The Trump administration’s Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education has drawn divided opinions from faculty and student political groups.
The compact, which asks universities to eliminate institutional opposition to conservative ideas, remove DEI from admission consideration and cap international enrollment, was sent to nine universities earlier this month. The document promises preferential federal funding to institutions who comply. Although Pitt was not a direct recipient, faculty and students are grappling with its implications.
On Oct. 8, Faculty Senate President and political science professor Kristin Kanthak discussed the compact in a speech to the Faculty Assembly, arguing that political influence and academia should be kept separate.
“[The compact] seeks to tie federal research dollars not to the quality of the inquiry they are meant to fund but rather to how closely universities adhere to a specific set of ideological preferences,” Kanthak said. “Researchers need to be guided by where the facts take them, not by the ill-defined whims of [a] small group of people in Washington, D.C.”
If universities decide to sign, the compact asks universities to “abolish institutional units” that oppose conservative ideas, eliminate consideration of sex and gender in the admissions process and cap international enrollment at 15%. Other requirements include a neutrality mandate on political issues and a five-year freeze on tuition increases. Signatory compliance will be assessed annually.
Communications professor Paul Johnson discussed the implications of preferential funding and how he feels the system will reward political compliance over genuine scientific breakthroughs.
“This says that the key factor in assigning funds for health research isn’t whether or not a lab has a real chance to solve cancer,” Johnson said. “The key factor is whether or not you’ll be loyal to the Trump administration.”
According to Johnson, the compact’s demands threaten the academic integrity and diversity of higher-level institutions.
“This compact would make it harder for most universities to serve students in precisely the way that these students are demanding,” Johnson said. “Ultimately, they want universities that don’t promote critical thinking, robust intellectual practice or diversity.”
Law professor Jessica Allen said she feels the compact’s requests for universities to erase academic opposition to conservative ideas are unconstitutional.
“I think that under already existing First Amendment doctrine and civil rights laws, universities are not free to ‘punish’ students or faculty for expressing or championing ideas — conservative, liberal or radical,” Allen said. “That would be viewpoint discrimination that, for a public university, violates the First Amendment.”
Junior political science major and vice president of College Republicans at Pitt, Jesse Milston, expressed his support for the potential for preferential funding. He thinks it is a better alternative to Trump’s recent NIH funding cuts, which he feels were justified, but too broad in scope.
“It’s a happier medium from what [the Trump administration] did earlier in the term, which was just cut a lot of NIH funding,” Milston said. “Hopefully, this will bring back schools trying to solve this [large cuts] problem. I think that if we’re trying, it’s a good start.”
Kanthak assured the Faculty Assembly that the compact will not cause any changes at Pitt in the near future.
“The effect of this particular compact will be determined by the lawyers and ultimately, by the voters,” Kanthak said. “There is currently no imminent threat to academic freedom here at Pitt.”
Senior political science major and board member of College Democrats at Pitt Olivia Pinocci-Wrightsman discussed the compact’s implications for free speech in academia.
“I find it to be quite ironic and hypocritical, considering it is very clear that the compact only protects free speech for the right,” Pinocci-Wrightsman said.
Milston said he agrees with the compact’s stance regarding conservative voices in higher education and feels that universities should exist to challenge previously held beliefs.
“You should be committed to the principles of free speech, open debate and dialogue,” Milston said. “We should not have these institutions just be ‘woe centers’ for people to go in and just get exactly what they believe spoon fed to them.”
Milston said Pitt administration has been doing a “phenomenal job” working with the College Republicans to address free speech and concerns about the silencing of conservative voices.
“I have been working a lot with Pitt administration on overhauling our free speech requirements and working on how we can better put free speech as an issue into our curriculum,” Milston said. “I had a conversation for about half an hour with Chancellor Gabel about it.”
Allen said she doesn’t believe any university, Pitt included, should sign the compact.
“I don’t think Pitt should ever, ever consider agreeing to the terms of this document. No university should,” Allen said. “And I don’t imagine that Pitt ever would.”