Top faculty at the University of Arizona will respond to a Trump Administration higher education “compact” that asks schools to comply with certain political priorities in exchange for better access to federal money, but the timeline and logistics of their response are unclear.
The Committee of Eleven, an elected panel of faculty, passed a motion at an Oct. 10 meeting to “empower” Faculty Senate Chair Leila Hudson to act as a delegate in what they called an “inter-institutional group,” that will draft a new compact with faculty leaders of the other eight targeted universities.
Faculty members made it clear they’ll do it regardless of whether President Suresh Garimella and administrators make a decision before a looming Oct. 20 deadline.
“The search for excellence doesn’t depend on the President’s response,” physics professor Johann Rafelski said.
The Compact for Excellence in Higher Education was sent to nine universities including the UA on Oct. 1. In exchange for better access to student loans, research grants, and tax benefits, universities that agree must show compliance with 10 demands, including removing race considerations from hiring and admissions, changing policies to reflect the Trump Administration’s definition of gender, capping international student enrollment, and abolishing any campus activities that “punish” or “belittle” conservative ideas.
Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education
Secretary McMahon's Letter to President Garimella
University leadership has said only that they received the letter and compact, and are reviewing their implications. The letter from the Department of Education requested “limited” feedback from schools no later than Oct. 20, and gives a deadline of Nov. 21 to formally sign.
After the Faculty Senate voted to reject the compact on Monday, the conversation with the Committee of Eleven took a more academic approach. They are tasked with “looking toward solutions of situations and problems of interest and concern,” according to the committee’s website.
“Questions are more important to academics than answers," said Committee Chair Ted Downing as he kicked off the meeting.
Many members agreed there should be more nuanced discussion, and the compact is more than a “yes” or a “no”. Some suggested town halls with University Administration, and the wider campus community.
“We are academians. We should be 100 percent apolitical, so if we want to be productive and constructive, we should go bullet by bullet and say, ‘here is where we agree, and here are the things that are in direct conflict,’’ said Associate Professor of Engineering Tomas Cerny.
Hudson previously said signing the compact would make the university “forever extortable” to the federal government, but many of its core principles are points of agreement in higher education, like promoting a variety of viewpoints and making tuition accessible. At the Oct. 10 Committee Meeting, she continued calling the agreement federal overreach, but said the university has an opportunity to lead the national conversation about the government’s role in higher education.
“Again, this is what a university does. We bring together different perspectives. Some points we'll agree on, other points we will disagree on. And that is the life spark of higher education, especially in the great American tradition that we participate in and that we aspire constantly to improve,” she said.
Downing, a former state representative, argued the compact takes away constitutional rights, and that no one has the right to sign a document that does so.
“None of them have the right in our society, and I say this as a former legislator, to take away your constitutional rights and to agree to that. Now that's a presupposition. Is there anyone even authorized to sign parts of this compact?” he said.
The logistics of the “inter-institution” coalition are unclear, including what universities the UA will work with. Of the eight other targeted universities, the University of Texas expressed "enthusiasm" about the proposal, but has not formally signed.
On Oct. 10, MIT rejected the proposal “with respect.”
“In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence,” MIT President Sally Kornbluth wrote.
The UA’s Committee of Eleven agreed to set up an extra meeting before adjourning, but did not specify what would be covered.
