In a bold move that has sparked both applause and controversy, Dartmouth College has firmly rejected President Trump’s proposed compact, a deal that would tie federal funding to adherence to his administration’s priorities. But here’s where it gets controversial: this decision isn’t just about money—it’s about safeguarding academic freedom, self-governance, and the very essence of what makes higher education thrive. And this is the part most people miss: the compact would have restricted universities’ ability to address societal and political issues, imposed specific definitions of gender, and limited political demonstrations on campus. Is this a step too far, or a necessary alignment with federal goals? Let’s dive in.
On Saturday, Dartmouth College President Sian L. Beilock sent a powerful letter to the Dartmouth community, explaining why the institution would not sign the so-called Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. Her stance was clear: “A compact with any administration would compromise our academic freedom and our ability to govern ourselves,” she wrote. Instead, Beilock emphasized that federal research funds should be awarded based on merit—the best, most promising ideas, not political alignment. Yet, she also extended an olive branch, expressing openness to collaborating with the federal government in other ways to strengthen higher education. For instance, she proposed enhancing the partnership between the government and leading research universities while ensuring a continued focus on academic excellence.
But here’s the kicker: the compact wasn’t just about funding. It included provisions that would limit university employees’ speech and actions on societal and political matters, mandate adherence to Trump’s definitions of gender, and restrict political demonstrations that could disrupt campus life. These conditions raised red flags for many, including Dartmouth’s own faculty, who rallied with over 500 signatures urging the college to reject the deal.
Dartmouth wasn’t alone in its resistance. The Trump administration initially approached nine top-tier universities, including MIT, Brown, and the University of Pennsylvania, all of whom have since rejected the compact. Notably, MIT, Brown, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Virginia, and the University of Southern California have publicly declined the offer, citing concerns similar to Dartmouth’s. Meanwhile, the administration has expanded its reach, approaching three additional institutions: Washington University in St. Louis, the University of Kansas, and Arizona State University. But will these schools fare differently?
Here’s the controversial question: Should universities accept federal funding with strings attached, even if those strings threaten their autonomy and values? Or is it their duty to stand firm, even at the risk of losing financial support? Dartmouth’s decision has ignited a debate that goes beyond politics—it’s about the soul of higher education. What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and let’s keep this critical conversation going.
