Higher education is currently undergoing a major transformation, and Emory University must decide its fate. U.S. President Donald Trump released the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education for all universities nationally one month ago. This contentious Compact contains various controversies surrounding affirmative action, protest rights and free speech. The proposal lays out a detailed framework that signatories must follow. If Emory signs onto it, we would be agreeing to the government’s intervention in our education and daily operations in exchange for preferential treatment regarding federal funding. However, the compact is a necessary tradeoff we must accept for the University’s greater good.
In the past year, the federal government has terminated many of Emory’s federal research grants. If Emory signs the Compact, the school’s federal funding will no longer be under as severe a threat, which could help Emory reallocate funds toward other various issues, and maybe even allow the school to lower its nearly $90,000 yearly tuition. While the Compact certainly has its flaws and dangers, I believe that the University’s signature on this document would benefit the Emory community overall. Although I disagree with some of the Compact’s limitations regarding free speech — such as restrictions on student-led demonstrations outside designated areas and new hurdles for faculty to voice political opinions in the classroom — the Compact ensures an equal admissions process, fosters a safe space for discussion and decreases the likelihood of violent and targeted protests. Emory should ultimately sign the Compact because it promotes fairness, stability and opportunity at a moment when higher education needs all three.
The first item on the Compact is equality in admissions. Affirmative action has increasingly become a negative force, not just to applicants hurt by the process, but also to applicants purportedly being helped by it. Applicants are hurt as affirmative action instills a sense of fundamental inferiority by giving certain groups arbitrary advantages without doing anything to address real racial inequalities in society. The Compact bans affirmative action, and although Emory is currently in compliance with this rule, agreeing to the Compact would further solidify Emory’s recent anti-Diversity, Equity and Inclusion stance, reinforcing an admissions system grounded in academic merit and personal achievement rather than demographic background. However, when reviewing applicants, the admissions office should consider a student’s access to educational opportunities, like whether a student lives in an impoverished school district, as that student should not be held to the same educational standard as a student with ample opportunities. However, Emory’s signing of the Compact would not be a stance against this just principle — rather, it would signal the University's commitment to equality without regard for external factors like race or sex, further establishing Emory as a fair university.
While this may feel like an unpopular assertion, the truth is that the silent majority of U.S. adults is against discriminatory admissions on the basis of race, sex or religion. According to one Pew Research study, half of U.S. adults disapprove of selective colleges considering race and ethnicity in admissions decisions, while only a third approve. In signing the Compact, Emory would be aligning itself with this majority, making US adults feel confident that the color of their children’s skin will not be a tally against them in the admissions process. This establishment of a pure meritocracy matters for Emory because a transparent, merit-based admissions system would strengthen the University’s public image and attract a pool of talented applicants who value fairness, academic rigor and institutional integrity.
The next item on the Compact is the marketplace of ideas and civil discourse, ensuring that expression happens safely and respectfully. This section is especially resonant to Emory students. In April 2024, law enforcement arrested 20 Emory community members for refusing to disperse during a pro-Palestinian encampment. Laying a solid foundation of rules that are explicitly against this type of potentially violent protest, similar to the ones seen at Columbia University (N.Y.), will instill a stronger sense of agency in Emory administrators. The April 2024 protests were problematic due to the University’s lack of preparation for such an event. Had Emory foreseen these actions, they might have been able to come to a compromise with protesters that mutually benefited both sides before the arrest of community members. By signing the Compact, Emory would demonstrate that it could uphold both free expression and community safety, fostering a more stable and respectful academic environment.
Another key item the Compact covers is institutional neutrality. The Compact calls for faculty and administrators to refrain from presenting personal political or social views in ways that suggest they speak for the university, “except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.” What this means is that under the Compact, individuals remain free to express their views publicly, but only in their own capacity and not as representatives of the institution.
This principle is particularly relevant given the recent controversy surrounding former Emory professor Anna Kenney’s dismissal following inflammatory remarks she made about conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination on social media. Under the Compact, Emory would not have terminated Kenney’s employment as her comments were not issued while acting on behalf of Emory. In fact, the Compact encourages faculty to participate in public discourse, provided they do not imply their statements have university endorsement. Despite some of Vice President J.D. Vance’s proclamations, it would be a mistake to condemn professors for simply voicing their opinions in their own domain. Adopting this stance would not disrupt Emory’s current practices — it would clarify them. And, this clarity is valuable: Institutional neutrality protects academic freedom, shields universities from becoming political battlegrounds and ensures that diverse viewpoints can coexist without fear of institutional reprisal. If Emory signs the Compact, it will not hand a megaphone to people whose opinions are the loudest — instead, it will uphold its position as a place of learning that promotes free speech equally for all.
The Compact certainly has its shortcomings and sets a dangerous precedent for government intervention in our lives. One opinion article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education asserts that such intervention kills the creative process necessary for educational prowess and advancement. There is also a possibility that provisions limiting affirmative action might become ideological litmus tests rather than neutral academic policies, with the government effectively prescribing how universities must admit students. All these points are valid, but whether they are worth hundreds of millions of dollars yearly is questionable.
That is not to say that Emory should submit to the federal government’s will simply because of money. I believe that Emory’s signature on the Compact will reaffirm to future applicants that their skin color will not hurt them in the admissions process, limit the possibility of targeted violent attacks during protests and foster an open marketplace of ideas. Ultimately, the Compact strengthens Emory’s mission to provide a safe, intellectually rigorous environment, and the University should embrace it as a strategic investment in its future.
Contact Micah Cohen at Micah.Cohen@emory.edu
