President Trump’s college compact offer has fallen flat.
As of Monday’s deadline to get back to the administration, at least six prominent universities have publicly rejected the deal, which offers favorable federal funding status in exchange for institutional changes, while none have accepted it. The general theme of the rejections has centered on the schools’ beliefs the demands violated academic freedoms and their values.
Experts say they don’t expect any universities to take the deal, though they are doubtful this will be the last pressure attempt from Trump, who has repeatedly targeted the finances and standing of colleges that defy him.
“I think they did underestimate the resistance that they would get and the willingness of institutions across the country to stand together in support of our core values,” said Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities.
So far, most of the original nine universities that were offered the compact have rejected it: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Virginia (UVA), the University of Arizona and Dartmouth College.
Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier said his school has provided feedback on the deal without officially saying yes or no.
“Last Friday, Vanderbilt participated in a discussion with members of the administration and other university leaders about shaping a productive process for providing such comments. We expect to share our input with the administration through that process,” the statement reads.
The University of Texas at Austin has not yet issued a public response. It is possible UT could try to walk the line of agreeing to some of the deal’s principles without actually signing on.
The Hill has reached out to the university for comment.
The Trump administration said the offer would be expanded, but that these schools were the initial picks because they were seen as “highly reasonable” institutions. A second round of offers might target schools that are more amenable to Trump’s goals in general, potentially allowing him to funnel funds to friendlier colleges.
The document “includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution,” MIT President Sally Kornbluth said in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
“And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone,” she added.
UVA said its concerned the preferential treatment for funding based on signing this compact, and not merit, would undermine the reputation of the school.
“A contractual arrangement predicating assessment on anything other than merit will undermine the integrity of the vital, sometimes lifesaving, research and further erode confidence in American higher education,” interim university President Paul Mahoney said.
Experts say the demands of the Trump administration were likely nonstarters.
The compact said in exchange for preferential funding treatment, universities had to revamp policies around hiring, admissions, altering campus culture and reducing the number of admitted foreign students.
Universities would not be allowed more than a 15 percent foreign student population; no more than 5 percent of foreign students could be from the same country; and schools with an endowment of $2 billion could not charge undergraduate tuition to hard sciences majors.
Universities would also have to freeze their effective tuition rates for five years, post the earnings of students who graduated with certain majors and expand opportunities for service members.
“It creates an extraordinary amount of intervention by the government and the ability of the executive branch to bypass what currently exists through law … I think, frankly, just on a basic level, whoever drafted it, it’s not particularly well drafted,” said Austen Parrish, president of the American Association of Law Schools.
“There’s a lot of ambiguity. What does it mean for an international student who doesn’t believe in American values or how are you going to provide free scholarships for students that are only in STEM but not in other programs? And what does it mean to consider only objective criteria? Are you not allowed to consider some of these personal statements about why [students] want to join the university?” he added. “There’s a lot of problems.”
The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.
While many in academia agree with the administration there are some problems in higher education that need to be resolved, they argue that the issues need to be addressed by the campuses, not the government.
“Like the University of Chicago, there’s internal debates about a way to think about issues of diversity and the extent to which some of the policies have been undesirable. That’s the locus to have the debate and resolve it,” said Steven Durlauf, director of the University of Chicago’s Stone Center for Research on Wealth Inequality and Mobility.
While the compact appears to be DOA, the White House has had success in pressuring concessions out of other universities.
Columbia and Brown universities both agreed to changes to disciplinary policies and hiring and admission processes, among other matters, in order to restore funding frozen under Trump.
While funding was also restored to Harvard University through litigation, Trump has indicated the two sides are still in negotiations to end some federal investigations.
Advocates say now is the time for higher education institutions to band together.
“I am disappointed that schools that have not received the letter have not already preemptively rejected it,” Durlauf said. “I strongly believe the University of Chicago should preemptively reject the compact.”
Updated at 9:06 p.m. EDT
