In declining to join the Trump administration’s proposed compact, the leaders of four elite private institutions have all referenced the importance of merit in higher education — using a common talking point of the right to try to justify opposition to a conservative-backed missive.
The merit theme emerged first in a statement from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was echoed in messages from Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Southern California. Considering criteria beyond the quality and rigor of research proposed, the presidents have written, would go against their universities’ missions.
The “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which was originally floated to nine research universities with an invitation to submit feedback by October 20, requires a commitment to “rigorous and meritocratic selection based on objective and measurable criteria,” which, the document argues, is “pivotal” to an institution’s “sustained excellence.”
The compact asks colleges to make this, and other policy changes, in exchange for preferential treatment in federal funding decisions. This week, the Trump administration announced that any institution could join the compact; none have yet.
MIT made waves by becoming the first to decline the offer in its current form. In her official statement to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, MIT’s president, Sally Kornbluth, said the compact included “principles with which we disagree,” including those restricting academic freedom and institutional independence.
“Fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone,” Kornbluth said.
She also reiterated that many of the listed requests are already embraced by the university, including rewarding merit, capping international enrollment, and valuing free expression. “We must hear facts and opinions we don’t like — and engage respectfully with those with whom we disagree.” Kornbluth reiterated that MIT chooses “these values” on the basis of their virtue and “of course,” she said, “MIT abides by the law.”
Brown University’s president, Christina H. Paxson, offered similar remarks on the subject of merit. “A fundamental part of academic excellence is awarding research funding on the merits of the research being proposed,” Paxson wrote in her letter to the community. “The cover letter describing the Compact contemplates funding research on criteria other than the soundness and likely impact of research, which would ultimately damage the health and prosperity of Americans.”
J. Larry Jameson, president of Penn, homed in on the university’s commitment to “merit-based achievement and accountability,” in his message declining the offer. Penn is the only university to say that officials provided “focused feedback” to the administration along with their decision.
And USC’s interim president, Beong-Soo Kim, echoed the trend. “Other countries whose governments lack America’s commitment to freedom and democracy have shown how academic excellence can suffer when shifting external priorities tilt the research playing field away from free, meritocratic competition,” Kim said. “Although USC respectfully declines to participate in the proposed compact, the issues and aspirations raised by it are worthy of a broader national conversation.”
The president of Cornell University, which was not an initial compact recipient, also jumped onto the merit argument in comments at a New York event with reporters on Tuesday. The deal apparently on offer, Michael I. Kotlikoff said, “creates a situation where universities that sign the compact escape merit-based consideration for grants — they get a special deal. That is fundamentally inappropriate.”
Brendan Cantwell, a professor in the higher, adult, and lifelong education program at Michigan State University, said hewing to merit is a good political tactic, not only because it volleys the administration’s stated goals back but also because it doesn’t require each of the institutions to reject specific points.
“It just allows them to sidestep that kind of culture-war political debate, which they are happy to do when they can,” Cantwell said.
Dominique J. Baker, an associate professor of education and public policy at the University of Delaware, called the presidents’ messages “a love letter to merit.”
“The rhetorical strategy in these letters says that our scholars are good enough on their own to win federal research dollars, and we believe strongly in the merit process for allocating these funds,” Baker said. “Ergo, if you accept this compact, you do not believe that your scholars are good enough to get this money.”
Traditionally, Baker said, Trump and his allies have spoken about merit in terms of admissions, hiring, and grades. She said the administration seems to have been caught flat-footed now that they haven’t achieved the kind of success they were hoping for with the compact.
Three institutions have yet to respond to the Trump administration: Vanderbilt University and the Universities of Arizona and Texas at Austin. They may end up saying nothing by the Monday deadline. Baker said that even if the remaining universities were to say yes, the compact still would have failed because the most prestigious institutions in Baker’s estimation — MIT, Penn, and Brown — had said no.
A White House official confirmed to Inside Higher Ed on Friday that the administration would be meeting with representatives from several colleges to discuss the compact, a move indicative of this week’s wave of refusals. After the meeting, the University of Virginia and Dartmouth College joined the chorus of no’s — on Friday and Saturday, respectively. Both leaders also referenced the merit argument in their letters to the Trump administration. Dartmouth’s president confirmed she participated in the call with the White House, but said that she didn’t think it was a good idea for colleges to enter into a compact with any administration, Democrat-led or Republican-led.
“Every single additional day gives more time for people to express how inappropriate this is,” Baker said, referencing a Thursday Wall Street Journal op-ed by Lamar Alexander, a former Republican U.S. senator from Tennessee and former University of Tennessee system president. Alexander’s essay calls the compact idea “federal overreach.” His words could carry more weight than most observers: He sits on Vanderbilt’s board.
