Summary
- MIT first university to reject Trump administration funding deal.
- Proposal offered preferential federal funding for policy changes.
- MIT opposes restrictions on free speech, autonomy, and finances.
In a letter to the campus community on Friday, Sally Kornbluth, the president of MIT, announced the decision and included her written response to US Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
Universities would have to impose a number of restrictions under the proposed Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, which was sent to nine US universities, including MIT, Brown University, Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas at Austin, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia.
These include stringent gender definitions, a five-year tuition freeze, a cap on the number of international students, and a ban on anything that could "denigrate" conservative opinions.
The plan has drawn harsh criticism from academics and leaders in higher education, who see it as a political ploy to curtail university autonomy. Many argue that the administration is pressuring prestigious universities to comply by threatening to cut research funding, which might total hundreds of millions of dollars.
“These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent. We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission – work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law,”
she wrote.
"MIT already upholds many of the principles outlined in the proposal, but strongly objects to others that would compromise academic freedom and institutional independence,"
Kornbluth wrote in her letter to McMahon.
If the university agreed to the provisions of the plan, Kornbluth stressed, it
"would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution."
She added:
“Fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.”
What legal or political challenges could arise from the compact?
Legal academics warn that the compact may violate First Amendment rights as the restrictions could chill free speech and academic freedom. Its ambiguous and sweeping restrictions and terminology about acceptable speech and ideological conformity may invite lawsuit-related challenges and allegations of censorship and infringements on academic autonomy.
The administration links preferential access to federal funds - student visas and research grants, or tax benefits.
It is unknown whether there is a statutory basis for the compact; it is at least questionable whether the administration lawfully can impose, or condition, federal funds in this manner without congressional approval.