Higher education‘s repudiation of the federal government’s Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education is not about the technical details of the proposal or the tortured definition of “academic freedom” onto which some have fallen back. It is really saying, “Leave us alone and give us that to which we are entitled.” Until now, there has been little or no accountability for higher ed for the hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies they receive each year. The federal investment in outstanding student loans alone totals $1.7 trillion.
The compact is about refocusing the sector on the core reasons the federal government makes these investments in the first place — and the very things have made it central to American leadership and success: Promoting good citizenship, equal treatment of all students, open dialogues, civil and safe communities, rigorous instruction, quality research and scholarship, merit-based admissions and promotions, transparency about the value of their degrees. Good solid American values.
IT IS TIME FOR PEACEFUL PROTEST RALLIES AND VIGILS
And it brings accountability and focus on these areas at a time when universities are under pressure for failing to achieve or, sometimes, even pursue these goals.
The compact is about leadership. The administration is going to lead in these areas, compact or not. The compact lays out the administration’s goals and priorities in full transparency. This is unprecedented — other presidents have buried their agendas and goals under bureaucratic rules, grant proposals, specialized spending programs, and discretionary subsidies packaged as public service initiatives. Hopefully, a new precedent has been set — the American public deserves transparency.
Now, the compact is a draft, and like any draft, invites refinement. Universities are free to suggest improvements or clarifications that make its intent clearer and its language stronger. Open discussion about the text is a feature, not a flaw — it reflects the same spirit of dialogue and collaboration the compact seeks to promote.
Some opponents contend the compact calls for preferencing conservative ideas on campus — not true. Instead, it specifically asks institutions to create an open campus environment where all ideas (in both the classroom and the laboratory) can be vigorously debated and where individuals are safe from harassment, cancellation, or worse if they express them. It calls out conservatives as an example because they are currently the main targets of such abuse on university campuses.
The compact does not target academic freedom — it doubles down on it, explicitly calling for a commitment to academic freedom and asking university bureaucracies to remain neutral in political conversations that go beyond their specific missions to ensure that ideas are not stifled by institutional example and actions.
The values underlying the compact are not controversial — they are the things Americans expected when they agreed to underwrite the growth of the sector. The compact simply introduces accountability for pursuing those goals — something new to these institutions, and some are rightfully nervous about how they may measure up when the sunlight of transparency shines on their Ivy-covered walls.
There is also an overemphasis in the debate about the “benefits” afforded to institutions. The compact is not about a quid pro quo; it is about leadership and setting a vision for higher education. Institutions should partner in it because it is the right thing to do and because the goals and aspirations are honorable.
The “benefits” are a sharing of the savings the government achieves when evaluating and assessing its relationships with individual institutions. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the monies it awards and invests in higher education go to institutions whose actions align with the federal interest. If a university has made a public commitment to these shared goals and to being transparent about how it measures up (e.g., enters into the compact), the government saves time by no longer having to assess this alignment when making awards and measuring compliance.
When universities turn their backs on the compact, they are telling the American public they are not interested in partnering with the federal government to pursue the American values listed above. This is the wrong choice at a time when Americans are starving for reassurance that universities share their core values and are not pursuing agendas of their own.
Every university president with whom I have spoken is quick to point out that the critiques of the American academy do not apply to their campus — they have open discourse, conservatives are safe, their curricula are rigorous, they only take the best students. The public record tells us they can’t all be telling the truth.
COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS FINALLY GET A FUNCTIONAL FAFSA
The compact is a unique opportunity for American universities to take a bold step toward restoring the special trust that the American public has afforded them. The accountability it calls for will reassure parents and taxpayers at the precise moment when America most needs its universities to truly lead in an increasingly competitive world.
Now is the time for the American academy to step forward, sign the compact, and embrace the opportunity to work beside this administration to revitalize our academic and scholarly communities so that America can continue to lead the world in freedom, opportunity, and peace.
Michael Shires serves as vice chair of Education Opportunity at the America First Policy Institute.
