Last week, Penn’s administration informed the Department of Education that the University would not be signing 1968 Wharton graduate and President Donald Trump’s proposed Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. In an email to the Penn community, Penn President Larry Jameson wrote that Penn “respectfully declines to sign the proposed compact,” citing that it was crucial for the University’s response to reflect “it’s values and the perspectives of [it’s] broad community.”
Accepting the compact would have meant the decline of academic freedom, an increase in barriers for international students, and the structural limitation of how gender can be defined on campus. Rejecting the compact was a crucial first step. But while avoiding these outcomes is a positive choice, Penn’s response to the compact was not a bold criticism of it. Rather, it was a rejection of apathy.
Unlike most other schools that were originally invited to sign the compact and have since rejected it — including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown University, and the University of Southern California — Penn’s administration did not publicly release the response it sent to the Education Department. MIT openly declared that it was rejecting the compact because “scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone” in its published letter. Penn’s choice of privacy, by contrast, has left our community and the world blind to its true decision.
Is Penn still open to negotiating on a different version of the compact? What feedback did we provide — and why isn’t that feedback public? The University has yet to answer these questions, and we need transparency from Penn’s administrators now more than ever. That transparency matters not just for accountability, but because of what’s at stake. The nature of the compact could set a dangerous precedent moving forward.
While some of the terms are truly objectionable, they are irrelevant to the core problem that would arise from signing Trump’s compact: our potential loss of autonomy. For many reasons, the substantive demands made in the compact should never have been proposed. An agreement of this kind, regardless of the demands within it, is a serious threat to the future of education at Penn. The idea of a political administration being able to control a university with such a proposal in exchange for preferential treatment threatens the core of higher education.
We urge Penn’s leadership, faculty, and students to demand full transparency. The administration should release the full letter it sent to the Education Department, clarify whether any additional negotiations have occurred, and publicly affirm that Penn will not enter into any future agreement that compromises academic freedom.
Our University — which also happens to be Trump’s alma mater — has faced intense federal scrutiny since his second inauguration in January. In March, his administration froze $175 million of our federal funding, citing the University’s failure to bar transgender athletes from women’s sports. In July, we entered into a voluntary resolution agreement with the Education Department, complying with its demands that included releasing a statement confirming the University’s compliance with Title IX, removing 2022 College graduate and transgender swimmer Lia Thomas’ individual records, and issuing apology letters to “female athletes” affected by her competition on the women’s swimming and diving team. After Penn rejected the compact, a White House spokesperson signaled that universities that reject the proposal may not continue to receive federal funding.
While rejecting the compact breaks a potential pattern of capitulation, this is not the end of Penn’s struggle. More demands or proposals could come from the Trump administration any day, seeking to define the way Penn operates as an institution. If the University continues to hide behind vague statements and closed-door deliberations, it risks ceding the narrative to those who want to redefine higher education in ideological terms. In moments like this, silence is not neutrality.
SEE MORE FROM THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN EDITORIAL BOARD:
Rejecting the compact was necessary, but leadership requires more than quiet refusal. It demands public conviction. As the alma mater of the president pushing this compact, Penn’s stance carries unique symbolic weight. Remaining silent shows complacency instead of competence, and speaking out can affirm who we are: a University committed to free thought, open inquiry, and the pursuit of knowledge unshaped by any political ideals.
THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN EDITORIAL BOARD consists of senior staffers in the Opinion department. The team for this piece was composed of Opinion Editor Jack Lakis and Editorial Board Chair Sangitha Aiyer. Questions and comments should be directed to letters@thedp.com.
