At the Vanderbilt Hustler, Jacob Stoebner reports on the Vanderbilt faculty senate and student government strongly oppossing President Trump’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Educaation”
The article highlights two events:
Student Government Statement
The Vanderbilt Student Government released a joint statement, together with the student governments at Brown, Dartmouth, MIT, University of Arizona, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Virginia, opposing the compact.
The statement enumerated many reasons why the proposed compact is antithetical to academic freedom and the values of Vanderbilt University, and concluded:
As student representatives, we stand in united opposition to the outlined conditions. We call on our community of students, faculty, alumni and leadership to reaffirm our commitment to reject political interference and federal overreach. Academic freedom is not negotiable.
In addition to issuing the statement, the student government polled the undergraduate student body. Over 1,200 students responded and 84% opposed the commpact.
Faculty Senate Resolution
The article also reports on a resolution I introduced in the faculty senate, which was overwhelmingly adopted by a vote of 30 for, 11 against, and one abstention.
The full text of the resolution reads:
WHEREAS the United States Secretary of Education has requested that Vanderbilt University enter into a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education”, and
WHEREAS the Compact contains provisions antithetical to the mission and traditions of the University, and
WHEREAS the Compact contains provisions which endanger the independence and integrity of the University, and
WHEREAS the Compact likely violates state and federal law, and infringes upon the constitutional rights of members of the University community, and
WHEREAS Vanderbilt University exemplifies American academic values of the highest standard, including universal right to free speech and the cultivation of academic freedom; therefore
BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate of Vanderbilt University firmly opposes this Compact as written and calls upon Chancellor Diermeier and the Board of Trust to also reject this Compact outright as well as any similar proposal compromising the mission, values, and independence of the University.
The Hustler article quotes me explaining why I introduced the resolution and why the compact is a terrible idea:
Gilligan gave multiple reasons for introducing the resolution to the senate, stating that they think the compact threatens Vanderbilt’s ability to maintain its excellence. One reason given was that the compact limits Vanderbilt’s autonomy and independence.
“It would put academic freedom under the authority of the federal government, in a manner reminiscent of the Red Scares of the 1930s through 60s, in which universities, under pressure from the federal government, demanded loyalty oaths and fired or expelled students and faculty suspected of being sympathetic to the Communist cause,” Gilligan said in a statement to The Hustler.
Gilligan also cited last year’s unanimous Supreme Court ruling in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo as evidence that the compact violates constitutional rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
“The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that when the government attempts to coerce individuals or organizations to waive their First Amendment rights in exchange for preferential treatment, this violates the First Amendment,” Gilligan said. “At a time when the Supreme Court often divides along partisan lines, this unanimous ruling stands out as testament to how clearly such government behavior violates our Constitution.”
Gilligan also cited threats to merit-based review for scientific research, limitations on research and teaching, creation of division between “hard sciences” and the humanities and potential civil rights violations as further reasons they introduced the resolution and support rejecting the compact.
Gilligan said that even though 11 people voted against the resolution, no one spoke against it when it was up for debate. One faculty member brought up a concern that Diermeier has the power to dissolve the senate, but Gilligan expressed confidence that he would not do so even if the university chooses to sign the compact.
Even though the senate serves as an advisory body, Gilligan said they thought the senate’s resolution still has persuasive power.
“I believe in reasoned discourse and the power of persuasion, so even without direct political power, adopting this resolution may have considerable impact on the University’s deliberations and decision-making,” Gilligan said.