MIT, with several courageous universities to follow, shows it is made of sterner stuff

 

Elite institutions ranging from Columbia University to CBS News to the Paul, Weiss law firm have capitulated to Donald Trump’s bullying. Under the delusion that they could cut deals to save themselves from Trump’s wrath, they tossed overboard supposedly deeply held values including academic independence, freedom of the press, and the right to counsel. Instead, their cowardice whetted Trump’s appetite for more aggression and repression.

Over several months, surrender by a fleet of weak-kneed institutions suggested that Trump might succeed in his dictatorial mission. However, that disturbing trend appears to have stalled. Perhaps Trump overreached, or perhaps popular protests convinced institutional leaders to show some backbone.

In any event, Trump’s familiar extortion playbook seems to have lost some of its punch. Trump’s latest gambit, the so-called compact that he sent to nine prestigious universities, may have flopped. The New York Times reported on Oct. 2:

The Trump administration promised a select set of universities what the government said would be a great deal. In exchange for agreeing to a list of demands, like limiting international students and protecting conservative voices, universities would get a leg up on grants, potentially beating out the competition for billions in federal funds.

At least one institution, the University of Texas, said it would be eager to sign up. But then, a curious thing happened. Faculty, students, and alumni began to push back. Condemnation of the compact and talk of boycotts started “while Dartmouth College’s president has responded by saying she will always defend her university’s ‘fierce independence,’” Johns Hopkins professor Harry Farrell wrote last week. Meanwhile, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom threatened “to pull state funding from any institution that signs.”

Then, the leader of one of the most prestigious universities weighed in. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) president Sally Kornbluth in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon effectively told the Trump bullies to get lost.

Kornbluth first recited her university’s principles: rewarding merit, admitting students regardless of economic need, and guarding free expression. She then drew a line in the sand in terms that old-school conservatives would have appreciated:

We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission—work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law.

The [Trump proposed compact]… includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution. And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.

In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence. In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences.

MIT’s stance, as Inside Higher Education reported, generated widespread praise from academics: “I am proud to say that MIT has rejected Trump’s poison compact,” American Association of University Professors president Todd Wolfson wrote on Bluesky shortly after the news broke.

And some scholars suggested that MIT had established a precedent that others may look to. Brendan Cantwell, a higher education professor at Michigan State University, questioned in a post on Bluesky whether MIT’s action changes “the calculus” for the other eight universities. . . .

Lawmakers such as Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) also weighed in. “This is what courage in the face of authoritarianism looks like. No university should take Trump’s bribe & surrender their integrity—bending the knee to a bully only feeds the beast & puts ALL our rights at risk.” 

Even Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has taken to battling Trump on the Epstein files, praised MIT. “The surest way to screw up the world’s best technical school is to let feds tell them how to run it,” Massie wrote. “Congrats to my alma mater for turning down a bribe to let the executive branch dictate what happens on its campus.”

And, lo and behold, Brown University followed suit on Thursday. “I am concerned that the Compact by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown’s governance, critically compromising our ability to fulfill our mission,” its president reaffirmed. Then, in quick succession, the University of Penn reportedly rejected the proposed preferential funding compact; as did the University of Southern California (USC). 

Meanwhile, the other institutions who originally received the proposed Faustian bargain (University of Arizona, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia) will have to decide whether to follow MIT’s principled stance or enable Trump’s totalitarian project.

After the MIT humiliation, the Trump regime decided to shop the compact to all universities. We will see if any takes the deal MIT, Brown, Penn, and USC rejected.

MIT, followed by three other universities, distinguished itself by remaining undaunted in defense of free expression, academic independence, and intellectual rigor, demonstrating that resistance is not futile. MIT and those that followed its lead deserve our recognition and gratitude for standing up to the bully-in-chief.

We hope others beyond higher ed look to the trend MIT initiated. (Interestingly, virtually all major news outlets this week also rejected the Pentagon’s outrageous and onerous restrictions on their reporting; in addition, a growing list of airports are refusing to run DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s propaganda video.)

-The Contrarian