On Oct. 1, 2025, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and other White House officials introduced the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. The compact was sent to nine universities across the country, which included Dartmouth College, the University of Southern California, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. By Oct. 20, seven of the nine schools rejected the proposal.
The compact is available for public viewing through the Washington Examiner. The text begins with a description of the reciprocal relationship between colleges and the U.S. government, such as how the latter provides various benefits to the former in exchange for the prestige and strategic benefit of U.S. universities. The benefits listed include access to student loans, approval of student visas, and preferential treatment under the tax code. For no clear reason other than “[t]o advance the national interests arising out of this unique relationship,” the compact demands that the recipients take additional burden, as listed in its 10 pages. It claims that the consequence of not signing the compact would be to forego federal benefits.
The premise of McMahon’s proposal characterizes student loans and other programs strictly as benefits that are freely provided by the government for the academic and political value of universities. However, a closer look into the history of these benefits reveals that their emergence was dependent on the historical context that necessitated them and never the value of universities themselves. For example, the “F” category of student visas as we know now was established by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which repealed the ban of Asian immigrants resulting from the Immigration Act of 1924. Similarly, the first federal student loan was the National Defense Student Loan of 1958, through which the government supported American students to better compete against Soviet scientists. If the so-called benefits are beneficial for both the government and students, it is unreasonable to argue that the federal government is entitled to more control of universities under the framework of the same benefits.
The compact continues to misguide the readers of the origin of issues in higher education. For example, the first section, titled Equality in Admissions, argues to end the “Treat[ment] [of] certain groups as categorically incapable of performing — and therefore in need of preferential treatment.” Instead, it asks universities to make admissions decisions on objective criteria, which are described in the following paragraph as mandating standardized-testing and GPA submissions.
The first error of the compact is assuming that any and all preferential treatment is the result of treating a population as inferior. Take affirmative action for example; the term was first used in a 1961 executive order by President John F. Kennedy to ensure that government contractors are given equal opportunity without regard to race, creed, color or national origin. The method of affirmative action changed from the racial quotas of the 1970s to the present-day diversity, equity, and inclusion office. McMahon attempts to discredit the history of affirmative action and other “preferential treatment” without acknowledging centuries of systematic racism that necessitated such corrective measures.
The compact is just one of many attempts by the administration to punish universities whose students or faculties are most vocal about their frustrations with it. For example, Columbia University reached a resolution in July 2025 that included a $200 million fine for alleged violations of anti-discrimination laws in their handling of protests against the war in Gaza. Similarly, the second section of McMahon’s compact, titled “Marketplace of Ideas and Civil Discourse,” classifies “calls for murder or genocide or support for entities designated by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations” as prohibited incitements of violence. This is consistent with the current administration’s attempt to demarcate their version of truth from the “radically indoctrinated” one, as this compact would allow the government to designate organizations as terroristic for the sole purpose of punishing students and groups that protest against the truth pushed by the administration. Therefore, it is relieving that the schools that received the compact and the American Association of Colleges and Universities issued statements rejecting it.
At the same time, there are institutions opportunistic for recognition by the current administration, as we see in the New College of Florida’s October 2025 press release where they announced that they wished to sign the compact, without having been offered it. Only time will tell if the compact is truly aimed at academic excellence — however broad its definition may be — or if it is merely a ploy to cause a divide in higher education.
~ Benjamin Ha `27
Be First to Comment