According to media reports, the federal government has sent nine research universities a memorandum of understanding and promised significant benefits—including preferential access to grants and federal student loans—to those who sign it.
Just read a TPM piece that suggested it's entirely DOJ discretion whether a university is found in breach of the terms. If that's right, I don't think anyone can sign this in its current form.
Yes but even if they don't sign, the requirements can be imposed on them. Columbia may actually have ended up safest because they have a persuadable resolution monitor.
Yeah... not sure if signing would make it harder to win in court later on. I suppose the principle is probably that you can't sign away your constitutional rights, but I wonder if some of the stipulations are outside the constitutional realm yet in the realm where they'd be illegal to impose without an agreement.
I opposed the Brown deal on the grounds that one can only make a deal with an honest partner. In inking that agreement, I think we put ourselves on a list of institutions willing to do business. (Cutting against that idea, I'm surprised Columbia did not receive the compact.) At any rate, the administration will continue to experiment to find ways to remake the university setting.
Some few stipulations in the compact might be good were an institution to implement them of their own volition. This compact also seems to me to pit universities against one another by dangling the promise of extra federal funds/benefits: the government can give you a leg up if you play nice.
I hope Brown and the other institutions on this list follow MIT's lead.
I just read Danielle Allen's post about a new compact that must go through the White House first. I don't follow her logic; your suggestion that this be a public compact between universities with the public (e.g., universities can sign on to it, unmediated by the WH) is much more palatable.
Also interesting that she takes Mailman's claim that the compact was sent to 9 universities to solve the collective action problem at face value—a credulous reading, in my opinion. (Or perhaps, yes, it solves a collective action problem that we _don't_ want to solve: join up with your friends and distribute the blame.) Universities, as self-interested institutions, are looking for a way to stabilize funding right now given the chaos at NIH and elsewhere. The additional "benefits" touted in the compact drip like honey to a beleaguered institution.
Jason, thanks for the comments. I think that the MIT response was superb in both content and tone and hope others follow this lead. Danielle is trying to find a path forward that could appeal to a broad slice of the electorate but agree with you that a direct unmediated appeal to the public would be a better way to go.
Just read a TPM piece that suggested it's entirely DOJ discretion whether a university is found in breach of the terms. If that's right, I don't think anyone can sign this in its current form.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/the-trump-administrations-new-protection-racket-for-higher-ed
Yes but even if they don't sign, the requirements can be imposed on them. Columbia may actually have ended up safest because they have a persuadable resolution monitor.
Yeah... not sure if signing would make it harder to win in court later on. I suppose the principle is probably that you can't sign away your constitutional rights, but I wonder if some of the stipulations are outside the constitutional realm yet in the realm where they'd be illegal to impose without an agreement.
I opposed the Brown deal on the grounds that one can only make a deal with an honest partner. In inking that agreement, I think we put ourselves on a list of institutions willing to do business. (Cutting against that idea, I'm surprised Columbia did not receive the compact.) At any rate, the administration will continue to experiment to find ways to remake the university setting.
Some few stipulations in the compact might be good were an institution to implement them of their own volition. This compact also seems to me to pit universities against one another by dangling the promise of extra federal funds/benefits: the government can give you a leg up if you play nice.
I hope Brown and the other institutions on this list follow MIT's lead.
I just read Danielle Allen's post about a new compact that must go through the White House first. I don't follow her logic; your suggestion that this be a public compact between universities with the public (e.g., universities can sign on to it, unmediated by the WH) is much more palatable.
Also interesting that she takes Mailman's claim that the compact was sent to 9 universities to solve the collective action problem at face value—a credulous reading, in my opinion. (Or perhaps, yes, it solves a collective action problem that we _don't_ want to solve: join up with your friends and distribute the blame.) Universities, as self-interested institutions, are looking for a way to stabilize funding right now given the chaos at NIH and elsewhere. The additional "benefits" touted in the compact drip like honey to a beleaguered institution.
Jason, thanks for the comments. I think that the MIT response was superb in both content and tone and hope others follow this lead. Danielle is trying to find a path forward that could appeal to a broad slice of the electorate but agree with you that a direct unmediated appeal to the public would be a better way to go.