They should have noted this in the article we are discussing since it does change the story, as you said.

One potential reason to select a diverse set would be to point to a few who may be forced to accept by their state governments as examples to paint the refusers in a negative light.

I first realized this decades ago when I ran into someone socially who started on about how evil the red cross was. I'm like wtf? Then did some research and discovered some fringe belief originating in the Vietnam war. There are thousands of oddball grievances like this.

Fight back against _what_? Look: our universities really do need reform, and the perceptive observer should be able to see that independent of political opinions. The current administration may be an imperfect vehicle for reform, but I don't see anyone else trying.

In particular, universities need to return to pursuing truth. Not every department at every school has abandoned the goal of seeking pure knowledge, granted, but the reality is that many have oriented themselves towards building a "better world" by preaching (there is no other word) the "right" ideas well past the point where they intersect with the real world.

It is damn hard for me to muster sympathy for the universities. I recall that they spent a decade demanding statements of ideological affiliation as a precondition of hiring, that they pollute the epistemic commons by suppressing inconvenient facts, and that they rationale injustice against individuals by gesturing at universal, cosmic justice that they claim they alone have the power to discern.

I see no reason to send public money to seminaries that have murdered universities, donned their skins, and demand respect as institutes of knowledge.

That said, as a fly on the wall, my obvious observation from people at large is a direct correlation between how much power they believe states should have and whether or not they belong to the party in power. So it's definitely worth the exercise of seeing if you'd feel the same way still if your exact clone ran the federal government.

The only unnecessary part is explicitly calling out conservative opinions, some of which will have no place in some university subjects, e.g. a geology student insisting the Earth is 6000 years old.

This is the original compact https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/1...

1 The Compact explicitly makes federal funding conditional on compliance, meaning that universities must either align with federal definitions of “excellence” and “neutrality” or lose access to research grants, contracts, student loans, and tax exemptions. In practice, this could establish a centralized federal control mechanism over university policies effectively nationalizing large portions of higher education decision-making without direct legislation.

Sections 2 and 4 (“Marketplace of Ideas” and “Institutional Neutrality”) appear to promote pluralism, but they impose mandatory structural changes to ensure “no single ideology dominant”. This could require ideological balancing in faculty hiring, curricula, and departmental governance. The threat of Department of Justice enforcement transforms “neutrality” into a federally monitored ideological litmus test, likely constraining academic freedom more than protecting it.

Section 6 defines “male,” “female,” “woman,” and “man” strictly by biological function and requires single-sex spaces to be maintained on that basis. This departs from current federal civil rights interpretations under Title IX and would effectively prohibit recognition of gender identity in campus policy rolling back existing protections for transgender and nonbinary students.

By forbidding universities from commenting institutionally on “societal and political events” unless directly related to operations, the Compact silences institutional voices on issues like racial justice, climate change, or foreign policy—even if faculty consensus supports public engagement. The “marketplace of ideas” clause simultaneously allows punishment of university employees or centers deemed “dominant” in ideology, directly threatening critical studies programs (e.g., gender studies, ethnic studies).

Section 8 introduces anti-money-laundering and KYC requirements typically reserved for banks, applied here to universities. It also mandates information sharing with DHS and the State Department and caps foreign student enrollment at 15%, with a 5% per-country limit. Combined with civics instruction requirements for foreigners, this moves higher education toward national security oversight and ideological vetting creating a form of state-managed educational nationalism.

The enforcement section deputizes the Department of Justice to investigate compliance and allows it to reclaim all federal funds and even PRIVATE contributions during a violation year. This mechanism represents an extraordinary form of financial coercion that could bankrupt noncompliant universities, effectively forcing universal submission or privatization.

Consider crime. Restorative justice has failed everywhere it's been tried . Utterly. Comprehensively. Totally. Everywhere it's tried, restorative justice increases crime and degrades the public spirit.

Yet universities continue to push it, despite all evidence, because it flatters a certain worldview. That this viewpoint is universal in academia isn't the organic victory of a good idea, but ideological groupthink that becomes a menace to society when it escapes the quad.

And it's not only that equitable justice is the dominant viewpoint: it's that no competing viewpoint are allowed. To disagree is to be a bad person, and universities today wield every institutional weapon they have against "bad" people who hold "bad" ideas. This is not an environment conducive to knowledge formation.

No university department that pushes "equitable justice" as summa bonum should receive public money. It's just nonsense.

So it is for many university programs these days. As J.S. Mill wrote: "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion."

But surely it also can't be the case that colleges demand what are basically declarations of political allegiance in the form of DEI statements, institutional trust is nosediving and ideological capture is to blame in large part. I hope this push from the administration fails, but I also hope something changes because otherwise the result is going to be worse than if universities actually submitted to these demands.

But i still think its possible for academics to get into echo chambers. They are human just like the rest of us. Especially in fields not easily subject to direct experimental verification. I think its important not to put researchers on a pedestal as if they are above folly. (After all, the saying "science advanced one funeral at a time" didn't come from nowhere)

It's good that this is being reversed. It turns out that many who are celebrating it are liberals and minority members. The Progressive media doesn't cover much of them but we see them elsewhere. Their ratings are plummeting which shows their viewers are tired of what they're doing.

All of these trends started with Trump who seems to be the only person willing or capable of handling it. A wicked man to be sure but very helpful in breaking Progressive's control of institutions. Also, showing their hypocrisy as they complain about people doing to them what they've been doing for decades now. If it's so bad, they should likewise cease all ideological activities in all institutions. (They won't.)

It sadly does not mean that universities are laser-focused on seeking truth, and are free from ideological biases, often very obvious. Regarding truth, one of the leading theories in humanities is that of Michel Foucault, which states that there cannot be any objective truth, and what is considered true is determined by power structures.

I'm glad to see though that the four universities are making a stand, and value independence above whatever "federal benefits" the administration may offer. It's sad that these are only 4 out of 9.