MIT has been invited by the federal government to sign a so-called “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” The Introduction to the Compact concludes: “Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits.” In other words, the “invitation” is in reality a threat to withhold at least some forms of federal funding from universities that do not accept its terms. An accompanying cover letter invites the nine solicited universities to offer “limited, targeted feedback to ensure mutual alignment.”

That last phrase speaks volumes about the purpose of this proposed deal and its dangers to academic freedom. Universities do not exist to fall into “alignment” with the ideological agendas of the administration of the day. MIT serves the nation and the world, but its ability to do so depends precisely on not being held in a stranglehold by narrow, politicized conceptions of the national interest and the challenges facing the world as a whole.

The Compact proposes broad mechanisms for an unprecedented degree of government intrusion into academic freedom and institutional governance. Under the guise of “fostering a vibrant marketplace of ideas,” the Compact demands viewpoint diversity “not just in the university as a whole, but within every field, department, school, and teaching unit,” thereby giving weight to considerations other than academic merit, in violation of academic freedom. The document places special protections around “conservative” ideas and obligates institutions to revise their governance structures accordingly, including “transforming or abolishing institutional units” that purposefully “belittle” conservative ideas. Effectively this means that the government would have a broad mandate to suppress any ideological viewpoint with which it does not agree. As scholars of constitutional law Chemerinsky and Lakier have noted, the requirements in the Compact are almost certainly unconstitutional both in placing impermissible constraints on federal funding and in restricting speech protected by the First Amendment.

Under the rubric of institutional neutrality, the Compact requires universities to prohibit “all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives” from “actions or speeches related to societal and political events” unless they “have a direct impact upon the university.” Under this policy, the Director of a Center for Human Rights could be prohibited from speaking out against abuses of human rights for fear of being in violation of institutional neutrality. Such a situation is not a “vibrant marketplace of ideas” but an educational failure. In a deliberative democracy, experts have an obligation to contribute to public debate.

The Compact demands that international students be screened for “hostility to the United States and its allies”. How is “hostility” to be measured? Who is an “ally?” If a university’s interpretation of these terms does not accord with the current administration’s, who is to decide between the two? Does the university lose federal benefits if it guesses wrongly? And if the administration’s definitions are to be preferred, what is the point of asking universities to do the screening in the first place? Courts long ago gave up on trying to square such arbitrary loyalty tests with the First Amendment.

Finally, the Compact mandates that universities adopt a trans-exclusionary definition of gender. This is a definition that conflicts with academic freedom insofar as it suppresses teaching, scholarship, and institutional practices that operate with the definitions of gender established by the scholarly and medical literature. Adopting such a definition at MIT would also betray the trans students, faculty, and staff who have placed their trust in our institution and see MIT as a safe place for them to live, work, teach, learn, and thrive.

These are just some of the reasons to reject the Compact and any effort to negotiate its terms. To sign the Compact is to debase the very values of academic excellence, freedom, integrity, and intellectual merit the Compact claims to advance. It would cause grave harm to MIT’s academic reputation.

Moreover, it is a fool’s errand to try to negotiate a “better” version of this document.

The compact will lead to ongoing federal oversight and control of MIT. The issue is not whether some ideas in the Compact are sensible, or could be adjusted to become so. The issue is that, under our laws and Constitution and the American tradition of academic freedom, the executive branch cannot coerce independent institutions of higher learning to “align” with the ideological orthodoxies of the moment.

We urge MIT leadership and the MIT Corporation to reject the Compact wholesale. Federal funding for higher education research should be based not on political litmus tests, but on academic, scientific, and intellectual criteria that serve the nation and the world.

Back to top