Reject Trump’s College Compact

What it says: No consideration of race, gender, religion, etc. OR "proxies" for these factors in admissions or financial aid.

Why it matters:

• "Proxy" is a trap. Anything that correlates with race/identity could be challenged: zip code, first-gen status, family income, single-parent households. Schools may abandon ALL contextual review to avoid lawsuits.

• “Top 10% rule” (5% as of 2024) at risk (Texas only). Geographic and socioeconomic factors are "proxies."

• Scholarships threatened. Bans donor scholarships for specific groups (women in STEM, first-gen students, scholarships from Black alumni associations). Universities may refuse these donations entirely rather than risk federal funding.

• Result: Pure "meritocracy" based on test scores/GPA, which advantages wealthy students with tutors and test prep. Students from marginalized backgrounds lose pathways to college. 

What it says: Universities must have "ideological diversity" with "no single ideology dominant”; eliminate units that "punish conservative ideas," limit academic freedom when it is a threat, and ban "support" for U.S.-designated terrorist organizations.

Why it matters:

• False "both sides" requirement. Forces teaching "both sides" of settled facts: Holocaust, slavery, Civil Rights movement, climate change, etc. If most faculty accept evidence-based conclusions, that's "ideological dominance" requiring "balance."

• Targets DEI & ethnic studies. Explicit permission to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion offices (which are already out because of SB 17 (2023)), cultural centers, ethnic studies departments, gender studies programs that influenced social progress including integration, women’s rights, and violence reduction over centuries of history. Any program making conservative students "uncomfortable" can be abolished.

• "Academic freedom" contradiction. Says academic freedom is "not absolute" and prohibits speech that "abridges rights of others." If a professor teaches systemic racism exists and a student claims it makes them uncomfortable, who wins? 

• Chills research. "Support for terrorist organizations" could ban research on Palestinian resistance, anti-colonial movements, left-wing parties. Does studying Hamas mean supporting them? Does teaching Palestinian perspectives on occupation become "incitement"? Faculty already self-censor on Middle East studies, conflict studies, political science, international affairs, etc.

• Constitutional violation. Viewpoint-based speech restrictions violate the First Amendment at public universities.

What it says: Universities must prevent disruption of classes/libraries, "heckling or accosting" students, and access obstruction based on race/ethnicity/nationality/religion. 

Why it matters:

• Bans effective protest. "Accosting" students (approaching them, handing out flyers), "disrupting" classes/study spaces, blocking access (i.e. assembling in a campus public space) are all prohibited. "Disruptive" is vague enough to ban any effective protest.

• Chilling effect on organizing. Students won't risk organizing because administrators can call any action "disruptive" after the fact. Fear of arrest, expulsion, loss of scholarship, or permanent disciplinary records. 

• Requires “lawful force.” This means police in riot gear, arrests, expulsions, and criminal charges – for college students exercising First Amendment rights. We've seen where this goes: peaceful student protests met with violence, pepper spray, mass arrests.

• Targets specific movements. Language about "race/ethnicity/nationality/religion" specifically targets: Black Lives Matter protests, Palestinian solidarity movements, immigration rights organizing, anti-racism demonstrations. Designed to shut down protests against systemic injustice while protecting those who defend the status quo.

• Access restrictions weaponized. "Obstruction of access" could mean: protesters near a building entrance (even if not blocking it), demonstrations in high-traffic areas, any protest that makes students "uncomfortable" walking through campus. Creates invisible boundaries where protest is forbidden.

What it says: University employees must stay "neutral" on "societal and political events" unless they directly impact the university – but they can still exercise their free speech in their “individual capacity.” Neutrality applies to all departments, centers, programs.

Why it matters:

• Everything is "political." How do you teach: American history without positions on slavery? Constitutional law without positions on rights? Environmental science without positions on climate change? Public health without positions on vaccines? Universities can't say the Holocaust happened, racism is wrong, or climate change is real—because those are "positions" that have become polarized by oppressors.

• "Individual capacity" is fake. Professors already disciplined for off-campus, personal social media posts. When are you NOT representing the university? Conferences? Twitter? Community meetings? Creates fear: any public statement could cost your job.

• Contradicts "ideological diversity." Can't have diverse viewpoints if everyone must be neutral. Real meaning: conservative views amplified, progressive views silenced as "not neutral."

• Academic fields at risk. Ethnic studies "isn't neutral" on racism. Gender studies "isn't neutral" on patriarchy. Environmental science "isn't neutral" on climate change. These fields reach evidence-based conclusions, but will be labeled "ideological."

What it says: Hiring must be based on “objective and measurable criteria” with no consideration of race, gender, disability, religion, etc.

Why it matters:

• False premise. Universities already use merit-based hiring. Perpetuates the harmful stereotype that people of color or those who deviate from cisgender, straight, able-bodied White man didn't get their position based on merit. Provides ammunition to undermine any colleague from marginalized background: "they're just here for diversity." Ignores actual non-merit factors: legacy, nepotism, old boys' networks.

• Can't fix discrimination. Can't implement targeted recruitment or mentorship to fix documented structural exclusion. Physics department driving away women through hostile culture? Can't recruit women physicists to change it. History department has no scholars of color for African American history curriculum? Can't prioritize hiring scholars with that expertise.

• Research ignored. Extensive research shows diverse faculty improve educational outcomes, research quality, innovation, student belonging, workplace preparation. Can't consider diversity even when it directly improves research outcomes.

What it says: Define "male," "female," "woman," and "man" according to "reproductive function." "Immutable characteristics, particularly race, do not permit unequal treatment, including in grading as well as access to buildings, spaces, scholarships, programming, and other university resources."

Why it matters:

• Absurd, invasive standard. How do you verify "reproductive function"? Checking genitals? Fertility tests? Medical records? What about people who've had hysterectomies, mastectomies, or other procedures? Bathroom police much? Potential Title IX violation.

• Trans & intersex erasure. Excludes visibility of transgender people and intersex people (1.7% of population—as common as red hair) whose "reproductive function" doesn't fit binary categories and trans people who've had gender-affirming surgeries.

• Safety risks. Forces people to use facilities that don't match their identity, increasing harassment and violence. Transgender people already face disproportionate violence—this makes campuses actively unsafe.

• Eliminates inclusive facilities. Are unisex bathrooms out? May eliminate all-gender/single-stall restrooms benefiting parents with different-gender children, people with disabilities who need caregivers, anyone preferring privacy. Forces the outing of transgender students.

• Targets programs serving marginalized students. Programs serving more students of a particular race can be challenged: First Gen Longhorn serves more Black and brown students = "unequal treatment." Same for women in STEM, LGBTQ+ centers, disability community programs, religious student centers.

• Universities eliminate programs. Schools will cut these rather than face litigation. Students lose crucial support systems.

What it says: Universities must "control their costs, including by eliminating unnecessary administrative staff" and "streamline or eliminate academic programs that fail to serve students." Universities with endowments exceeding $2 million per undergraduate student must provide free tuition for "hard science programs." All signatories must freeze tuition rates charged to American students for the next five years.

Why it matters:

• Code for targeting programs. "Unnecessary" and "fail to serve" = eliminate ethnic studies, gender studies, humanities. This is code language for eliminating ethnic studies and other critical studies departments—this is how they can get at eliminating certain areas and departments under the guise of funding and underperformance.

• Deliberately vague metrics. "Unnecessary" and "fail to serve students" are deliberately vague, subjective metrics that allow political targeting of disfavored programs. Who decides what's "necessary"? What metrics determine if a program "serves students"? Answer: whatever serves the university’s ideological goals. 

• STEM vs. liberal arts hierarchy. Free tuition for STEM, further devaluation of social sciences, ironic given how much we have denigrated the sciences in recent years. Universities are going to have to make up for the funds elsewhere and will thus make humanities/social sciences look "overpriced." 

• Affects the cost-benefit data. Deliberately skewing the numbers to make it look like the amount of tuition going into liberal arts and social sciences would not justify the potential earnings that universities would be forced to publish under this. Creates a false narrative that liberal arts "don't justify" their tuition when STEM is subsidized. Devalues education that produces informed citizens, not just workers.

• Reckless financial strategy. Frozen revenue + mandated free STEM tuition + required cost cuts = unsustainable model.

What it says: Cap international students at 15% (5% per country), screen out those with "hostility to U.S. values," share discipline records with DHS/State Department, require civics instruction.

Why it matters:

• National origin discrimination. Per-country cap targets Chinese and Indian students because they currently make up the most % at UT Austin. Repeats history of fear-mongering immigration policies, being screened for being “American enough” and being defaulted to be seen as enemies until proven underwise. 

• Ideological loyalty oath. "Hostility to U.S. values"—who defines this? Criticizing U.S. foreign policy? Supporting Palestinian rights? → Chills free speech.

• Privacy violation. Sharing discipline records without consent exceeds current FERPA exceptions. Creates two-tiered system: domestic students protected, international students surveilled. Mandatory sharing with DHS and State Department raises due process issues and creates heightened surveillance.

• Academic freedom impact. International students will self-censor on controversial topics that don't serve US ideological goals or conservative values. Loses diverse perspectives in the classroom. Measurement of student “merits” should include lived experiences, comparative perspectives, and other forms of individuality.