An offer that would change the nature of higher education has been sent to our University, an offer gift-wrapped with promises for our institution’s betterment. This Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, received by our University and eight others from President Donald Trump’s administration, offers preferential treatment for federal funding in exchange for a nine-page list of institutional requirements. These demands range from more general concepts like encouraging civil discourse, to more absurd requirements like mandating that the University define gender in biological terms or screen all international students for anti-American sentiments.
The Trump administration’s letter to Interim President Paul Mahoney allows universities to provide “limited, targeted feedback” on the tenets of the Compact by Oct. 20. Since then, various stakeholders have provided different levels of feedback — the Faculty Senate passed a resolution that condemned the Compact’s overreach on University independence, the Student Council Executive Board shared a cautionary statement regarding the Compact’s range of impact, and Rector Rachel Sheridan sent students a form requesting their input. This Editorial Board’s feedback for the Compact echoes that of the University community — anything but limited.
In offering this deal, the Trump administration treats academic excellence as something achievable only through federal intervention, as opposed to institutional autonomy. Indeed, the enforcement of these demands jeopardizes the fiduciary stability and academic freedom that the University should hold independent from the federal government. Financially, the Compact unprecedentedly allows contributions from private donors and the federal government to be returned upon request — two massive streams of financial stimulus.
Further, by mandating academic and political norms from the top-down, the Compact directly challenges the autonomy and academic freedom which are so vital to any institution of higher education. This Compact plants the seed for further federal interference in student affairs and free speech, and it threatens to cancel all federal funding should the University sign the Compact and fail to adhere to its demands.
One striking facet throughout the document is its ambiguity. Standards are set neither for what constitutes a breach of contract, nor for what adherence entails. The document also fails to define or guarantee tangible benefits for the University, vaguely promising federal partnership and research funding in return for complete federal surveillance. In these ways, both standards of enforcement and guarantees of benefit in the Compact could vastly change after being signed.
In this way, buzzwords in the Compact, such as a “marketplace of ideas,” risk becoming a Trojan horse — without clarification on what a violation would entail, there is a great risk that one contractual misunderstanding might incite the president’s wrath on all those at our University. Especially coming from a president who has repeatedly gone back on prior agreements and turned away from established relationships, ambiguous language creates an opening for the Trump administration to similarly manipulate our University in the future. Therefore, it is crucial that any Compact critically clarify the regulations it seeks to impose, as well as the quantifiable metrics upon which these regulations will be measured.
This clarification is particularly important given the actions of the federal government over the past few months, actions which produced several Department of Justice investigations and led to Ryan’s resignation. These actions have consistently challenged the stability of our University and endangered the trust upon which traditions of shared governance rely. There is no reason to believe that the Compact, as it stands, would do anything but further endanger institutional stability and engender distrust among stakeholders. In fact, in signing onto the Compact as presently offered, the University would be agreeing to permanent interference and financial instability.
While it is unclear if there is any version of this Compact which would be acceptable to the University, transparent safeguards would at least provide a modicum of protection from the threat of legal and punitive ambiguity.
It is unclear why this Compact was dangled in front of the University, but what is clear is that the power rests in the hands of the Trump administration and their ability to financially and politically disarm this University. The Compact cannot be met with open arms or with paralyzing fear. Considering the deadline of Oct. 20 to submit feedback on the Compact, we deliver this feedback with the intention that our University administration will negotiate for this institution and will recognize what massive and dire consequences lie ahead of uncritical compliance.
The Cavalier Daily Editorial Board is composed of the Executive Editor, the Editor-in-Chief, the two Opinion Editors, two Senior Associates and an Opinion Columnist. The board can be reached at eb@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
Faculty express concern and fear over Compact from Trump administration
By Nina Broderick | 17 hours agoSeveral faculty have expressed concern over the mere existence of the Compact, claiming that it demonstrates extreme federal overreach from the Trump administration.
Virginia Senate leaders express “unequivocal opposition” to Compact
By Grace Little | 18 hours agoThe letter calls upon the University to immediately cease consideration of the Compact, and if not, the state will work to negatively impact the University’s funding.
Governor stops reporting appointments to General Assembly, letters show
By Ford McCracken | YesterdaySurovell said making appointments without reporting them to the General Assembly shows that Youngkin wants to be an “absolute ruler” of Virginia.
