The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is going all in. In doing so, they officially rejected a Trump administration funding proposal which would have attached onerous and unproven requirements to institutions of higher education. The proposal, released by the U.S. Department of Education on Friday, requested schools to adopt a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” In particular, this compact included provisions to screen foreign students for any hostility towards the U.S. It further capped international undergrad admissions at 15%, requiring that no more than 5% come from any one country.
MIT’s President, Sally Kornbluth, responded to Education Secretary Linda McMahon in a letter, articulating the institution’s commitment to academic freedom and independent thought. For example, Kornbluth emphasized that MIT’s international enrollment hovers around 10%. What’s more, the institution employs high-stakes standardized tests as part of its admissions process. She highlighted that the compact “includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution.”
The proposed compact would mandate that schools disclose their disciplinary history to the federal government. This decision marks an alarming precedent on student privacy and institutional autonomy. Kornbluth argued that America’s leadership in science and innovation relies on independent thinking and open competition, stating, “In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence… Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom has been equally fierce in his opposition to the proposal. He threatened that any California public university that took such a deal would suffer dire fiscal consequences. “If any California university signs this radical agreement, they’ll lose billions in state funding — including Cal Grants — instantly,” Newsom stated. Further, his administration has committed to withholding federal funding from any institution that violates the tenets of academic freedom.
Kornbluth’s rejection of the proposal reaffirms MIT’s commitment to building a campus culture that values free expression. She asserted, “We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission.” The university is clearly committed to their positions. This is a welcome change, as many institutions have been rightfully concerned about federal funding agreements that threaten their academic independence.
Recent lawsuits filed by University of California and other universities against the Trump administration add an interesting context to this rejection. We’re disappointed that these actions are the direct result of across-the-board cuts to our nation’s health research funding. Most of these institutions have publicly committed to protect academic freedom and fight against policies seen as harmful to the future of higher education.
MIT’s response serves as a significant example of how educational institutions are navigating the complex landscape of funding and academic freedom in America.