By John Q. Hosedrinker 
MIT has become the first university to reject President Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” due to concerns over freedom of expression and institutional independence. The university’s president, Sally Kornbluth, stated that MIT’s existing values align with the principles of the compact. However, MIT disagrees with aspects of the document, particularly those that would restrict freedom of expression and independence. MIT’s decision to decline the invitation has been applauded by the university community and others, including Amnesty International USA.
Read the original article here
“MIT Did the Right Thing”: First School Rejects Trump Extortion Compact. This is a welcome development, a breath of fresh air in a political climate often defined by compromise and capitulation. It’s encouraging to see an institution like MIT, with its reputation for intellectual rigor and innovation, stand firm against what can only be described as an attempt at political coercion. Their decision to reject the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” the so-called agreement that critics have rightfully labeled an “extortion” tactic for federal funding, sets a powerful precedent. It’s a clear message that some values, like academic freedom and institutional integrity, are not for sale.
The core issue here is that the terms of this “Compact” essentially demanded a loyalty oath in exchange for continued federal funding. This is not just a matter of financial gain; it’s a direct assault on the autonomy of educational institutions. It attempts to control what they teach, how they operate, and ultimately, what kind of ideas are allowed to flourish within their walls. This kind of political overreach is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge. The fact that MIT was the first to stand up is laudable. Hopefully this will serve as a catalyst for other universities to follow suit.
The sentiment here is a common one. This isn’t just a simple political disagreement; it’s a matter of principle. It’s a refusal to bend the knee to what is seen as a bully tactic. There’s a sense that once an organization gives in to such demands, it opens the door to escalating pressure and further encroachment on their autonomy. It’s a slippery slope. And the core of the issue, many feel, is that education shouldn’t be treated like a business in the first place, with conditions tied to funding that directly impinge on intellectual freedom.
The reactions also highlight the perceived weaknesses of those making these demands. This is not a sign of strength but rather the actions of someone desperate to maintain power, and by simply standing their ground, the institutions could come out stronger.
The discussion also touches on the personal qualities of those in prominent positions. One comment notes an MIT alum, Thomas Massie, and his actions. It is an illustration of the complexities of intellectual ability and the potential for its misuse.
MIT’s rejection of the Compact is a bold statement. It demonstrates a commitment to their principles, even in the face of potential financial pressure. It’s a reminder that standing up for what’s right can be a powerful act, even if it comes at a perceived cost.
The situation echoes a broader struggle for educational values. The fear of limiting free speech and expression resonates. Institutions are pressured from multiple directions, and the stance taken by MIT is a welcome one. It’s a challenge to both extremes. The importance of independent thought and the freedom to research and educate are central to the values.
MIT, in this instance, sets an example of courage and principle. It’s a call for other institutions to follow suit.