Thoughts on the "mutual defense compact" plan hatched by two university professors
Are two Rutgers University professors fighting the right fight?
Two Rutgers University professors are looking down the road and are convinced the White House will not stop its attacks on higher education. As a result, as the New York Times recently reported, Dr. David Salas-de la Cruz and Dr. Paul Boxer have created a “mutual defense compact.”
With what goal in mind? Quoting the newspaper,
It was a one-for-all, all-for-one statement of solidarity among schools in the Big Ten athletic and academic conference — 18 large, predominantly public universities that together enroll roughly 600,000 students each year .
“An infringement against one member university, ” they wrote, “shall be considered an infringement against all.”
Participating schools would be asked to commit to making a “unified and vigorous response” when member universities were “under direct political or legal infringement.”
Faculty members might, for example, be asked to provide legal services, strategic communication or expert testimony.
The compact, now approved by faculty at more than a dozen universities, does not come with a commitment by school administrators to provide financial backing for a joint defense fund, and detractors have criticized the initiative as largely toothless.
Still, the Rutgers resolution, and the professors’ effort to galvanize a collective response, reflected a shift in strategy.
The professors argue the compact is necessary because they say President Trump has declared war on higher education.
As a reminder, the president insists that America’s colleges and universities have intentionally swerved into two lanes that require the federal government’s response. First, they went all in on diversity/equity/inclusion programs. According to the president’s executive order, such programs have damaged not only higher education but other industries.
“Illegal DEI … policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system. Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex.
Many universities reacted to the executive order by quickly dismantling their DEI programs, including in many cases pink-slipping the men and women working in such offices. The threat that federal funding especially earmarked for research would be withheld if DEI programs remained active was not one to ignore. The reality is that federal research dollars are critical for US colleges and universities; among many things, the grants allow for multi-year research to be carried out, faculty to spend more time tackling vexing challenges, staff to be hired and the institution’s prestige to be maintained. Despite what some people might think, no, such research can’t be paid out of pocket by the universities.
With the stakes significant, DEI programs were seen as expendable. Viewed another way, DEI was not the mountain on which the US higher education system was willing to die. The comparison might seem trite, but a couple that goes from a dual- to single-income home will need to make significant changes to their family budget. Higher education chose to avoid that conundrum.
Next, the president concluded that higher education was filled with too many locations where anti-semitism was alive and well. Sixty universities were identified as campuses where “relentless antisemitic eruptions” were evident, and those schools also risked losing millions of dollars in federal grant funding unless they acquiesced to various White House’s demands. Some institutions, most notably Columbia University, agreed.
Harvard University stands out for its decision to sue the president. Its lawsuit argues the way the president chose to withhold funding was unconstitutional. The university’s president stated the lawsuit was needed because
“the government’s April 11 demands seek to control whom we hire and what we teach. Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world. We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations and best fulfill their essential role in society without improper government intrusion.”
Salas-de la Cruz and Boxer would agree. So would some of their colleagues. Again, quoting the New York Times:
Todd Wolfson, a journalism professor , leads Rutgers’s faculty union. He is also president of the American Association of University Professors, a national organization.
He said he considered the effort to protect academic freedom and the independence of research institutions an existential battle.
“As goes higher ed, ” Professor Wolfson said, “so goes the U.S.”
Of course, there will be opponents. One was identified by the New York Times.
“At most universities, faculty senates have very little power , if any,” said Keith Riles, a physics professor who was one of 214 employees at the University of Michigan who voted against that school’s compact. “I do not expect these motions to have much effect on what administrations choose to do.”
Riles also supports the president’s efforts to stem the DEI tide on America’s college campuses. He is not alone in backing the president.
Who’s right? Should we side with the president who believes that specific liberal-backed policies have gone too far and have caused serious damage to specific groups across the country? Or should we side with people such as Salas-de la Cruz and Boxer, who demand that universities retain their independence from unreasonable government intrusion?
Keep in mind that because of what the president has done in his second term (combined with what he did in his first), we’ve already seen that some prominent US-based educators are leaving the country, whether heading to Canada or to the countries of their birth.
For Salas-de la Cruz and Boxer, leaving is not the answer. Fighting back is.
Of course, Harvard’s action has significance to what might unfold in the coming months; a victory for the president would have repercussions for higher education that can’t, and ought not, be predicted. But it’s safe to presume that the industry would face major changes. Such Harvard prevail, then it seems likely that the White House would try again, in more narrowed and focused ways, to rein in America’s colleges and universities.
Yet the symbolism associated with the two Rutgers’ professors ought not be dismissed as, dare I say, an exercise that might unfold in a college classroom. For anyone fortunate enough to call himself or herself a professor, and I’ve done so for more than two decades, a university exists for one reason above all else: As a means of giving students an increased opportunity to be successful in a career and as a meaningful citizen in their community. Part of that mission is met through the education received in a classroom and part of that mission is also met through the discoveries made by faculty in labs and other research facilities.
Yes, the federal government should be part of a coalition of groups, including state governments, for- and not-for-profit groups, alumni and more, examining what we do. Change, if required, needs to be systematic and based on evidence. It needs to be targeted and measurable. It needs to be practical and purposeful.
Perhaps the president ought to return to Penn, from where he graduated, and take some lessons.