In mid-October, several prestigious universities were approached by President Donald Trump with updated guidelines that schools would have to comply with in order to receive federal funding. Upon accepting the proposal, schools would be committing to several things: banning transgender people from playing sports that align with their gender identities, restricting political comments made by university officials, cutting back on international student enrollment and more.
The Department of Education’s proposal was sent to schools across the country. MIT was the first school to reject the offer, stating that the requirements of the document did not reflect the values of the school. According to Campus Reform, Valley Forge Military College was the first university to join, as they feel that their values and the educational environment they strive to foster are well-matched with the document’s requirements. Following the MIT rejection, Trump released a statement on Truth Social, inviting all schools to sign on with the document, not just the ones that received a letter.
The University of Southern California, the University of Pennsylvania (Trump’s alma mater) and Brown University were next up in rejecting the document. California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, made his opinion on the matter clear, stating, “If any California university signs this radical agreement, they’ll lose billions in state funding — including Cal Grants — instantly.”
Some letters were delivered to public institutions like Arizona State University and the University of Kansas. Currently, none of the universities that were initially invited have signed on.
What we are seeing is value alignment being the name, and money to stay afloat being the game. So, will this become the deciding factor as to whether a college can operate or not?
While I personally disagree with the concepts detailed in the Compact of Academic Excellence for Higher Education, I also believe that universities reserve the right to accept or decline the invitation. It is wrong for a university’s administration not to be concerned with its students and faculty feeling welcomed and respected, regardless of their identity or country of origin. However, it is still up to the university and its officials to determine whether or not they want to cultivate an inclusive learning environment. The reality is that different people have different ideas of what that looks like.
As a 21-year-old young woman who lives less than an hour away from one of the largest, richest and most diverse cities in the world, I think it’s ridiculous and hateful to run a school based on bigoted principles. A critical aspect of higher education is to expand one’s understanding and explore viewpoints outside of your own. The president of a conservative university in a red state would likely disagree, seeing no issue with capping international student enrollment and restricting self-expression.
I wish I could enforce a law requiring all universities to view diversity for what it is: a positive thing we benefit from and need. But even then, there would be people who, absurdly, will continue viewing diversity negatively.
On a different note, I believe all universities have a right to receive federal funding. Furthermore, there should not be an ultimatum to implement extremist policies for schools to be eligible. As I said before, different people will hold different ideas as to what is extreme and what isn’t, so these lines are certainly blurry.
For example, if a left-leaning president required all colleges to be inclusive towards LGBTQ+ individuals, there would likely be pushback from schools that follow more conservative standards. They would probably deem it “extreme” to expect that they should abandon their beliefs or risk losing their funding.
I think that universities should be able to hold their specific values and still receive federal funding, as long as those values do not pose a violent threat.
Throughout history, universities have been weaponized to further the government’s agenda. Countries rely on universities to conduct research in scientific fields such as health and technology, as well as to shape the next generation of corporate individuals.
Controlling university policies means the government has a way to directly usher students and even faculty, into following through on anything they put forth. Such a maneuver allows ruling ideas to continue wielding their power.
As the government gets bolder with overstepping and overriding policies by the day, it is crucial that universities are able to maintain autonomy. At Montclair State University, students and faculty are lucky to know the school supports safe and non-threatening self-expression.
We must continue to support open-minded policies as a way to combat the rise of authoritarianist rulings. If we find ourselves giving up principles for paychecks, the school will be directly rejecting its students and, by extension, directly rejecting its true nature of being a counterforce to fascism.
