MITCAF statement on the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education”

Summary. The MIT Council on Academic Freedom objects to the proposed draft compact between the federal government and MIT. Its two core objections are that (i) the compact violates principles of academic freedom, and that (ii) the compact’s stance on institutional neutrality needs clarifying.

___________________________________________________________________________

The MIT Council on Academic Freedom is a faculty organization devoted to promoting and defending freedom of expression and academic freedom at the Institute. We comment here on the parts of the Trump administration’s proposed compact that are most relevant to MITCAF’s mission. Accordingly, we say nothing about the compact’s sections concerning admissions, hiring, student equality, learning, financial responsibility, and foreign entanglements. We also do not comment on whether the MIT administration should negotiate the terms of the compact, or else reject it wholesale; neither do we comment on the compact’s legality. The relevant parts of the compact for our purposes are Section 2, “Marketplace of Ideas and Civil Discourse,” and Section 4, “Institutional Neutrality.”

“Marketplace of Ideas and Civil Discourse”

There are some sentiments in this section that align with MITCAF’s commitment (following the MIT faculty Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom) to intellectual diversity, open inquiry, and civil discourse. For instance:

Truth-seeking is a core function of institutions of higher education. Fulfilling this mission requires maintaining a vibrant marketplace of ideas where different views can be explored, debated, and challenged.

[T]he freedom to debate requires conditions of civility. Civility includes protections

against institutional punishment or individual harassment for one’s views.

However, while intellectual diversity (including political diversity) is welcome and should be encouraged, the compact seems to require its enforcement:

Signatories commit themselves to revising governance structures as necessary to create [a vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus . . . with a broad spectrum of ideological viewpoints present and no single ideology dominant, both along political and other relevant lines].

This is incompatible with one component of academic freedom, namely the ability to hire faculty without external interference, in particular by not imposing political litmus tests. Faculty should be hired on scholarly merit and teaching ability, not on political views. The compact’s statement on this point is also incompatible with Section 3’s “steadfast commitment to rigorous and meritocratic selection.”

Section 2 of the compact continues:

Signatories commit themselves to revising governance structures as necessary to create such an environment [a vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus], including but not limited to transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.

One problem with this statement is the partisan focus on “conservative” ideas, whatever these may be. But that problem would not be fixed by replacing “conservative ideas” with “political ideas.” Naturally no one should be punished or physically attacked for their ideas, political or otherwise. But academic freedom permits “belittling” any ideas. Just which ideas get belittled, and by whom, is settled by the “marketplace of ideas.” If all the Economics faculty members were to belittle tariffs (or, for that matter, the Communist Manifesto), that would be well-within the scope of academic freedom.

Section 2 also says:

Signatories shall adopt policies prohibiting incitement to violence, including calls for

murder or genocide or support for entities designated by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations.

Incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected by the First Amendment. However, political (as opposed to material) “support” for organizations with violent aims is protected by the First Amendment, and is therefore protected speech on public university campuses. MIT should not be an exception.

“Institutional Neutrality”

This part of the compact appears to endorse the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report. Quoting from Kalven:

The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest.

That last sentence is echoed by the compact:

All university members, including students, faculty, and staff, are encouraged to comment on current events in their individual capacities, provided they do not purport to do so on behalf of the university or any of its subdivisions.

However, Section 4 of the compact is unclear on one point:

All university employees, in their capacity as university representatives, will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.

That can be read as (unreasonably) preventing the Director of a Center for Human Rights from speaking, as Director, on abuses of human rights.

More clarity is needed. Further, the Kalven Report recognizes – which the compact does not – some nuance in the practical application of institutional neutrality:

[T]here emerges, as we see it, a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day, or modifying its corporate activities to foster social or political values, however compelling and appealing they may be.

These are admittedly matters of large principle, and the application of principle to an individual case will not be easy.

MITCAF has no official position on Kalven, for or against. However, if Section 4 of the compact is intended to summarize Kalven, it should explicitly say so. If the intent is to depart from Kalven, that should also be explicit.

For the above reasons, then, the compact in its present form is not acceptable and MIT should not sign it.

Back to top