When I first read The University Compact, I did not see a threat – I saw a mirror. A mirror held up to American higher education in general and MIT in particular. It’s tempting to react contemptuously, to dismiss such a document as political intrusion or external meddling. But perhaps this moment calls for something different: reflection rather than reflex.
MIT, for all its achievements, is not immune to drift. Over the years, we have grown in prestige but not always in purpose. We have built wealth, but perhaps lost touch with the working spirit that once made this place an engine of discovery and social mobility. The Compact, for all its rough edges, gives us a chance to ask whether we are still the Institute we think we are – or whether we have become something else.
Rather than reject it wholesale, let’s consider separating its parts into four categories: things we already do, things that don’t apply, things that could make us better, and things that should be negotiated. Seen that way, the Compact becomes not a decree imposed on us, but an opportunity handed to us – to strengthen MIT academically, financially, and morally.
1. Equality in Admissions
MIT’s incoming class has changed in ways that challenge our educational standards. The shift away from merit-based admissions, the watering down of standardized testing, and the decline in K–12 preparation have led to remedial courses for first year students, and unhealthy grading leniencies opened for abuse.
Re-centering admissions on academic merit could help restore excellence. MIT has already reinstated standardized testing. But, given the state of these tests, we should go further: define our own measure of academic excellence – even if it means creating a new, MIT-designed SAT that others might one day adopt.
2. Marketplace of Ideas
This section of the Compact is, at its core, a free speech statement – a call for viewpoint diversity over identity and racial diversity. Occurrences such as speaker cancellations, mandatory ideological statements, re-education courses, and “approved” narratives[1] reveal that we still fall short of genuine intellectual freedom. The Compact’s demand to protect all viewpoints aligns deeply with MIT’s founding spirit of inquiry. For some communities, especially Jewish and Israeli students, that protection has not been experienced in practice. This is a chance to reaffirm that MIT is a home for all ideas, not just fashionable ones.
3. Nondiscrimination in Hiring
Affirming meritocracy in faculty and staff hiring is not just in compliance with the law – it’s fidelity to MIT’s values. Excellence should remain the only criterion and a central value of MIT.
4. Institutional Neutrality
Institutional neutrality is already our formal policy. Extending it across all Schools and centers, just like all other MIT policies, will ensure consistency. Neutrality protects inquiry; it keeps science from becoming political advocacy unrelated to one’s scientific field and protects science’s role as a trustworthy source of knowledge based on evidence and empirical data.
Student Learning
MIT’s mission is to educate, not to shelter. Students cannot be treated as both mature thinkers whose insight we should seek and fragile exceptions to responsibility. Our compassion must not come at the expense of rigor. Education is not therapy; it is preparation for truth and consequence.
Student Equality
To treat students as individuals, not identities, is to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of judging them by “the content of their character.” Admissions should be blind to race, gender, or nationality, and campus life should ensure belonging and safety for all. MIT’s recent failures to protect Jewish and Israeli students and reluctance to enforce its own policies have been painful. The Compact’s call for universal equality is not radical, it’s overdue.[2]
Financial Responsibility
MIT’s prosperity allows for both generosity and restraint. Modest financial discipline can strengthen our core.
- Transparency: Publishing post-graduation earnings by School would reflect favorably on MIT and serve the public interest.
- Military Credits: Recognizing the academic value of military service honors both merit and experience.
However, the Compact’s call for tuition freezes or exemptions for STEM students are misguided. STEM is MIT’s essence, and its graduates already fare well financially. Our need-blind financial aid accomplishes the intent of this requirement in a more responsible fashion; in fact, 87% of undergraduate students in the MIT class of 2024 graduated with zero student loan debt.
8. Foreign Entanglements
The Compact’s call for transparency in foreign funding echoes existing law. This requirement is simply a reminder to remain vigilant.
9. Exceptions
This provision regarding religious and single-sex schools is not relevant to MIT.
10. Enforcement
The Compact proposes anonymous third-party surveys of faculty, students, and staff – with results made public. This is a strength, not a threat. Transparency is, and should remain, an MIT value. As Justice Brandeis wrote, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
* * *
In closing, MIT has long stood as a place where ideas triumph over ideology – where curiosity, not conformity, rules. But that identity is fragile. Over time, we’ve drifted toward one-sided political docility and elitism, and away from the “hands-on, mind-on” ethos that once connected us to the broader American experience. The Compact reminds us – uncomfortably – that our public legitimacy depends on our willingness to align our commitments with those who ultimately support us: the citizens and taxpayers of the United States.
Yes, the Compact comes from outside. Yes, it comes from this specific administration. The right response is not outrage – it is ownership and engagement. A clear-eyed reading of the Compact, stripped from our own biases, may reveal that it is not the monster asserted by some publications. Let us claim the pieces that make us stronger, discard what is irrelevant (or that we are already compliant with), and negotiate the rest with confidence and clarity. If we do that, this moment will not be one of imposition, but of renewal.
[1] Some MIT departments still require DEI statements as a condition for employment, as well as mandatory re-education courses.
[2] Adoption may require replacement and re-education of the current DEI officers, as well as a campus-wide culture change.
