CORRECTED: The article previously incorrectly stated that VSG’s survey showed 78% of students in opposition to signing the compact. This article was corrected on Oct. 15 at 4:40 p.m. CDT to say that 84% of students said they were in opposition to the compact in the VSG survey.

Vanderbilt’s Faculty Senate passed a resolution on Oct. 8 opposing President Donald Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” and asking the university administration not to sign the document. Vanderbilt Student Government released a joint statement with six of the other schools that were invited to sign the compact which similarly opposed the compact and called on the university not to sign it. 

Trump’s administration sent this compact to nine schools, including Vanderbilt, on Oct. 1, asking them to agree to the operational principles outlined in the document in exchange for preferential access to federal funding. Students and faculty have expressed opposition to the compact by creating petitions and organizing rallies that called on Vanderbilt not to sign the document. As of publication, Massachusetts Institute of Technology is the only university that has officially rejected the compact, and no school has yet signed the document. 

Faculty Senate resolution 

The Faculty Senate met in an emergency session on Oct. 8 to discuss the compact. In addition to faculty senators, over 150 non-senator faculty members attended the meeting. Jonathan Gilligan, professor and faculty senator, introduced a resolution that “firmly opposes” the compact and calls upon Chancellor Daniel Diermeier and the Board of Trust to reject it. The resolution states that the compact is antithetical to Vanderbilt’s mission and traditions, endangers the university’s independence and integrity and likely infringes upon the constitutional rights of Vanderbilt community members.  

Typically, a resolution cannot be introduced and voted upon in the same senate meeting, so a motion to suspend the Rules of Order and vote on the resolution was held and passed with a supermajority. If the rules had not been suspended, the next time to vote on the resolution would have been Nov. 23, which is after the Oct. 20 deadline set by the White House for responding to the offer. Following further debate of the resolution, a vote was held, and the resolution passed with 30 votes for, 11 against and one abstention. 

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. 

Sociology professor Mariano Sana, another faculty senator, said he tends to have mixed political views that sometimes put him at odds with the majority of his colleagues, but he said he still believes that the compact “trashes” academic freedom. 

“[The compact] threatens to introduce government micromanagement and massive overregulation of higher education,” Sana said in a statement to The Hustler, “There is nothing conservative in this type of politically motivated government intrusion.  It even tries to recruit universities to do the federal government’s work on immigration policy and national security.” 

Sana added that even though universities like Vanderbilt have issues they need to work on, he does not believe signing the compact is the way to address those issues.  

“I agree that universities need more viewpoint diversity among faculty and among graduate students (the next generation of faculty),” Sana said. “And I believe Vanderbilt is poised to make progress on it. But when the government tries to force this change, it contaminates the concept and it makes our task much more difficult. I irk at the thought of viewpoint diversity being seen as a Trumpian cause, because that can only generate a backlash.” 

VSG statement 

Vanderbilt Student Government also released a statement in opposition to the compact. The joint statement was signed by representatives from the student governments of Vanderbilt, Brown University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Virginia. The University of Texas at Austin and the University of Southern California, both of which were among the universities asked to sign the compact, did not have student government representatives sign this statement. 

The statement emphasizes the importance of listening to student voices opposing the compact. 

“[The compact] could systemically alter the mission of higher education and erode the independence that has long defined our universities,” the statement reads. “We must not allow these attempts to control what can be taught, studied or spoken on our campuses.” 

The statement also says that universities have been presented with a “false choice” between their commitment to higher education and the resources that sustain that commitment.  

“As student representatives, we stand in united opposition to the outlined conditions,” the statement reads. “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.” 

VSG President Soham Saraf, a senior, said the statement was approved by the VSG Senate, which is why it was signed by VSG as a whole and not just one individual, as was the case for some other schools’ student governments that signed the statement. 

“Our primary goal is to advocate for the undergraduate student body, and it is clear that they stand in opposition to signing the compact,” Saraf said. 

VSG emailed a survey to Vanderbilt students asking for their thoughts on the compact before the joint statement was released. According to Saraf, over 1,200 students responded to the survey, and 84% voted against signing the compact.