On Wednesday, the White House approached Penn and eight other institutions with a request to sign the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” — a sweeping set of principles that would give the schools preferential access to federal funding. Since then, University professors have condemned the proposal, arguing that it raises serious constitutional concerns and represents an unprecedented federal intrusion into higher education.
While the measure does not entirely cut off funding for non-signatory schools, experts told The Daily Pennsylvanian it reshapes the relationship between institutions of higher education and the federal government and poses a significant risk to academic freedom. Penn has yet to acknowledge the Trump administration’s proposal.
Wharton School and University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Amanda Shanor called the proposal “blatantly unconstitutional” in a statement to the DP, noting that it requires universities to “forgo federal benefits” if they develop “models and values” outside the scope of its conditions.
“If what I have is correct, the compact explicitly requires universities to transform or abolish institutional units so as to protect a set of viewpoints the compact nebulously calls ‘conservative ideas’ and to commit to a governmental ‘assessment’ of the viewpoints of faculty, students, and staff and every field, department, school, and teaching unit,” Shanor's statement read. “That is the definition of an unconstitutional condition.”
Penn Carey Law professor Kermit Roosevelt told the DP that the compact represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government engages with higher education.
Previously, he said, federal support for universities — including student loans, research relationships, and international student visas — were provided as a standard practice, with these benefits only at risk if institutions engaged in discrimination or other serious violations.
“It seems like now they're saying the baseline is no federal funding, and if you do what we want, then you might get this kind of support,” Roosevelt said. “They're shifting it from general support with exceptions for bad behavior to no support with exceptions for what they consider a good behavior.”
Roosevelt added that it is “not at all clear” whether the Executive Branch has the authority to make such a sweeping change in framework. This approach to federal spending, he said, has been a “hallmark” of the Trump administration — noting that the administration has exerted significant control over appropriations despite the fact that the power traditionally lies with Congress. Those efforts are currently being litigated in courts.
RELATED:
White House asks Penn to sign ‘compact’ of operational principles in exchange for funding advantages
White House cites praise for Penn graduate Luigi Mangione in memo on domestic terrorism
Multiple Penn experts pointed to what they described as “internal contradictions” in the compact's requirements. Roosevelt noted that while the compact demands merit-based, neutral policies, it simultaneously forces institutions to represent conservative viewpoints.
“They're demanding, on the one hand, neutrality, but on the other hand, affirmative action for conservative ideology,” Roosevelt said, adding that he couldn't imagine how a school would comply even if it wanted to. “I just don't know how you ensure your ideological diversity while making everything merit-based and [also] not considering political affiliation.”
Graduate School of Education professor Jonathan Zimmerman pointed to what he called a “profound irony” in the administration's approach.
“This is the same administration that has gutted the Department of Education on the grounds that education should be a state and local concern,” he said.
Shanor wrote that the compact appears to mirror demands the administration previously made of Harvard University, placing faculty and student bodies “under federal control.”
In this scenario, she added, the government — rather than the University — determines which viewpoints are approved and academic units are permitted.
Shanor also raised concerns about the potential consequences of federal control over academic hiring and curriculum decisions.
“Will medical schools be required by the federal government to hire epidemiologists who do not believe in vaccines or climate scientists who think climate change is a hoax?” she asked, calling such federal determinations “anathema to the First Amendment” and “contrary to meritocracy.”
Shanor additionally pointed to the timing of the compact's release, which coincided with Yom Kippur.
“On that front, I'll note that for an administration that makes a lot of accusations of antisemitism, the timing of this set of demands is brazenly disrespectful of Jewish university leaders during the Jewish high holidays,” she said.
Both Roosevelt and Shanor raised questions about whether the president has the constitutional authority to change the terms of federal grants offered to universities.
“The executive does not have free floating power to do whatever it likes, particularly with regard to entirely domestic issues like the funding of U.S. research institutions,” Shanor wrote.
She added that even if a statute gave the executive branch “a blank check to impose such conditions, let alone by fiat not the normal administrative rule process,” it would likely be struck down under the major questions or nondelegation doctrine.
Beyond these legal considerations, Roosevelt said that the compact asks schools to “surrender control of their educational mission to some degree,” which could constitute a First Amendment violation.
For public universities like the University of Texas at Austin — which was named in the compact — the constitutional issues become even more stark.
Roosevelt pointed out that the compact's requirement to expel students for “advocating for illegal activity” contradicts United States Supreme Court precedent, which protects such speech unless it is intended and likely to produce imminent unlawful action.
University of Texas System Board of Regents chairman Kevin Eltife wrote in a statement to CNN that the system is “honored” that the University of Texas at Austin was selected by the White House.
“We enthusiastically look forward to engaging with university officials and reviewing the compact immediately,” Eltife wrote.
Roosevelt also expressed concern about a provision in the compact requiring that universities conduct anonymous polls allowing faculty, students, and staff to evaluate the institution's performance on ideological diversity.
“They're going to create a climate on campus where professors will be very worried about what they say in class because any student who doesn't like it can anonymously turn them in,” he said.
Zimmerman shared a similar sentiment in an interview with the DP, describing the current moment as “extremely dangerous” and stating that he is “appalled at the way that the White House is using its power to try to twist [Penn's] arms.”
While he called the goals of ensuring representation of conservative viewpoints and ideological balance “perfectly valid,” he added that it is “terrifying to imagine the Trump administration being in the position of determining whether or not we're meeting those goals.”
“Who's going to say what conservative thought is? Who's going to say what ideological diversity is?” Zimmerman said. “That's not what the state should be doing.”
He additionally pointed to the vagueness of the compact's language itself as “concerning.”
“The scariest thing about this ultimatum is we don't really know what it means. The ambiguity of all of this, I think, is purposeful and terrifying,” Zimmerman said. “The best way to bring somebody to heel is to keep [them] from guessing — and I think that's the end game.”
Zimmerman cited the 1967 Kalven Report — which was authored amid ongoing student protests over U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War — as a relevant precedent in this situation, which argues that universities should not take positions on contested issues of the day, except for matters that directly affect the university's core mission.
“We should raise our voice against it, not because we should make statements about everything under the sun, but because we should take positions where the heart of our mission is at risk,” Zimmerman said. “That’s exactly where we are now.”
Zimmerman added that “nothing should be beyond debate” in higher education, and that he “encourages the people that run this university” to protect that freedom in a public manner.
Political Science professor Daniel Hopkins echoed concerns about threats to academic freedom.
“I hope that these proposals serve as the starting point for an exchange about how universities like Penn can generate knowledge and better serve our students, our country, and the broader world,” Hopkins wrote in a statement to the DP. “But as reported, some of these proposals reflect a deeply worrying incursion into the academic freedom and the freedom of speech that have been pillars of the success of American higher education.”
Shanor called on universities to mount a unified response to what she described as federal overreach.
“We are in a dangerous moment in American history and American constitutionalism where the outcome is far from foreordained. Universities must stand together in opposition of federal takeover,” Shanor wrote. “In doing so, they will be defending not only their own constitutional rights but that of every member of their communities.”
Zimmerman emphasized what's at stake if universities succumb to federal pressure.
“This is about academic freedom, which requires us to debate these matters. If the people who see the matter differently from me are barred from raising their voices, then you can kiss the university goodbye,” Zimmerman said. “We won't be a university — a university is premised on a full and free debate.”
Senior reporter Isha Chitirala contributed reporting.
