In interviews with The Daily Pennsylvanian, Penn students voiced reactions to the White House preferential funding compact sent to the University last Wednesday.
The compact, which was sent to nine universities, including Penn, outlined a sweeping set of principles addressing academic freedom, testing, international undergraduate enrollment, and more. Many students interviewed condemned the compact, while others highlighted its potential benefits.
The DP conducted interviews in the 48 hours following the compact’s release. Many students interviewed were not aware of the document at the time and provided their thoughts after being read the list of provisions in the document.
On Sunday afternoon, Penn President Larry Jameson sent a message to the University community confirming Penn's receipt of the document and the start of the University's review process, which will include stakeholders from across campus.
College senior Lauren Cho said that her “heart dropped” upon hearing about the compact.
“A lot of it is under the guise of neutrality, but it’s actually doing the exact opposite,” Cho said. “It’s pretending to be protecting everyone, but it's protecting no one.”
Many students spoke about the compact’s “institutional neutrality” clause, which would further restrict administrative commentary on current events and prohibit academic departments from issuing political statements.
“Colleges are such incredible foundations for intellectual discourse and opportunity in general, especially in the United States,” Wharton sophomore Chance McComiskey said. “This is really endangering one of those core parts of education.”
RELATED:
Marc Rowan helped draft the White House compact. The ideas echo his 2023 plan to reform Penn
College first year Taiwo Olabode similarly linked neutrality provisions to what she views as a broader threat to free expression and student activism.
“College campuses are known for protests — that’s been a thing for forever,” Olabode said. “Limiting that limits free speech altogether — even the students can’t say anything.”
The compact’s admissions section — which would ban consideration of race or sex in admissions and require standardized testing — drew mixed reactions from Penn students.
“I’m first-gen, low-income, and I think that I would not have made it into this school unless race [and] all of those factors were considered in admission,” College senior Zuhra Muzaffer told the DP. “I do think I deserve to be here — there are so many people who deserve to be here and wouldn’t be given that consideration, which isn’t fair.”
Others expressed that factoring race and sex into admissions “can be unfair.”
“It can turn into overrepresented groups having more competition to get in, and I don’t think that’s fair,” Engineering first year Anoushka Nair said. “I think it should be entirely merit-based.”
The compact also imposes standardized testing requirements for every applicant.
“I went to a low-income high school where most people did not take the SAT,” Olabode said with regard to the document's testing provision. “Nobody at my high school has ever taken the ACT — I feel like that should not be a requirement.”
Students also spoke to the DP about what the compact could mean for Penn’s international community. The agreement instructs institutions to cap international undergraduate enrollment at 15%.
“I think part of what makes Penn a really great place is because we have so much international representation, and I think everyone in the world should be allowed to come into these great universities,” Nair said.
Olabode also expressed that “capping” international students “caps innovation.”
An international student interviewed by the DP — who requested anonymity out of fear of federal retaliation — believes the compact is “unfair.”
“From a practical perspective, [Penn] should sign it, right?” he said. “Money is very important, and they give you a lot of money, so I do see the value of it. But the only thing that I’m concerned about is … it’s not fair. It’s not fair to a lot of people on campus, even though it can bring benefits.”
He cited international students and marginalized groups as an example.
“I’m a little bit worried [that] this might not be the final step that [the federal government] would take, but it might serve as a first step to a lot of other things going forward,” he added. “If we did sign on this deal, what if they ask us to do other things to receive federal funding?”
Nair highlighted the compact’s tuition freeze requirement as a “good part of the plan” because it “would have a positive benefit on students.”
Putting the content of the provisions aside, other students interviewed voiced concern over whether the federal government has the “authority” necessary to implement them.
“Freezing tuition sounds good for students,” McComiskey said. “But the federal government — especially this administration — shouldn’t have the authority.”
Wharton junior Sravanthi Mundluru told the DP that the proposal is “all concerning.” She specifically criticized how the University has handled recent federal negotiations, such as the July Title IX resolution agreement.
“I feel like they could have been much smarter about it,” Mundluru said. “They had the power, a lot more power than they seem to exhibit, and they’re just not using that power at all.”
After announcing a resolution with the Department of Education on July 1 to settle a Title IX investigation into the University, Penn complied with the federal government’s outlined requirements, which included removing 2022 College graduate and former Penn swimmer Lia Thomas’ individual records and issuing a public statement specifying that Penn Athletics “will adopt biology-based definitions for the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ pursuant to Title IX and consistent with President Trump’s Executive Orders.”
“If you give an inch, they’ll take a mile,” Cho told the DP. “So don’t give a centimeter.”
Contributing reporters James Wan and Kathryn Ye contributed to reporting for this article.
