8 ms·

These are the main policy points[1] 1.Equality in admissions- with certain exceptions, universities have to publish and commit to objective criteria for accept

These are the main policy points[1] 1.Equality in admissions- with certain exceptions, universities have to publish and commit to objective criteria for accepting new students. 2.Marketplace of ideas and civil discourse - a bit vague, but basically calling for non violent exchanges of opinions and ideas, specifically not discriminating against conservatives, who frankly are a significant minority at universities. 3.Nondiscrimination in faculty and administrative hiring 4.Institutional neutrality - frankly i'm not sure what that's supposed to mean 5.Student learning -Signatories must make certain “grade integrity” commitments, including neither “inflat[ing]” nor “deflat[ing]” grades for any “non-academic reason.” 6.Student equality -Signatories must treat students “as individuals and not on the basis of their immutable characteristics, with due exceptions for sex-based privacy, safety, and fairness” 7.Financial responsibility - a raft of ideas aimed at protecting students 8. More restrictions on foreign student admissions etc. 9.enforcement [1]i got all my information from this article:https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/10/white-house-invites-nine-universities-to-enter-compact-in-exchange-for-access-to-federal-funds https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/10/white-h...

sidle_arount 1y ago
These all sound like reasonable standards for universities to meet. The only unnecessary part is explicitly calling out conservative opinions, some of which will have no place in some university subjects, e.g. a geology student insisting the Earth is 6000 years old.
- nine_zeros 1y ago
  These are all reasonable standards - if they came from Congress. They are not reasonable standards if they came for a fickle and corrupt mafia at gunpoint. The entire no kings protest is exactly about that - executive overreach overriding will of the people and causing irresponsible harm.
  - sidle_arount 1y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your argument. If these would be considered reasonable standards if exactly the same were proposed by Congress, then how would they cause harm if implemented on request of the Executive?
    - nine_zeros 1y ago
      When requested by the executive under threat of cutting funding, these requests are not requests, they are demands. When executive demands something of private citizens and private entities, it means they are bossing over said people/entities. Nobody elected the executive to boss over people. When Congress attempts to set these same regulations, these entities get a chance to reach out to their reps and ask for changes. When Congress sets regulations, power is dispersed among 400+ reps. You are thinking about the outcome of the regulations feeling the same. "No kings" are demanding that the means to setting rules be distributed among reps - when the rulemaking is distributed, you'll find that the rules demanded will change - because most people don't want these exact rules as they stand. And they don't want to submit to a fickle corrupt executive who will change these rules selectively on a dime on a random Friday.
      - nobody9999 1y ago
        >When executive demands something of private citizens and private entities, it means they are bossing over said people/entities. Nobody elected the executive to boss over people. When Congress attempts to set these same regulations, these entities get a chance to reach out to their reps and ask for changes. When Congress sets regulations, power is dispersed among 400+ reps. IMHO it's much simpler than that. Congress has the power of the purse -- that is to say that Congress decides what funds are disbursed by the Federal government. While there is a small measure of flexibility for the Executive on when and/or how those funds are disbursed, the Constitution vests budgetary power (i.e., who gets funded, how much to they get, and for what purpose) in Congress and not the Executive. The same goes for tariffs too. Congress is not doing their job. Not only in the sense that they've abandoned the "power of the purse" to the Executive, but also in that legislators, for the most part, represent their big donors rather than their constituents. Which isn't new, although it's pretty stark right now. With the dysfunction so high that the government is currently unfunded. Even more, the House won't even gavel into session, as they'd then have to swear in a newly elected member of Congress which would give members just enough votes to passing a motion to publish information (The so-called "Epstein Files") widely believed to be bad news for the President as well as others in the power structure. The Senate isn't negotiating, nor is the House drafting actual budget bill(s) which is one of their primary responsibilities. So yes. If there's an issue with Federal research funding, it's Congress that needs to fix it. What the Executive is trying to do is not part of the powers given to them by the Constitution (you know, the *supreme law of the land) and, as such, isn't lawful.
- qcnguy 1y ago
  [flagged]
- ternaryoperator 1y ago
  It reads as reasonable but is really saying: no diversity hires. That’s more significant in universities than in the job market. In general, the most educated Americans are the children of the wealthy. So without DEI, the faculty, which is thereby a product of the economic elite, will be teaching primarily the children of that elite. Universities recognized the problem with this closed system long ago and used DEI as a way to address it. That’s what the Trump administration is targeting in part with these compacts.
  - jasonlotito 1y ago
    They do push DEI, just for conservative voices. Remember, DEI is good when it's for conservatives. Just see how many people are complaining about the Super Bowl halftime show. A bunch of anit-DEI people asking for DEI is crazy.
  - Levitz 1y ago
    >Universities recognized the problem with this closed system long ago and used DEI as a way to address it. That's preposterous. It's obscenely disingenuous to now pretend that DEI was about class and economic status. Are women just poorer? Are Asians just richer? Please.
    - patagurbon 1y ago
      > are women just poorer? Within living memory absolutely 100%.
      - Levitz 1y ago
        College-aged women are poorer than college-aged men? Wealthier families have male children at such a disparate rate that they warp the statistics or something?
        IAmBroom 1y ago
        College-aged men and women are typically employed, pay taxes, and there is a well-known salary difference between those two groups.
- jasonlotito 1y ago
  They sound good because they are being presented in a pleasant way that undermines that reality of what these requests are. First, adherence to this agreement shall be subject to review by the Department of Justice. Basically, the current administration can dictate what constitutes a violation. The government gets to dictate what is passing and what is not passing. Basically, this is the government having a direct hand in dictating what the schools that receive government funding can say and do, full stop. Further, this is a potential violation of the current administrations desire to eradicate DEI as this compact literally promotes DEI. So it's an odd request. It's also a massive violation of the freedom of speech. > Signatories shall maintain institutional neutrality at all levels of their administration. This requires policies that all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives, will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university. So, no one employed by the university can speak about societal or political events unless it has a direct impact on the university. Imagine not being able to talk about modern events in the classroom? I was doing this in high school in the 90s in Missouri! And now the administration wants to take that away. There are many reasons this is bad. But predominantly it's this: I get to decide what any of this means. So you have to defend this from MY POV, because this establishes me as the ultimate arbiter here. * Why me? Because it's whoever is in charge at the time, which means you need to be able to defend the merits of this when it doesn't necessarily fit your wants or needs. Which means me.
- elbows 1y ago
  They mostly sound reasonable at a bullet-point level, but reading closer turns up details such as: > Signatories must commit to “defining and otherwise interpreting ‘male,’ ‘female,’ ‘woman,’ and ‘man’ according to reproductive function and biological processes.” Which is not exactly ideological neutral.
  - sidle_arount 1y ago
    That sounds reasonable too, certainly when compared to the very controversial alternative.
  - nickpsecurity 1y ago
    Biology is ideologically neutral. People who disagree with that position are anti-biology (anti-science) on this topic. It certainly makes sense to begin with how to treat men and women by noting they're biologically different instead of whatever they imagine themselves to be. We certainly don't issue degrees based only on what expertise they identify as. We don't allow them in office based on whether they identify as President or Principal. We should likewise not use their feelings or unsubstantiated beliefs to determine if they're a man or a woman when biology has the answer almost every time. Intersex, the exceptions, we'll handle on a case by case basis.
    - patagurbon 1y ago
      What parts of the biology of sex mandates different treatment? Do you mean that medicine should be tailored to biology? Yes obviously, and even very progressive research hospitals take great pains to ensure the treatment is tailored to biology. Perhaps more so than conservative hospitals. You would know this if you engaged with the research outside of the news. Outside of medicine? What different treatment does “biology” merit?
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      > Biology is ideologically neutral. People who disagree with that position are anti-biology (anti-science) on this topic. So you agree there are seven human sexes?
- brendoelfrendo 1y ago
  They are reasonable only if you do not read between the lines or think critically about how the administration will choose to interpret and enforce these standards against the universities in question.
  - convolvatron 1y ago
    having representatives from the Party oversee curriculum, hiring, and admissions is reasonable only if your explicit goal is to emulate China or the former USSR at its worst.
BoredPositron 1y ago
As always summaries only paint a shallow picture. This is the original compact https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Compact-for-Academic-Excellence-in-Higher-Education-10.1.pdf https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1... 1 The Compact explicitly makes federal funding conditional on compliance, meaning that universities must either align with federal definitions of “excellence” and “neutrality” or lose access to research grants, contracts, student loans, and tax exemptions. In practice, this could establish a centralized federal control mechanism over university policies effectively nationalizing large portions of higher education decision-making without direct legislation. Sections 2 and 4 (“Marketplace of Ideas” and “Institutional Neutrality”) appear to promote pluralism, but they impose mandatory structural changes to ensure “no single ideology dominant”. This could require ideological balancing in faculty hiring, curricula, and departmental governance. The threat of Department of Justice enforcement transforms “neutrality” into a federally monitored ideological litmus test, likely constraining academic freedom more than protecting it. Section 6 defines “male,” “female,” “woman,” and “man” strictly by biological function and requires single-sex spaces to be maintained on that basis. This departs from current federal civil rights interpretations under Title IX and would effectively prohibit recognition of gender identity in campus policy rolling back existing protections for transgender and nonbinary students. By forbidding universities from commenting institutionally on “societal and political events” unless directly related to operations, the Compact silences institutional voices on issues like racial justice, climate change, or foreign policy—even if faculty consensus supports public engagement. The “marketplace of ideas” clause simultaneously allows punishment of university employees or centers deemed “dominant” in ideology, directly threatening critical studies programs (e.g., gender studies, ethnic studies). Section 8 introduces anti-money-laundering and KYC requirements typically reserved for banks, applied here to universities. It also mandates information sharing with DHS and the State Department and caps foreign student enrollment at 15%, with a 5% per-country limit. Combined with civics instruction requirements for foreigners, this moves higher education toward national security oversight and ideological vetting creating a form of state-managed educational nationalism. The enforcement section deputizes the Department of Justice to investigate compliance and allows it to reclaim all federal funds and even PRIVATE contributions during a violation year. This mechanism represents an extraordinary form of financial coercion that could bankrupt noncompliant universities, effectively forcing universal submission or privatization.

sidle_arount 1y ago

These all sound like reasonable standards for universities to meet. The only unnecessary part is explicitly calling out conservative opinions, some of which will have no place in some university subjects, e.g. a geology student insisting the Earth is 6000 years old.

nine_zeros 1y ago
These are all reasonable standards - if they came from Congress. They are not reasonable standards if they came for a fickle and corrupt mafia at gunpoint. The entire no kings protest is exactly about that - executive overreach overriding will of the people and causing irresponsible harm.
- sidle_arount 1y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your argument. If these would be considered reasonable standards if exactly the same were proposed by Congress, then how would they cause harm if implemented on request of the Executive?
  - nine_zeros 1y ago
    When requested by the executive under threat of cutting funding, these requests are not requests, they are demands. When executive demands something of private citizens and private entities, it means they are bossing over said people/entities. Nobody elected the executive to boss over people. When Congress attempts to set these same regulations, these entities get a chance to reach out to their reps and ask for changes. When Congress sets regulations, power is dispersed among 400+ reps. You are thinking about the outcome of the regulations feeling the same. "No kings" are demanding that the means to setting rules be distributed among reps - when the rulemaking is distributed, you'll find that the rules demanded will change - because most people don't want these exact rules as they stand. And they don't want to submit to a fickle corrupt executive who will change these rules selectively on a dime on a random Friday.
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >When executive demands something of private citizens and private entities, it means they are bossing over said people/entities. Nobody elected the executive to boss over people. When Congress attempts to set these same regulations, these entities get a chance to reach out to their reps and ask for changes. When Congress sets regulations, power is dispersed among 400+ reps. IMHO it's much simpler than that. Congress has the power of the purse -- that is to say that Congress decides what funds are disbursed by the Federal government. While there is a small measure of flexibility for the Executive on when and/or how those funds are disbursed, the Constitution vests budgetary power (i.e., who gets funded, how much to they get, and for what purpose) in Congress and not the Executive. The same goes for tariffs too. Congress is not doing their job. Not only in the sense that they've abandoned the "power of the purse" to the Executive, but also in that legislators, for the most part, represent their big donors rather than their constituents. Which isn't new, although it's pretty stark right now. With the dysfunction so high that the government is currently unfunded. Even more, the House won't even gavel into session, as they'd then have to swear in a newly elected member of Congress which would give members just enough votes to passing a motion to publish information (The so-called "Epstein Files") widely believed to be bad news for the President as well as others in the power structure. The Senate isn't negotiating, nor is the House drafting actual budget bill(s) which is one of their primary responsibilities. So yes. If there's an issue with Federal research funding, it's Congress that needs to fix it. What the Executive is trying to do is not part of the powers given to them by the Constitution (you know, the *supreme law of the land) and, as such, isn't lawful.
qcnguy 1y ago
[flagged]
ternaryoperator 1y ago
It reads as reasonable but is really saying: no diversity hires. That’s more significant in universities than in the job market. In general, the most educated Americans are the children of the wealthy. So without DEI, the faculty, which is thereby a product of the economic elite, will be teaching primarily the children of that elite. Universities recognized the problem with this closed system long ago and used DEI as a way to address it. That’s what the Trump administration is targeting in part with these compacts.
- jasonlotito 1y ago
  They do push DEI, just for conservative voices. Remember, DEI is good when it's for conservatives. Just see how many people are complaining about the Super Bowl halftime show. A bunch of anit-DEI people asking for DEI is crazy.
- Levitz 1y ago
  >Universities recognized the problem with this closed system long ago and used DEI as a way to address it. That's preposterous. It's obscenely disingenuous to now pretend that DEI was about class and economic status. Are women just poorer? Are Asians just richer? Please.
  - patagurbon 1y ago
    > are women just poorer? Within living memory absolutely 100%.
    - Levitz 1y ago
      College-aged women are poorer than college-aged men? Wealthier families have male children at such a disparate rate that they warp the statistics or something?
      - IAmBroom 1y ago
        College-aged men and women are typically employed, pay taxes, and there is a well-known salary difference between those two groups.
jasonlotito 1y ago
They sound good because they are being presented in a pleasant way that undermines that reality of what these requests are. First, adherence to this agreement shall be subject to review by the Department of Justice. Basically, the current administration can dictate what constitutes a violation. The government gets to dictate what is passing and what is not passing. Basically, this is the government having a direct hand in dictating what the schools that receive government funding can say and do, full stop. Further, this is a potential violation of the current administrations desire to eradicate DEI as this compact literally promotes DEI. So it's an odd request. It's also a massive violation of the freedom of speech. > Signatories shall maintain institutional neutrality at all levels of their administration. This requires policies that all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives, will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university. So, no one employed by the university can speak about societal or political events unless it has a direct impact on the university. Imagine not being able to talk about modern events in the classroom? I was doing this in high school in the 90s in Missouri! And now the administration wants to take that away. There are many reasons this is bad. But predominantly it's this: I get to decide what any of this means. So you have to defend this from MY POV, because this establishes me as the ultimate arbiter here. * Why me? Because it's whoever is in charge at the time, which means you need to be able to defend the merits of this when it doesn't necessarily fit your wants or needs. Which means me.
elbows 1y ago
They mostly sound reasonable at a bullet-point level, but reading closer turns up details such as: > Signatories must commit to “defining and otherwise interpreting ‘male,’ ‘female,’ ‘woman,’ and ‘man’ according to reproductive function and biological processes.” Which is not exactly ideological neutral.
- sidle_arount 1y ago
  That sounds reasonable too, certainly when compared to the very controversial alternative.
- nickpsecurity 1y ago
  Biology is ideologically neutral. People who disagree with that position are anti-biology (anti-science) on this topic. It certainly makes sense to begin with how to treat men and women by noting they're biologically different instead of whatever they imagine themselves to be. We certainly don't issue degrees based only on what expertise they identify as. We don't allow them in office based on whether they identify as President or Principal. We should likewise not use their feelings or unsubstantiated beliefs to determine if they're a man or a woman when biology has the answer almost every time. Intersex, the exceptions, we'll handle on a case by case basis.
  - patagurbon 1y ago
    What parts of the biology of sex mandates different treatment? Do you mean that medicine should be tailored to biology? Yes obviously, and even very progressive research hospitals take great pains to ensure the treatment is tailored to biology. Perhaps more so than conservative hospitals. You would know this if you engaged with the research outside of the news. Outside of medicine? What different treatment does “biology” merit?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    > Biology is ideologically neutral. People who disagree with that position are anti-biology (anti-science) on this topic. So you agree there are seven human sexes?
brendoelfrendo 1y ago
They are reasonable only if you do not read between the lines or think critically about how the administration will choose to interpret and enforce these standards against the universities in question.
- convolvatron 1y ago
  having representatives from the Party oversee curriculum, hiring, and admissions is reasonable only if your explicit goal is to emulate China or the former USSR at its worst.

BoredPositron 1y ago

As always summaries only paint a shallow picture. This is the original compact https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Compact-for-Academic-Excellence-in-Higher-Education-10.1.pdf https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1... 1 The Compact explicitly makes federal funding conditional on compliance, meaning that universities must either align with federal definitions of “excellence” and “neutrality” or lose access to research grants, contracts, student loans, and tax exemptions. In practice, this could establish a centralized federal control mechanism over university policies effectively nationalizing large portions of higher education decision-making without direct legislation. Sections 2 and 4 (“Marketplace of Ideas” and “Institutional Neutrality”) appear to promote pluralism, but they impose mandatory structural changes to ensure “no single ideology dominant”. This could require ideological balancing in faculty hiring, curricula, and departmental governance. The threat of Department of Justice enforcement transforms “neutrality” into a federally monitored ideological litmus test, likely constraining academic freedom more than protecting it. Section 6 defines “male,” “female,” “woman,” and “man” strictly by biological function and requires single-sex spaces to be maintained on that basis. This departs from current federal civil rights interpretations under Title IX and would effectively prohibit recognition of gender identity in campus policy rolling back existing protections for transgender and nonbinary students. By forbidding universities from commenting institutionally on “societal and political events” unless directly related to operations, the Compact silences institutional voices on issues like racial justice, climate change, or foreign policy—even if faculty consensus supports public engagement. The “marketplace of ideas” clause simultaneously allows punishment of university employees or centers deemed “dominant” in ideology, directly threatening critical studies programs (e.g., gender studies, ethnic studies). Section 8 introduces anti-money-laundering and KYC requirements typically reserved for banks, applied here to universities. It also mandates information sharing with DHS and the State Department and caps foreign student enrollment at 15%, with a 5% per-country limit. Combined with civics instruction requirements for foreigners, this moves higher education toward national security oversight and ideological vetting creating a form of state-managed educational nationalism. The enforcement section deputizes the Department of Justice to investigate compliance and allows it to reclaim all federal funds and even PRIVATE contributions during a violation year. This mechanism represents an extraordinary form of financial coercion that could bankrupt noncompliant universities, effectively forcing universal submission or privatization.