Colleges Push Back Against White House's Tough Tactics

The White House is having a tough time getting top colleges on board with its higher education plans. The administration has been using strong-arm tactics, like cutting research funds, to push schools into accepting its agenda. But many universities are not having it. The latest issue is a "compact" that ties research money to support for certain policies, like strict gender definitions and limits on international students. Five big-name schools, including MIT and Brown University, have already said no thanks. The White House then tried to bring in other schools, like Arizona State University, to take their place. But even that didn't go smoothly. Virginia University, which initially joined the talks, later backed out. They said linking research funds to policy support would hurt the quality of research and make people trust universities even less. The White House argues that its tough stance is needed to protect Jewish students and balance out the liberal leanings of universities. But many college leaders see it as a threat to free speech and academic freedom. The administration's aggressive approach has made it hard to build support, even among potential allies. For example, Ohio State University's president, Ted Carter, was open to some of the administration's ideas. But the book banning at the U. S. Naval Academy made him and other college leaders more cautious. Carter even said he would have quit if books were banned while he was in charge. Harvard University's president, Alan M. Garber, had talked about welcoming more conservative views before Trump's election. But Harvard became a top target of the administration. In April, hundreds of college leaders signed a letter protesting the government's interference. In June, two dozen colleges, including most Ivy League schools, backed Harvard's lawsuit against the administration's research funding halt. The rollout of the compact has only added to the confusion. The invitations were sent late at night with little explanation. The document included principles like protecting conservative ideas, but it was framed as a contract with serious consequences. Adding to the confusion, Brown and Penn were invited even though they had just settled with the administration a few months ago.