Last week, we shared Part I of our series on why grade inflation persists at Harvard. Today, The New York Times highlighted similar concerns about the College's academic standards. We'll continue with Part II next week — but first, a look at the newly proposed Compact.
The White House's new "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education" promises a carrot — "preferential access" to federal funds — but universities are already wondering if it's really a stick.
The ten-point draft, circulated Wednesday, would reward universities that adopt reforms ranging from increasing conservative viewpoints in academic departments to freezing tuition for five years.
Nine universities were asked to provide feedback ahead of the Compact's expected November rollout. Harvard was not.
Harvard is still in the early stages of the Department of Health and Human Services' suspension and debarment process, which could bar it from receiving federal funding from all agencies if finalized.
If Harvard reaches a settlement, it may still be asked to sign the Compact, given that Brown was, even after reaching its own Title VI agreement. Even if Harvard doesn't sign, the Compact could still affect it indirectly since other participating institutions would receive priority in future grants.
Earlier this year, White House senior policy strategist May Mailman (JD '15) suggested Penn could receive research dollars once allocated to Harvard as a reward for Penn's "goodwill" in government negotiations — a prediction that may soon be tested.
What You Need To Know:
Nine schools invited; none have committed. MIT, Penn, Dartmouth, Brown, Vanderbilt, UVA, UT Austin, the University of Southern California, and the University of Arizona were asked to provide feedback on the Compact by October 20. None have agreed to signing.
The proposed policies are sweeping. They range from restructuring academic departments to limit "dominant ideologies," to freezing tuition, to capping international student enrollment at 15%. Other provisions include restricting consideration of race or political views in hiring and admissions, requiring annual compliance audits, and mandating institutional neutrality on political or social issues.
Universities would need to prove compliance. Schools would have to run annual surveys of students and faculty to measure compliance, with oversight from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
In exchange, signers would get priority for federal funding. Universities that join would get "multiple positive benefits," including "substantial and meaningful federal grants," though the proposal itself leaves the details vague.
The Compact's ten provisions mix legitimate goals — greater accountability, affordability, and transparency — with new conditions that could draw higher education even deeper under federal direction, at a time when it needs to depoliticize to regain public trust.
Some of its ideas are worth universities exploring, and even adopting, on their own. A 5-year tuition freeze, for instance, would resonate with families worried about affordability. Likewise, we've applauded Harvard's adoption of institutional neutrality and its recent push to enforce its own rules consistently. Just last week, we began analyzing grade inflation at Harvard (an issue at the College covered by The Atlantic in August and The New York Times today) and the University's efforts to combat it (Part II coming next week). Efforts like these strengthen accountability when universities take the lead themselves.
Federal funding has always come with expectations. The government can, and should, set guardrails for how taxpayer dollars are used. Oversight and accountability are part of any healthy partnership between higher education and the government. Agencies have traditionally directed money toward certain initiatives, such as advancing specific priorities in public health, national security, or technological innovation — a long-standing feature of how the partnership has worked.
What's new in the proposed Compact is the scope and lack of safeguards. It appears to waive procedural protections like those Harvard cited in its funding lawsuit against the government, removing a buffer against political swings in Washington.
Universities should, of course, comply fully with the law. They should also be assessing whether their own departments welcome genuine debate and pursuit of truth, or have grown ideologically narrow. That's part of academic self-governance. Once the government starts deciding whether departments are "neutral" or "hostile" to certain views, oversight shifts from protecting inquiry to policing it.
As we wrote in April, lasting change must be led from within. Universities should take the initiative on reforms that matter most by strengthening speech culture, governance, and academic standards.
Whether or not this version of the Compact ever reaches Harvard, our stance remains the same: Harvard should reform from within, resist political overreach, and keep the mission of academic excellence at the center.
Keep reading for a breakdown of 1636 Forum's Key Takeaways, what's in the Compact and how it would work, how leaders and lawmakers are responding, and next steps.
What Are 1636 Forum's Key Takeaways?
"Preferential access" sounds like a carrot, but in reality, it could be a quiet stick.
On paper, the draft Compact frames preferential access to federal funds as an incentive for reform. In practice, it could function more as a pressure mechanism for conformity, offering "preferential access" without explaining what that actually means.
Preferencing in federal funding isn't new. Agencies often award competitive points for applicants aligned with stated priorities, existing government funding or partnerships, geographic regions, and more. Some funding, such as Title IV student aid, already carries compliance requirements like reporting deidentified enrollment data.
To a lesser extent, efforts to tie federal funding to ideology also have precedent: in the past, the National Institutes of Health required applicants to include "plans for enhancing diverse perspectives." Those plans sometimes played a role in individual grant funding decisions; one consultant noted in 2024 that a proposal with strong scientific reviews failed because of a weak diversity section.
What makes this Compact different is its scope and ambiguity. Rather than attaching clear thresholds to specific programs, or even ideologies to individual grant applications, it proposes a sweeping, all-agency model. Signatories might receive priority access to funds, but the extent of that advantage, or the cost of abstaining, remains unclear. Non-signers could face anything from modest scoring disadvantages to de facto exclusion from federal research altogether.
The Compact's compliance system could cause more chaos than accountability.
In the draft, compliance would require annual internal or third-party audits using anonymous student and faculty surveys. The DOJ would review the results, determine compliance, and impose penalties for violations.
On paper, that could sound like accountability. In practice, it risks turning into a bureaucratic and political minefield. The Compact's vague language leaves universities guessing what counts as sufficient "ideological diversity" or department restructuring for the DOJ's standards. That uncertainty could lead to rushed and haphazard compliance efforts, sudden budget shuffles, and operational whiplash, especially as institutions scramble to avoid being penalized.
Amid this scramble to comply, universities risk triggering broader disruptions that divert attention from research and teaching, spark administrative fire drills, or generate confusion that outlasts the compliance cycle. The ripple effects could potentially consume more time and energy than the audits themselves, distracting from universities' core academic mission.
The enforcement system also raises deeper legal concerns. Laws like the Administrative Procedure Act ensure fairness and due process in how the government makes and enforces its rules, including as they apply to universities. The Compact appears to bypass those safeguards, letting the the DOJ alone decide violations and penalties, with (based on this draft) little recourse for institutions to appeal.
Even for universities that do sign on, the financial downsides could be steep.
Any university found to have "willfully or negligently" violated its terms would lose access to the Compact's benefits for at least one year, with repeat violations extending that period to two years or more. All federal funds advanced during the year of a violation would have to be returned to the federal government. Private donors could also request refunds for contributions made that year.
Those penalties are risks in the current federal funding environment. NIH funding has already dropped by 28% this year, and a recent policy change means the agency now front loads much of its grant funding. If a university is forced to return those potentially-spent funds after a violation, the financial and academic hit could upend research projects, budgets, and graduate funding overnight.
Even compliant signatories could lose out, since total federal grant dollars are shrinking and the Compact doesn't define what "preferential access" entails. (One White House official said "details on how the new system would interact with the traditional grant-review process were still to come.")
What would the Compact require of signing universities?
In exchange for "preferential access" to funding, universities would have to:
Prohibit the use of race, sex, or political views in admissions or financial aid decisions, and bar consideration of those factors in hiring.
Restructure departments to limit dominant ideologies, including by "transforming or abolishing" units seen as hostile to conservative ideas.
Refrain from taking official positions on political or social issues unrelated to the academic mission (i.e., maintain institutional neutrality).
Defend grading standards, combat grade inflation, and publish grade distributions and student outcome data.
Provide single-sex spaces and restrict transgender students from participating in housing or athletics inconsistent with their biological sex.
Freeze tuition for U.S. students for the next 5 years 2029.
Waive tuition for undergraduates in hard science programs at institutions with endowments exceeding $2 million per undergraduate, except for those from high-income families.
Reduce nonessential staffing, streamline underperforming programs, and publish graduate earnings data by major.
Cap undergraduate international enrollment at 15%, with screenings for perceived "hostility to the United States, its allies, or its values."
Disclose all foreign gifts and contracts and comply with anti-money laundering rules.
Certify annual compliance through internal or external audits, including anonymous faculty and student surveys, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) reviewing results and enforcing penalties for violations.
Have any of the nine universities reacted publicly to the Compact?
Yes, a number of the universities invited to provide feedback have spoken publicly about it, including:
Dartmouth president Sian Beilock said while "higher education is not perfect" and "we can do better," Dartmouth "will never compromise our academic freedom and our ability to govern ourselves."
Penn president Larry Jameson wrote that the university's "review and response" would be guided by its core principles of "freedom of inquiry and thought, free expression, non-discrimination, adherence to American laws and the Constitution of the United States, and our own governance." He added that Penn "seeks no special consideration," and strives to receive federal funding "based on the excellence of our work."
The University of Texas system chair Kevin Eltife said the system was "honored" to be named one of the nine universities, would "welcome the new opportunity," and "look forward to working with the Trump administration on it."
University of Virginia interim president Paul Mahoney formed a committee to advise on its response. Mahoney said some provisions of the Compact "are congruent with our principles," others "need further clarity," and some "will be difficult for us to agree to." UVA's Faculty Senate later passed a resolution opposing the Compact.
How are other education leaders and government officials reacting?
Harvard president emeritus Larry Summers (PhD '82) called the proposal "ill conceived and counterproductive." Summers wrote on X that although "America's elite universities have lost their way over the last generation," the Compact is "like trying to fix a watch with a hammer." He warned that its "crudity" could ultimately set back meaningful reform rather than advance it.
Harvard professor Danielle Allen (PhD '01) cautioned against "rush[ing] to judgment," arguing that the compact offers an opportunity for universities to act collectively rather than competitively in negotiating much-needed reforms with the government. While she wrote that the compact as proposed should not be signed, it nonetheless represents an opportunity for universities to form a coalition to negotiate a better, mission-aligned agreement with the government.
Franklin's Forum, a Penn alumni group focused on the university's academic mission, warned that joining the Compact as-is could mean "trading a significant degree of institutional independence for financial gain." The group flagged three main risks — threats to academic freedom, potential politically-driven enforcement, and major implementation hurdles — and cautioned that Penn's response must balance "resources" with "principle."
Penn professor Jonathan Zimmerman captured the tension between the proposal's worthwhile goals and flawed design: "The parts of the order that drive me crazy are the ones that I actually agree with, like we should have ideological diversity, we shouldn't stigmatize conservative thought — I'm down with all that . . . But the federal government being the determinant of that is terrifying."
Some government officials are adding fuel to the fire. California Governor Gavin Newsom said his administration would strip state funding from any California university that signs on (so far, only USC has been asked), writing that California will "not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers and surrender academic freedom." In Pennsylvania, two state lawmakers have circulated a memo proposing legislation barring Penn and other state-funded universities from signing the Compact, similar to the July letter from fourteen Democratic members of Congress who threatened to investigate Harvard if it settled with the government.
Such threats risk deepening universities' bind. Defending institutional autonomy means opposing overreach in political control in any direction, not just when it comes from the other side. Instead of penalizing potential signers already navigating the threat of lost federal funding, states could more constructively backfill shortfalls for schools that choose not to sign.
What is the timeline for the Compact's launch?
The White House asked the nine universities to submit written feedback on the draft Compact by October 20, with the aim of having a signed agreement by November 21. Schools that "show clear alignment and a strong readiness to champion this effort" would be invited to Washington to finalize language and serve as initial signatories.
Within the next few months, the government hopes to roll out the broader initiative, which includes the new system that would give "competitive advantage" to participating universities and define how it interacts with the traditional peer-review grant process.
Ask 1636
Each week, we answer a reader question about Harvard and higher education. Send your questions our way!
Q: What's going on with Harvard's latest settlement talks with the federal government?
1636’s Take: On Tuesday, President Trump said his administration had "reached a deal with Harvard — all we have to do is paper it," later clarifying they were "very close." He said Harvard would pay about $500 million and "operate trade schools" focused on "AI and lots of other things." Blackstone Group CEO Steve Schwarzman (MBA '72) has reportedly acted as an informal broker between Harvard and the White House at the University's request. The next day, the federal shutdown took effect, pausing Harvard's funding lawsuit (DOJ attorneys were barred from working) and making an imminent settlement unlikely.
In the past, Trump has suggested a settlement was imminent when it ultimately wasn't. In July, he said, "I think we're probably going to settle with Harvard . . . They want to settle very badly." Four weeks later, President Alan Garber told faculty no settlement was close and called reports Harvard might pay $500 million "false," saying they had been leaked to the press by the White House.
Events
Cambridge, MA — October 8 from 12:20-1:20 p.m. ET: As part of HLS Beyond, Harvard psychology professor Joshua Greene will introduce Tango, a cooperative quiz game designed to reduce political animosity. At Harvard College’s orientation in August, more than 1,000 students played Tango and reported high enjoyment along with greater openness to opposing views. Register here.
New York, NY — October 28 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. ET: This Harvard College Fund reception will include updates from campus and research from biology professor Fei Chen and bioengineering professor Sriya Stinivasan. Register here.
Los Angeles, CA — November 6 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. PT: This Harvard College Fund reception will include updates from campus and research from biology professor Erin Hecht and earth and planetary sciences professor Brendan Meade. Register here.
Cleveland, OH — November 13 from 6:00-7:30 p.m. ET: Harvard Divinity School (HDS) and the Harvard Club of Northeast Ohio are hosting a reception with HDS Dean Marla Frederick. Register here.
If you find our newsletter valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to support 1636 Forum’s mission.
FYIs
Harvard's 163-Page Letter to Federal Government Rebuts Allegations, Reveals HMS Graduation Dispute
Days before HHS referred Harvard for suspension and debarment from future federal funding, the University sent a 163-page letter accusing the government of relying on "inaccurate and incomplete facts" and "distorted interpretations" in its Title VI antisemitism investigation.
According to The Crimson, Harvard's exhibits included a Harvard Medical School (HMS) document showing that HMS administrators removed from consideration a potential 2024 Class Day speaker, over concerns her pro-Palestine social-media posts could be "polarizing." HMS also had contingency plans to cut livestreams or end ceremonies if student speakers made unscripted remarks about Palestine.
Harvard FAS to 'Significantly' Reduce PhD Admissions Amid Funding Pressures
The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) will admit new PhD students "at significantly reduced levels." Some programs, including Population Health Sciences, plan to shrink cohort sizes by as much as 30%.
The reductions follow the new 8% endowment tax, last spring's federal freeze on Harvard's research funding, and ongoing ambiguity about when remaining grants will be returned. Since Judge Burroughs ruled the freeze unlawful, only $46 million of Harvard's $3.2 billion in frozen funds has been released.
Faculty report that concerns about research funding, visa restrictions, and antisemitism on campus have already discouraged some applicants. Organismic and Evolutionary Biology professor Peter Girguis warned the uncertainty "may have a chilling effect on our graduate programs for years or even a decade."
Federal Judge Sides With Harvard AAUP in Free Speech Case on Pro-Palestine Deportations
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the government violated the First Amendment rights of international Harvard students and faculty involved in pro-Palestine advocacy, siding with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and its Harvard chapter.
In a 161-page opinion, Judge William Young (AB '62) ruled that federal officials "intentionally sought to chill the rights to freedom of speech," using immigration powers to revoke visas and make examples of noncitizen students and faculty who participated in campus protests. The case did not involve deportations at Harvard itself but examined how federal enforcement efforts nationwide created a chilling effect on campus speech.
HLS Visiting Professor Placed on Leave After Firing Pellet Rifle Near Synagogue on Yom Kippur
Harvard Law School (HLS) visiting professor Carlos Gouvea (SJD '08) was arrested Wednesday night after allegedly firing a pellet rifle near Temple Beth Zion in Brookline, shortly after Yom Kippur began.
Gouvea told police he had been "hunting rats" near his home when he fired two shots, one of which shattered a nearby car window. Two private security guards working at the synagogue reportedly tried to detain him before police arrived, leading to a "brief physical struggle."
Synagogue leaders later said the incident did not appear to have been motivated by antisemitism, writing to congregants that Gouvea "was unaware that he lived next to, and was shooting his BB gun next to, a synagogue or that it was a religious holiday."
Gouvea was charged in Brookline District Court with illegally discharging a pellet gun, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and vandalizing property. He pleaded not guilty.
HLS said that Gouvea has been placed on administrative leave "as the school seeks to learn more about this matter."
Harvard Business School Using AI Tools To Evaluate Some Student Work
Harvard Business School (HBS) Dean Srikant Datar said faculty are now using AI to advise students and provide "very rapid feedback" on certain assignments, such as spreadsheets.
Datar said HBS is expanding its use of AI across teaching and research, citing platforms like Foundry, which "match[es] people, ideas, and resources" externally for entrepreneurship.
Administrators said AI also condenses student feedback submitted to the Christensen Center for Teaching and Learning into "actionable insights" for professors.
"Nothing replaces our classroom experience here," said digital transformation staff member Matthew Negri, who added that students use AI tools most often late at night when faculty are unavailable.
Wharton Executive MBA students recently raised concerns that AI may have been used to grade their work without disclosure.
More News
More News at Harvard:
New York Times: "Harvard Students Skip Class and Still Get High Grades, Faculty Say"
Bloomberg: "Harvard Business School Is Most Coveted Among MBAs Globally"
The Crimson: "Deming Defends Closure of Diversity Offices, Cites Increased Funding for New OCC"
The Crimson: "HMS Researchers Design AI Tool to Quicken Drug Discovery"
The Crimson: "Two Years After Oct. 7 Attacks, Harvard Jewish Groups Hold Vigil to Remember Victims"
The Crimson: "Harvard Impact Labs Fund $25,000 Grants for Faculty Public Service"
The Crimson: "Students Rally Against College Diversity Changes in Cambridge Common"
The Crimson: "HUA Votes to Expand Funding Grant for Affinity Groups at Weekly Meeting"
The Crimson: "Grad Union Stands to Make More Than $1 Million in Annual Dues if Agency Shop Proposal Passes"
Harvard Gazette: "The fear: Wholesale cheating with AI at work, school. The reality: It's complicated." — feat. College Dean David Deming (PhD '10)
The Crimson: "Harvard's Undergrad Workers Unionized 2 Years Ago. Their First Contract Is Still Nowhere in Sight."
Education Next: "What If Social Science Is a Scam?" — covering the scandal of HBS's Francesca Gino, whose tenure was revoked over alleged data fraud
US News: "What Trump Really Wants From Universities – and How Harvard Might Be Helping Him Get It" — by Kennedy School professor Archon Fung
The Crimson: "Why You Should Read Chris Rufo" — op-ed by Amelia Barnum (AB '28)
The Crimson: "Harvard Can't Afford to Neglect the Humanities" — op-ed by Miriam Goldberger (AB '28)
The Crimson: "As Students in the AI Age, This Is the Choice We Face." — editorial by The Crimson Editorial Board
More News Beyond Harvard:
Yale Daily News: "Administrators announce plans to address endowment tax hike's impact"
Bloomberg: "Columbia Grapples With Federal Scrutiny After Trump Deal Begins"
University Herald: "University of Chicago Sells Prized Research Center Amid $200M Deficit and Spending Cuts"
Cornell Daily Sun: "College of Arts and Sciences to Cut Nearly $11 Million From Budget"
Stanford Report: "New speaker forum to focus on solving problems across differences"
The Dartmouth: "After investigation, Hanover police contest Beilock's announcement of swastika"
New York Times: "Republicans Take Aim at 'Industry Behind the Curtain' of College Prices"
New York Times: "Give In or Fight Back? Colleges Are Torn on How to Respond to Trump."
NPR: "Research, curriculum and grading: new data sheds light on how professors are using AI"
The Atlantic: "The 'Best' Colleges Aren't the Best Forever" — by college admissions journalist Jeffrey Selingo
Education Next: "How Not to Honor Charlie Kirk" — by Frederick Hess (EdM '90, AM '96 PhD '97)
City Journal: "Vanderbilt University's Chancellor Sees the Problem—Can He Find a Solution?"
The New Yorker: "Should College Get Harder?" — by former Kennedy School lecturer Joshua Rothman (AM '12)
Bloomberg: "America's Elite Universities Have Lost Their Way" — op-ed by Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Allison Schrager