A White House “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” landed in Dartmouth’s inbox earlier this month, alongside letters to eight other universities, including Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — schools the administration has labeled “good actors.” The agreement offers preferential access to federal grants if universities adopt a 10-point framework governing nearly every aspect of academic life: admissions, hiring, tuition, governance and even endowment use.
On its face, the compact reads like a call for higher standards, including equality, affordability and accountability. In fact, some of the proposed measures, taken in isolation, seem reasonable. Dartmouth already requires standardized tests after reinstating the SAT and ACT for the Class of 2029. The decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard already bans the consideration of race in admissions nationwide. And Dartmouth’s international enrollment — roughly 15%— happens to align with the compact’s proposed cap.
But beneath that language lies a mechanism of federal control. The compact requires signatories to certify annually that they comply with its terms and to submit to Department of Justice review. Violations could trigger loss of access to federal benefits and repayment of all government and private contributions received during the year of non-compliance.
The problem is not the specific rules of the agreement but the precedent of allowing political power to dictate academic governance. Even sensible reforms look different when imposed from Washington rather than adopted through institutional deliberation. Once universities trade autonomy for funding, their priorities can shift with each administration, leading to a slow erosion of independence disguised as reform.
This situation begs the question: how will — and should — President Beilock respond?
Beilock first publicly addressed the matter in a message to the Dartmouth community on Oct. 3, writing that she is “deeply committed to Dartmouth’s academic mission and values” and “will always defend our fierce independence.” Her statement, while principled, stopped short of saying whether Dartmouth will ultimately sign or reject the compact. Beilock has been flirting with engagement with the Trump administration, but she may find that agreeing to the compact would cross a line of no return for her or for Dartmouth. Alumni reactions to Beilock’s engagement with the Trump administration have been sharply divided, with some calling on the Board to reaffirm Dartmouth’s independence and others arguing that cooperation is pragmatic. Beilock thus faces pressure from both directions: from those who fear capitulation if she signs, and from those who fear retaliation from Washington if she refuses. It is a difficult position without a clear win.
In making this decision, Beilock has two examples in our peer institutions that she might follow. Last week, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology became the first university to reject the compact outright. In a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, MIT President Sally Kornbluth wrote that the proposal “would restrict freedom of expression and MIT’s independence” and that “the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.” By contrast, one day after receiving the draft Compact, the University of Texas System’s Board of Regents welcomed the outreach, calling it an “honor” to be included and pledging to review the compact immediately.
History, though, warns where this can lead. In the 1950s, the University of California required faculty to sign loyalty oaths swearing they were not communists. Many refused and lost their positions before courts intervened. The episode is a cautionary tale as to how quickly academic freedom can dissolve when its terms are dictated. Even if one supports parts of this compact, and many reasonable people might, the real question is who decides. Dartmouth reinstated standardized testing on its own evidence and values. That is how reform should occur: freely chosen, not federally coerced.
However, MIT’s outright rejection and UT’s embrace of the compact are not the only two models. A middle ground based on seizing opportunity amidst crisis has been laid out in great detail by Harvard Professor Danielle Allen in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Allen argues that this moment of executive overreach could create a rare opening not to capitulate, but to build a better compact that is public, deliberative and anchored in legislative legitimacy. Rather than accepting Washington’s draft, she asserts that the remaining universities on this list, along with others they have recruited, could form a coalition to draft their own blueprint, rooted in academic freedom and civic strength, and ultimately take that vision to Congress. Being chosen in such a framework is not only a test but also a privilege and an invitation to lead.
Ultimately, I agree with Allen. Dartmouth should decline to sign, not defiantly but decisively, acknowledging the goals it shares with the administration while insisting on pursuing them independently and collaboratively with peer colleges and universities. This moment is precisely the kind of inflection at which Dartmouth must lead, not capitulate. The future of higher education in the country demands strong institutions that not only resist overreach but build better, more legitimate frameworks in their wake. That is how Dartmouth can protect its mission and preserve its integrity.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
