Last month, the Trump administration sent a compact to a select group of nine universities outlining a list of demands that, if met, would offer a boost in grants and federal funding. To leaders and professors in higher education, the administration’s effort in leveraging federal funding as a tool to force universities to follow its own political policies has caused controversy. They see it as yet another attack against higher education over what they believe is biased education.
The contract says that the universities would receive favorable terms for government aid if they agreed to conditions like banning consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions, limiting international undergraduate enrollment, requiring that applicants pass admissions examinations like standardized testing, suppressing grade inflation, and waiving tuition for students interested in the hard sciences.
The universities approached by the administration include the University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia. They are generally a dissimilar collection of state universities and private institutions. However, some of them are in states controlled by Republican governors or have demonstrated reluctance in fighting the administration’s political ideologies.
Seven of the nine universities have refused to endorse the proposal. Vanderbilt University said it had reservations about it. Only one, the University of Texas, said that it was open to signing onto the deal.
While some of the ideas are generally favorable, like tamping down increasing tuition costs and not suppressing conservative thought to maintain ideological diversity, many are troubled by the federal government dictating to them how to do it. This situation speaks to the irony of free speech — by allowing institutions to practice that right, they can also be punished for disfavored speech. It would be preserving the very ideal the government claims to want to abolish.
Many also say the contract is a blatant exercise of control over what used to be independent institutions. For example, it would be an infringement on the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides safeguards to universities in their interactions with the government. On one side, the government reduces federal power over education by getting rid of the Department of Education. On the other hand, they are separately arranging a centralization of power. It follows a trend inside the administration to overlook traditional lawmaking. Instead of negotiating with Congress, they have started reaching out to educational institutions directly, seeking to implement the administration’s political agenda using federal funds as leverage. The basis for the contract even came from two financial titans — Mr. Rowan, who is chief executive of Apollo Global Management, and Stephen A. Schwarzman, the chief executive of Blackstone — unelected officials who are shaping the administration movement to reform American education.
The Trump Administration has already attempted to force schools to pledge to various guidelines. Many have agreed that it is overstepping the administration’s legal authority over schools. So far, policies aimed at making schools cut programs promoting diversity and equity have not directly touched Concord Academy. However, the administration’s increased efforts in influencing education in private institutions, such as ours, will only have greater implications in the future.