Reid Setzer EdTrust
This is just the latest attempt to force universities to accept the Trump administration’s point of view on how college and society should work. It’s a clear threat to colleges who do not bend the knee: your research funding will be discontinued; and if you continue to displease us, investigations will be forthcoming and your students’ ability to access essential federal aid is forfeit, regardless of the impact on those students and the country as a whole.
There is a certain efficiency in how the administration is approaching these institutions via the compact and has approached — and successfully extorted — other universities, like Columbia this summer. The Civil Rights Act and other federal laws by which universities are held accountable for alleged violations, require findings of fact, include the right to appeal for the accused, and limit punishments to those that fit the alleged crime. They also generally take time and effort — and yet, these universities have less than a month to take this “bargain” that goes far beyond any remedy to alleged legal misconduct. In essence, the Trump administration want universities to sign over their academic freedom and institutional governance structures all at once — and hold themselves preemptively accountable for hypothetical future misdeeds.
Reviewing the terms of the compact lays bare its illegality and internal incoherence. The admissions process it prescribes would remove any consideration of the personal experience shared by the student should their written statement touch on any category of protected class, their political beliefs, or undefined “proxies.” The ambiguous language is designed to chill consideration of students’ experiences and opinions, despite this practice being authorized by the Supreme Court. These extralegal restrictions would also make it impermissible to deny entry to a student whose stated political views that endorse the legal and physical subordination of people of color or their political opponents through state violence. This is nonsensical and unconstitutional. There are also new data reporting requirements that colleges are unlikely to be able to comply with due to a simple lack of current data collection. The administration has already begun ignoring this reality,via a rushed and incoherent, and likely unlawful, process regarding their order that schools collect and publish new enrollment data.
Furthermore, the universities are instructed to commit to “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.” This is ludicrous. What is an “institutional unit” defined as? And what would constitute it as belittling conservative ideas? Even if it is, how is that not unprotected by the First Amendment? How does one spark violence against an idea, conservative or otherwise?
The document also argues for merit-based faculty hiring but conspicuously leaves off the political views disqualifier that is mandated for students. Despite their opposition to affirmative action and professed commitment to merit, the administration wants universities to hire a quota of conservative faculty, explicitly listed under the lens of “ideological diversity,” whereby every field, department, school, and teaching unit must pass a purity test. How this is squared with the “merit-based” hiring process the compact endorses is left unsaid; nor does it expound on why it would be logical to condition funding for student aid or cutting-edge research to have astronomy professors who have conservative beliefs. In another light, the “ideological diversity” provision would also allow universities to hire a quota of Marxists, of which only 3% of professors identify. But that’s clearly not what the administration is going for.
A section on institutional neutrality would muzzle professors from speaking about societal and political events in their capacity as professors, despite their recognized expertise. Another reading would be they cannot opine on anything of the sort, full stop. Not only is the document unclear, it’s an obvious violation of the First Amendment. This compact lives in a world where someone cannot teach a subject without sharing their personal political beliefs and discriminating against students. It is a world without good faith, nuance, or professionalism.
