The U.S. Department of Education sent a letter Aug. 3 to all university presidents and governing board members, calling upon them “to reaffirm their commitment to serving the American people.”
The letter, signed by U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, called on all postsecondary institutions to issue statements of allegiance to its educational mission and address questions regarding fair admissions criteria, open discourse, intellectual pluralism and affordability. U.Va., as well as other higher education institutions, is not legally obligated to respond to its requests.
The new open-letter push comes less than a year after the Trump administration’s proposed Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, which called on nine universities — including U.Va. — to institute reform while dangling federal funding promises as a reward. The Compact called for a freeze on tuition, closer scrutiny of international student enrollment and a commitment to ideological diversity and free speech protections, among other requests.
Most universities targeted by the Compact took issue with its encroachment upon the virtuous principle of higher education’s independence from the federal government. In vitriolic replies to the letter, many universities argued that federal funding should be based on merit, not contingent upon compliance with whatever political forces are in power at the time. Former Interim University President Paul Mahoney declined the invitation to join the Compact, stating the University did not seek preferential treatment, and the contract would undermine the institution’s integrity.
Following the Compact’s rejection writ large, the administration expressed interest in a revised form of the proposal. The American Association of University Professors has since characterized McMahon’s Aug. 3 letter as the Department of Education’s “Compact 2.0” in its condemning analysis of the federal intervention measure.
The Aug. 3 letter — a list of non-legally binding requests, unlike the original Compact — seeks affirmations from every higher education institution that “should be posted prominently on institutional websites.”
“Only full candor and transparency can begin to strengthen the bonds between higher education and the American people,” the letter reads. “I know that there is no single template for academic excellence, and I hope we will witness a variety of institutional types, each with distinct missions and priorities, issue landmark declarations of purpose that will revitalize higher education in the years ahead.”
Ian Mullins, AAUP at U.Va. president and associate sociology professor, expressed a chief concern that this letter could increase federal control over the internal workings of the University. The University already has ceded some of this control in its October settlement which requires quarterly compliance reports, he said, and although there is no legal enforcement mechanism in the Aug. 3 letter, abiding by its recommendations would segue U.Va. into a foreboding future of government relations. The letter is softer in language, but it could still lead to increased federal control over internal university function, Mullins said.
The letter requests university leaders address seven points with planned reforms — transparent and fair admissions, free, non-violent exchange of ideas, ideological diversity, affordability, excellence in teaching and learning in the context of widespread AI usage, safeguarding from adversarial foreign powers and a return on taxpayers’ investment by contributing to workforce needs.
“This forthright conversation with the American people is long overdue,” the letter reads. “It is the essential first step toward rebuilding trust in the sector. Bold university reformers will bring excellence and accountability to American higher education. A renewed academy, in turn, will usher in a new era of opportunity, prosperity and American leadership.”
The fifth point of the letter — which includes sustaining high academic standards, combatting grade inflation and prioritizing teaching and learning — applies to the work of university professors. Aaron Bloomfield, Faculty Senate chair and engineering professor, acknowledged the importance of these questions, and he raised that faculty are already working to address them.
Bloomfield regarded addressing and using AI as critical in a student’s learning experience. He stressed adapting to the changing landscape of education while asserting that some choices — like grading quotas, deflation targets or rules for AI use — should not be centrally controlled.
“Faculty should have the resources, training and institutional support to rethink teaching and assessment in light of AI,” Bloomfield wrote. “What I would not want to see are centrally imposed grading targets, quotas, or one-size-fits-all rules about AI or grade inflation, as those approaches can create the appearance of rigor without necessarily improving learning.”
Many of the subjects surfaced by McMahon had already been stirring conversations among academics and university administrations about higher education reform prior to the Aug. 3 letter’s release. Yale University convened a working group that ultimately released a report April 10 on trust in higher education, and Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis commissioned a committee to document the politicization of the humanities in a report submitted in April.
“These courageous documents evince a generational opportunity for self-reflection and institutional renewal,” McMahon wrote.
The Aug. 3 letter makes requests for universities to commit to open inquiry, vigorous debate and exposure to different ideas. According to Bloomfield, faculty play a central role in implementing these promises, but they play only an advisory role in the University’s response to the letter, if it chooses to make one.
“Faculty have a responsibility to foster an environment in which students and scholars can question prevailing assumptions, including our own. Universities should take these questions seriously without accepting the premise that the federal government should answer them for us,” Bloomfield wrote. “Academic freedom and shared governance are the mechanisms by which universities exercise their accountability responsibly, and faculty must play a central role in determining how we address these issues.”
Mullins provided context to situate the Aug. 3 letter among an ongoing series of federal interventions in higher education. He traced the origins of the original Compact to Marc Rowan, Apollo Global Management chief executive officer and Trump donor, who advocated for the removal of the University of Pennsylvania’s then-president Elizabeth Magill in 2023 and whose written recommendations for higher education reform appear word-for-word in the federal government’s Compact.
Mullins said that the Aug. 3 letter’s effort — along with further ones since that have slashed the scientific funding infrastructure and withheld funding — reflect the decentralization of power in the educational sphere. According to Mullins, the power has transferred from shared governance within universities toward centralized university administration and increasingly polarized federal oversight.
“The spirit of the compact, whether it's the first compact or the second compact, is fundamentally an attempt — a political attack on higher education — to remake it into a political patronage system,” Mullins said. “[The compact is] trying to remove authority from universities and locate it within federal agencies in places where political appointees will have discretion over how universities conduct themselves and how research gets conducted.”
McMahon addressed the Aug. 3 letter to university presidents and board members, Mullins pointed out. Mullins agreed with Bloomfield that upper administration members at the University have the authority to respond to this letter without consulting faculty or staff, if they wish.
“Real, meaningful decision making is constantly being moved further and further away from the people that actually do the work,” Mullins said. “The fact that we have a university president that could potentially act unilaterally without real meaningful inclusion from faculty, staff or students is really troubling to me.”
Kevin Cope, research professor of Law and professor of politics and public policy by courtesy, affirmed the University is not legally obligated to do anything in response to the letter’s requests. Responding to why the federal government would choose this softer approach to enact reform, Cope said in a statement to The Cavalier Daily that the government could have learned from the Compact’s failure, which garnered zero signees.
“The Compact conditioned promises of (unspecified) preferential treatment on detailed, enforceable policy reforms. No university has agreed to it,” Cope wrote. “This new [Education Department] letter also signals the administration’s values and lets it claim that it’s pushing conservative reforms on universities, but without the legal risks and potential blowback.”
Cope said that despite that lack of legal obligation, universities may be incentivized to respond to appeal to the Trump administration or communicate their stance to the public.
“I imagine that some universities will respond because of reputational concerns. They may want to explain their existing policy commitments or announce ongoing reforms to the public, lawmakers and other stakeholders,” Cope wrote. “More cynically, some universities may comply for political reasons — to appease the Trump administration and reduce the risk of future scrutiny or retribution like that recently faced by Harvard, U.Va. and other universities.”
Looking forward, Mullins also flagged federal government-related concerns of changes to accreditation agencies and cuts to science funding. According to Mullins, the first Trump administration changed rules around accreditation so universities could choose their accreditation agency. During the second administration, new, conservative-leaning agencies provide accreditation prioritizing requirements like intellectual diversity. Consequently, these agencies can imbue the accreditation process with a partisan tint.
The main new conservative-backed accreditor is the Commission for Public Higher Education, created in 2025 by six public university systems. As of now, CPHE has not accredited any institution.
Mullins said that when the school year begins, he expects collaboration with other University bodies like the Faculty Senate to respond to the federal intervention. Further, he said AAUP at U.Va. is focused on restoring collective bargaining rights to guarantee faculty, students and staff can have a meaningful say in responding to the political interventions.
Bloomfield said he expects that faculty would welcome a University response in which the administration reaffirms core academic values rather than allowing the federal government to define those for it.
“There are many principles in the letter that are not controversial,” Bloomfield wrote. “However, decisions about curriculum, research, standards of scholarship, teaching and the evaluation of faculty are areas in which faculty expertise and faculty governance are essential.”
In regards to a University response to the Aug. 3 letter, University Spokesperson Bethanie Glover wrote that the University is currently reviewing the call to action and “considering the points therein.” She said the University will provide further information when able.
It is unclear what, if any, consequences or benefits will come upon colleges from their responses or lack thereof. Some experts have commented that this uncertainty about what may come next is precisely what gives the letter its power. Universities have until the end of the year to implement changes, and few have publicly indicated how they intend to do so, according to Inside Higher Ed.
Grace Little is a news editor for the 137th term. She is a third-year student from Dallas, Texas majoring in Neuroscience and the Interdisciplinary Major in Public Policy, Politics and Media Studies. She enjoys writing about the shifting landscape of higher education.
Read More
Amid pushback, City Council budgets $4 million toward encampment removal efforts
By Luca Bailey | YesterdayThe Council also received a status update on the City’s efforts to clear the area.
Where does U.Va.'s DOJ agreement stand among five other university settlements?
By Naren Senthilkumar | 3 days agoColumbia University, Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell University and Northwestern University all reached settlements with federal officials over the last year.
U.Va. Health’s Earn While You Learn program graduates its first nursing class
By Vrinda Vashisht | 3 days agoSixteen employees graduated this spring as the inaugural cohort for the program’s nursing track.
