USC rejects Trump education pact to move university to the right

The University of Southern California on Thursday rejected the controversial education pact that the Trump administration proposed to it and eight other schools, saying it would undermine the “values ​​of free inquiry and academic excellence.”

USC interim President Beong-Soo Kim said in a statement that he sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Education declining Trump’s offer, which would give priority access to research funding to universities that agree to follow the president’s essentially conservative vision for higher education.

His letter, which USC provided to The Times, was addressed to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and said the pact “raises a number of issues worthy of further discussion within higher education and our country.”

But, Kim wrote, the university was concerned about the Trump administration’s offer.

“We are concerned that, although the Compact would be voluntary, tying research benefits to it would, over time, undermine the very values ​​of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote,” Kim wrote. “Other countries whose governments lack America’s commitment to freedom and democracy have shown how academic excellence can suffer when external priorities shift and shift the playing field away from meritocratic free competition. »

White House spokeswoman Liz Huston said in a statement that universities “funded by American taxpayers should absolutely serve the national interest.”

“As long as they don’t seek federal funding, universities are free to implement whatever legal policies they want,” she said. “However, the idea that universities should benefit from taxpayer dollars without taking responsibility in return is woefully misguided. »

Kim’s letter said the university “completely agrees” with part of the pact that states that academic excellence requires a “vibrant marketplace of ideas where all different viewpoints can be explored, debated and challenged.”

“To foster such an environment at USC, we are committed to institutional neutrality and have launched a number of initiatives intended to promote civil discourse across the ideological spectrum,” Kim wrote to McMahon in the letter dated Thursday. “Without an environment in which students and faculty can freely discuss a wide range of ideas and viewpoints, we would not be able to produce exceptional research, teach our students to think critically, or instill the civic values ​​necessary for our democracy to flourish. »

In a letter to the USC community Thursday, Kim addressed the often heated campus compact debate.

“I appreciate the different perspectives shared with me by many members of our community,” Kim said in a statement. “Although USC declined to join the proposed Compact, we look forward to contributing our perspectives, ideas and Trojan values ​​to an important national conversation about the future of higher education.”

Some faculty members opposed to the pact said they were pleased with Kim’s decision.

“This shows that when a broad coalition of faculty, students, staff and workers come together at USC and across the country, we can bring about institutional change,” said Sanjay Madhav, associate professor of practice at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering. “While it is promising that USC has rejected this unconstitutional compact, there is still work to be done and the fight for academic freedom and higher education itself is not yet over.

The pact — which had already been rejected by MIT and Brown as well as Thursday by the University of Pennsylvania — shook higher education and angered Gov. Gavin Newsom with its demands for rightward policy changes on campuses in exchange for priority federal funding and other benefits.

Newsom had intervened aggressively, challenging USC to “do the right thing” and reject the offer. He threatened to deny state funding to any California university that accepted it.

The University of Texas suggested earlier this month that it might agree to Trump’s terms. Texas system leaders were “honored” that the Austin campus was chosen to be part of the pact and its “potential financial benefits,” according to a statement from Kevin Eltife, chairman of the board of trustees.

Introduced to USC on October 1, the pact requires universities to make a series of commitments consistent with Trump’s policy agenda.

The pact calls on universities to accept the government’s definition of gender – two sexes, male and female – and prohibits universities from recognizing the gender identity of transgender people. Enrollment of foreign students would be limited. The pact also provides for a tuition freeze for American students for five years.

It calls for colleges to require the SAT or ACT for all undergraduate applicants and to eliminate race, gender and other characteristics from admissions decisions.

As for free speech, schools should commit to promoting a broad range of viewpoints on campus — and to modifying or abolishing “institutional units that punish, demean, and even incite violence against conservative ideas,” according to the pact.

The pact had been soundly rejected by the USC Academic Senate, which met Oct. 6 and heard from more than 20 professors, department heads and others who spoke against the document. In powerful speeches during the virtual meeting, participants called the pact “patently invalid,” “probably unconstitutional,” “contrary to the principles of academic freedom” and a “Trojan horse.”

Aro Velmet, an associate history professor at USC who attended the Oct. 6 meeting, welcomed Kim’s decision to reject the pact but said the move reflected “the pressure being put on the president by more or less everyone on campus.”

“We are relieved that Chairman Kim did the right thing and we congratulate him. This is a victory in this battle,” Velmet said. “(But) the war continues. It is very likely that the federal government will try to put pressure on universities in another form.”

There were divergent opinions.

Anna Krylov, a chemistry professor at USC, said universities that reject the pact without “providing feedback to improve it” are signaling that “they have no intention of acknowledging their failures — or taking meaningful steps toward reform.”

But Krylov said she was pleased with the letter Kim sent to McMahon, which she said “expresses agreement with the Pact’s aspirations and signals at least a desire for reform.”

Although the pact was proposed directly to a small group of universities, a White House official said Tuesday that it was also a plan for additional campuses.

“We have not proactively contacted all universities. The first nine colleges still have time to provide feedback on the proposed pact. However, of course, we will not turn away universities that want to make a positive difference and lead the way,” the official said.

In a social media post Sunday, Trump also indicated the deal was open to other colleges.

“For institutions that wish to quickly return to the pursuit of truth and success, they are encouraged to enter into a forward-looking agreement with the federal government to help usher in a golden age of academic excellence in higher education. They will agree to comply with federal law and protect the civil rights of ALL students, faculty, and staff on campus,” the president said.

The pact was not granted to the California State University or University of California campuses. In a meeting with the UC Academic Senate last week, UC President James B. Milliken suggested that UC would not accept it if asked to sign.