is a proposed federal policy aimed at shaping university admissions practices. The debate highlighted in the article is precisely about whether eliminating race from admissions decisions helps or hinders the goal of ensuring equal opportunity and reducing inequality.

4. Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article describes a conflict over the principles that should govern major educational institutions. The University of Arizona’s rejection, arguing that a “federal research funding system based on anything other than merit would weaken” the institution, is a statement about what makes an institution effective and accountable. The debate over “institutional neutrality” also falls under this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

While the article does not mention official SDG indicators, it implies several metrics that could be used to measure the issues discussed:

• University Admissions Policies: The central condition of the compact is to “eliminate race and sex from admissions decisions.” The existence, modification, or elimination of affirmative action or other race- and sex-conscious policies in university admissions is a direct, measurable indicator of the actions being debated.
• Criteria for Federal Funding Allocation: The University of Arizona’s statement contrasts the compact’s political conditions with a system where funding is based “strictly on merit.” Therefore, the criteria used by the federal government to distribute research funds to universities (political alignment vs. merit-based evaluation) serves as a key indicator of institutional practice and integrity.
• Institutional Policies on Gender Definition: The requirement for universities to “accept the federal government’s definition of a ‘man’ and ‘woman'” implies that the content of university policies regarding gender identity is a measurable indicator. One could track how many universities adopt the federal definition versus maintaining their own inclusive policies.
• Number of Universities Adopting the Compact: The article tracks the response of various universities, noting that “Most of these schools rejected the Trump White House’s compact plan.” The acceptance or rejection rate of the compact among the invited universities is a clear, quantifiable indicator of institutional alignment with the proposed federal policy.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: deseret.com