At Miami University, my colleagues and I are alarmed that the federal government has invited all universities to sign its so-called “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”
This invitation came quickly upon the heels of MIT’s rejection of the compact and the threat that the other eight universities originally selected for the compact would also refuse to sign. This compact is no less than a federal loyalty oath: President Donald Trump has said that failing to sign would jeopardize federal funding. Compliance would be subject to ongoing review by the U.S. Department of Justice, and insufficient compliance would result in a loss of access to student loans, grant programs, federal contracts, funding for research, approval of visas and tax exemption.
When an invitation is accompanied by consequences for not accepting it, it is, in fact, a threat. University decisions are made according to shared governance procedures that are essential to our independence, academic freedom and to democracy as a whole.
Ohio’s public colleges and universities are already reeling from the erosion of academic independence that has accompanied the implementation of Ohio’s Senate Bill 1. In the few short months since that law has been in effect, we’ve already seen public colleges and universities eliminate degree programs, close student centers that serve marginalized student populations, restrict the use of land acknowledgements, and roll back the rights of academic workers.
Miami University must not allow itself to be threatened into ceding what is left of our self-determination. Whatever the consequences of refusal, agreeing would threaten the very mission of the university. That’s why our union, the Faculty Alliance of Miami (FAM, AAUP-AFT, Local 375), is urging our university’s administration to refuse to sign this compact, and faculty in other public universities in Ohio are calling on their universities to do the same.
This attempt at coercion is just one of the many examples of intensifying political interference in higher education. Going far beyond Senate Bill 1’s limitations on diversity efforts, the compact makes other demands about admission that undermine the Civil Rights Act of 1964, like requiring the use of standardized tests and limiting the admission of international students. These decisions should be left to our university in consultation with faculty.
It requires our university to make certain ideological commitments regarding sex and gender that are incompatible with both science and Miami’s values, and orders that bathrooms, locker rooms and sports be segregated accordingly. It claims to ensure a vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus, but requires our university to screen out foreign students with “noxious values” or “hostility to the United States, its allies, or its values.” It requires “serious” disciplinary action and the use of force “if necessary” to prevent disruption by demonstrators, and requires open-ended information sharing with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State.
Given recent government actions to suppress the expression of ideas with which it disagrees, such as the unconstitutional policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting noncitizen students and faculty members for their pro-Palestinian advocacy, this can only be interpreted as a thinly-veiled attempt to restrict academic freedom to those who express government-approved views, defeating the very purpose of academic freedom and of higher education as a whole.
While the loss of federal funding would threaten Miami’s ability to perform its vital education and research work, agreeing to this compact would not forestall that outcome. A concession to threats will simply embolden the Trump administration to come back for more.
Funding cuts are not insurmountable. For example, the university could temporarily raise the rate of spending on its generous endowment, while collaborating with other institutions to sue for the restoration of unconstitutionally withheld funds. Sacrificing our values, on the other hand, would irreparably damage our university. Miami’s motto, love and honor, obligates us to defend liberal education as a public good and care about all of our students, staff, and faculty. Now is the time to put that principle into practice.
This commentary was originally published by Ohio Capital Journal and is republished here with permission.