On October 1st, the administration in Washington invited MIT and eight other institutions to sign a “compact” that would offer favorable governmental treatment in exchange for our commitment to “pursuing Federal priorities with vigor.” MIT can under no circumstances agree to this. To do so would compromise our Institute’s integrity and leave us stained and weakened for a generation or longer. Three factors align to argue for abstention: our dedication to excellence in research and teaching, our reputation as a paragon of academic virtue, and our duty to support the nation at a time of crisis. Each factor alone would provide compelling enough reason to reject the compact.
At a superficial level, MIT’s interests might be served by accepting the administration’s offer of preferred status. In the short term, maybe we could garner more federal grant money, maintain higher indirect cost rates, smooth hurdles for our students, and avoid legal wranglings in the coming months or years. But in return, we would need to agree to a list of demands, several of which are plainly incompatible with our academic mission. For instance, we would become subject to ideologically motivated organizational changes, “including but not limited to transforming or abolishing” departments or programs that conflict with “conservative ideas.” We would have to seek “a broad spectrum of viewpoints” within every field and department. We would be asked to favor “hard science” majors over others, by selectively waiving tuition. No first-rate university could subject itself to anything like this. An MIT where off-topic opinions matter more than scholarly substance and where entire departments can be drowned in the political currents of the day cannot possibly maintain its quality.
Along with our overall academic status, MIT is renowned for its special celebration of objective merit and honest achievement. When we admit applicants, we consider their grades and test scores, not where their parents went to college. We ask our students to work hard, and we do not grade on a curve. We are successful because of our innovation and industry, not because we accept hand-outs from questionable sources. Even if every provision of the administration’s compact were consistent with our existing practices, our Institute’s honor demands that we refuse to be favored by backroom deals; our way is to earn support through fair and open competition. If a consequence of not signing the compact is that our grants and petitions are discriminated against, then we should lead the charge against this injustice. That would be far better than abandoning our core principles by accepting illicit benefits through corrupt negotiations.
Service to the nation is another core component of what MIT stands for. Our Institute was conceived with the egalitarian purpose of offering practical training to ordinary people, at a time when America was struggling bitterly to live up to its ideals of liberty and justice for all. In the 20th century, we were instrumental in developing technologies that won wars both hot and cold against brutal foreign foes. MIT’s leadership helped usher in over 80 years of US supremacy in science and technology through creation of the federal infrastructure for funding cutting-edge research and development. This infrastructure, and the environment of free inquiry it sustains, has been crucial to our country’s success as an economic dynamo, a military superpower, and a magnet to the best and brightest from around the world. The administration’s compact now promises to apply Soviet-style political oversight to our activities, if we agree to sign. Academic freedom and civil rights on campus would be curtailed, as part of the administration’s apparent effort to degrade our democratic system from within. We cannot join in this campaign. If we abet the erosion of freedoms that truly make this nation great, we will have betrayed our country in its hour of need, and MIT’s record of national service will be forever blighted.
So what should we do instead? I believe that we must recommit ourselves to the values of our nation and our Institute by answering the administration’s compact publicly, with a covenant of our own. In its preamble, we should highlight our immense contributions to the country, as we did also in the amicus brief filed with the recent Harvard funding lawsuit. We should then affirm our unwavering fidelity to the principles of a free society, including freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry. We should describe our dedication to a culture of merit-based admissions and assessments, while stressing our commitment to providing rigorous training to the most promising students, regardless of their means. We should also emphasize our goal to promote equal access to a welcoming environment for learning, in accordance with our academic mission and the laws of the land. But in rejecting the administration’s compact, we must declare in unequivocal terms our opposition to extralegal governmental intrusion into our community, just as Americans of all political stripes would reject similar intrusion into their businesses, households, or places of worship. We should publish our covenant together with our sister schools as cosignatories, to the extent their support is forthcoming – a coalition of the willing will likely be the strongest. But if need be, we should take courage and leverage MIT’s unique prestige to say by ourselves what must be said, clearly and out loud.
As a witness to the government’s actions against Harvard, Columbia, and others, I recognize the peril we could face in confronting the administration. As a scientist dependent on hard-won federal funding, and as a mentor to many talented but potentially vulnerable trainees, I personally have much at stake. But never before have I found my sense of patriotism and allegiance to the ideals of academia invoked so powerfully in favor of a cause. I hope that MIT’s leadership feels the same way. The current situation gives us a chance to become greater leaders, both as individuals and as a community. Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise; it is certainly a test we cannot fail.
