From silence to rejection: How 9 universities are responding to Trump’s higher-ed compact – AZ Luminaria

Report on University Responses to Federal Compact and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent federal proposal, the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” has prompted widespread rejection from prominent U.S. universities. The compact offered preferential federal funding in exchange for alignment with the administration’s political agenda. This report analyzes the responses from nine targeted institutions and the broader academic community, framing the conflict within the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The overwhelming opposition to the compact underscores a commitment to principles fundamental to SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

The Proposed Compact and its Conflict with Global Goals

The U.S. Department of Education invited nine universities to sign a 10-point compact, conditioning access to federal research grants, student loans, and preferential tax treatment on the adoption of specific policies. This proposal has been widely criticized as a threat to the foundational principles of higher education, creating a direct conflict with several Sustainable Development Goals.

• SDG 4: Quality Education: The compact’s demands to align with a political ideology were viewed as a direct assault on academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge. Opponents argued that such restrictions would compromise the quality and inclusivity of education by limiting free inquiry, open discourse, and the diversity of thought essential for a thriving academic community.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: University leaders consistently warned that abandoning merit-based competition for federal research funding would stifle scientific progress. By tying funding to political conformity rather than scientific merit, the compact threatened to weaken the nation’s capacity for innovation, a key target of SDG 9.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The proposal was reported to characterize efforts to improve diversity as discriminatory. This stance directly opposes the objectives of SDG 10, which calls for reducing inequality and ensuring equal opportunity for all. Critics argued the compact would undermine institutional commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The compact was described by higher-education experts as government overreach and extortion. The universities’ rejection of the proposal represents a defense of their institutional autonomy, accountability, and transparency, which are core tenets of SDG 16. They asserted their right to self-governance, free from undue political influence, thereby strengthening their roles as just and independent institutions.

Institutional Responses: Upholding Principles of Sustainable Development

Of the nine universities initially approached, seven formally rejected the compact, citing its incompatibility with their core missions. Two others did not immediately sign, with one remaining open to discussion and the other not issuing a formal reply by the deadline. The rejections were framed as a necessary defense of principles aligned with sustainable development.

1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): President Sally Kornbluth was the first to reject the compact, stating the proposal would “restrict freedom of expression” and that “scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone,” directly upholding the principles of SDG 9.
2. Brown University: President Christina Paxson declined, noting the compact would “restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown’s governance,” a defense of the institutional integrity central to SDG 16.
3. University of Southern California (USC): Interim President Beong-Soo Kim rejected the agreement, writing that tying research benefits to it would “undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote,” reinforcing the link between academic freedom and SDG 4.
4. University of Pennsylvania: President J. Larry Jameson declined after consulting the university community, stating the response reflected their “values and the perspectives of our broad community,” an action consistent with the accountable institutions promoted by SDG 16.
5. University of Virginia: Interim President Paul Mahoney rejected the compact, affirming that “federal research funding should be based on merit,” a clear defense of the innovation ecosystem targeted by SDG 9.
6. Dartmouth College: President Sian Leah Beilock wrote that the compact would “compromise our academic freedom, our ability to govern ourselves,” positioning the university as a strong and independent institution in line with SDG 16.
7. University of Arizona: President Suresh Garimella rejected the terms, stating that a system based on anything other than merit “would weaken the world’s preeminent engine for innovation,” linking the decision directly to the advancement of SDG 9.

Vanderbilt University did not reject the compact outright, remaining open to discussion. The University of Texas at Austin did not formally reply by the deadline, though the chair of its System Board of Regents expressed enthusiasm for the proposal’s “potential funding advantages.”

Stakeholder Advocacy for SDG 4 and SDG 16

The institutional rejections were bolstered by widespread and unified opposition from students, faculty, academic organizations, and local governments. This mobilization highlights a collective commitment to protecting the role of higher education in fostering a sustainable and just society.

• Faculty and Student Governance: Faculty Senates at the University of Arizona and the University of Virginia passed resolutions opposing the compact. Student government leaders from seven of the nine universities issued a joint statement warning the compact could “erode the independence that has long defined our universities.”
• Community Petitions and Protests: Campuses, including Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, and USC, saw petitions signed by thousands of community members and protests organized to call for the rejection of the compact. These actions represent a grassroots defense of the fundamental freedoms essential to both SDG 4 and SDG 16.
• National and Local Government Support: Nearly 100 higher-education leaders endorsed a statement from the American Association of Colleges and Universities calling the compact an “ultimatum.” The Tucson City Council unanimously passed a resolution urging the University of Arizona to reject the compact, citing the need to protect local control and academic freedom as “fundamental to community well-being.”

Conclusion

The near-unanimous rejection of the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” by the targeted universities and the broader academic community constitutes a robust defense of principles that are critical to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. By prioritizing institutional autonomy, merit-based research, and academic freedom, these institutions have reaffirmed their commitment to providing quality education (SDG 4), driving innovation (SDG 9), promoting equality (SDG 10), and functioning as strong, independent institutions (SDG 16). This episode underscores that the integrity and independence of higher education are indispensable for its contribution to a sustainable global future.

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

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   The entire article revolves around the principles of higher education. The central conflict is about maintaining the quality and integrity of university education against political influence. University leaders and faculty argue that academic freedom, freedom of expression, and merit-based research are essential for “academic excellence.” For instance, Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock stated the compact would “compromise our academic freedom, our ability to govern ourselves,” which are core tenets of quality education.

2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   This goal is relevant as the article details a struggle over the autonomy and integrity of universities as institutions. The White House’s proposal is described by some as “extortion and government overreach,” threatening the development of “effective, accountable and transparent institutions” (Target 16.6). The widespread rejection of the compact by universities, faculty senates, and student groups is an effort to preserve their institutional independence from political pressure and ensure they remain accountable to their academic missions, not a political agenda.

3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

   The article repeatedly emphasizes the importance of federal funding for research and innovation. University of Arizona President Suresh Garimella’s letter states that a system based on anything other than merit “would weaken the world’s preeminent engine for innovation, advancement of technology, and solutions to many of our nation’s most profound challenges.” This directly connects the debate to the promotion of scientific research and technological advancement, which is a key component of SDG 9.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   The article touches upon issues of equality and non-discrimination in higher education. It mentions Brown University’s past compliance reviews regarding “nondiscrimination obligations, including for undergraduate admissions.” Furthermore, the article notes that the compact “characterizes efforts to improve diversity as discriminatory,” highlighting a direct link to debates surrounding equal opportunity and the reduction of inequalities within educational 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 mentions federal support for “student loans” and a compact item about “freezing student tuition,” which relate directly to the affordability and accessibility of higher education.
   • Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including… human rights, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity. The debate over “academic freedom,” “freedom of expression,” and the rejection of a politically imposed ideology (“WOKE, SOCIALIST, and ANTI-AMERICAN Ideology”) are central to ensuring education fosters critical thinking and diverse perspectives rather than political conformity.

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

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The universities’ struggle to maintain self-governance and resist “government overreach” is a direct effort to remain effective and accountable to their academic missions. The call from the UA’s Graduate and Professional Student Council for “clear, transparent, timely, and comprehensive information regarding the compact” highlights the demand for institutional transparency.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article is filled with examples of this, including faculty senates passing resolutions, student governments issuing joint statements, and community members signing petitions (“Hundreds of Dartmouth faculty members also signed a petition urging Beilock to reject the compact”). These actions demonstrate a demand for participatory decision-making.
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms. The core conflict is about protecting “academic freedom” and “freedom of expression,” which are fundamental freedoms in an educational context. MIT President Sally Kornbluth’s statement that the proposal would “restrict freedom of expression” directly invokes this target.

3. Under SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

   • Target 9.5: Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities… encouraging innovation. The argument that “federal research funding should be based on merit” is made repeatedly. University leaders argue that tying funding to political ideology would “tilt the research playing field away from free, meritocratic competition,” thereby undermining the very system that drives scientific research and innovation.

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

1. Indicators for Institutional Integrity and Academic Freedom (SDG 16, SDG 4)

   • Number of universities formally rejecting politically conditioned funding proposals: The article tracks this explicitly, stating, “Seven institutions have said no,” and details the responses of each. This serves as a direct measure of institutional resistance to political interference.
   • Number of faculty and student governing bodies passing resolutions to protect institutional autonomy: The article cites multiple examples, such as the “UA’s Faculty Senate officially opposed the compact,” the “UVA Faculty Senate voted Oct. 3 to oppose the compact,” and the joint statement by student government leaders. These actions are measurable indicators of internal governance defending institutional values.

2. Indicators for Merit-Based Research and Innovation (SDG 9)

   • Prevalence of merit-based criteria in the allocation of federal research funds: The article implies this is the current standard that universities are fighting to protect. University of Virginia’s statement that “federal research funding should be based on merit” and MIT’s belief that “scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone” establish this as the key indicator of a healthy innovation ecosystem.

3. Indicators for Participatory Decision-Making (SDG 16)

   • Number of petitions and signatories from university stakeholders on issues of governance: The article provides specific numbers, such as the “nearly 2,000 Penn community members have signed a petition” and a UT petition with “nearly 1,200 petition signatures.” These figures serve as quantitative indicators of community engagement and participation.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: azluminaria.org