During an impassioned USC Academic Senate meeting on Monday, faculty strongly denounced and rejected the Trump administration offer to give the university funding preference in exchange for abiding by conservative education goals.
In forceful speeches, University of Southern California department chairs, professors, researchers and others who attended the virtual meeting called the compact “egregiously invalid,” “probably unconstitutional,” “antithetical to principles of academic freedom” and “a Trojan horse.”
The compact, which was also provided to eight other prominent universities across the country, has roiled higher education and has drawn the ire of Gov. Gavin Newsom with its demands for rightward campus policy shifts in exchange for priority federal funding.
Not one speaker among the roughly 500 attendees expressed support for the compact, which calls on universities to follow President Trump’s views on admissions, diversity and free speech, among other areas.
The hourlong discussion, which was broadcast online via Zoom and viewed by The Times, opened with comments from interim President Beong-Soo Kim, who did not offer his opinion of the compact. He noted that USC did not solicit the offer from Trump.
“The university has not made any kind of final decision — that’s because I wanted to make sure that I heard from the community and received your input,” Kim said. He said USC had not been asked to sign the compact — and instead was given a chance by the Trump administration to offer feedback on it.
“I do understand fully how strongly people feel about some of the issues presented here,” Kim said. In a statement Friday, he said the offer “covers a number of issues that I believe are important to study and discuss.”
Universities that agree to the compact would get more favorable access to federal research grants and additional funding, as well as other benefits. They would have to accept the government’s definition of gender — two sexes, male and female — and would not be allowed to recognize transgender people’s gender identities. Foreign student enrollment would be restricted.
As for free speech, schools would have to commit to promoting a wide range of views on campus — and change or abolish “institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” according to the compact.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson described the compact on Monday as “an opportunity for collaboration that all institutions of learning should be excited about.”
“Higher education has been plagued by harmful woke ideology for too long,” she said. “The Trump Administration is committed to restoring truth and integrity to higher education while encouraging universities to work collaboratively with the U.S. government to advance our shared national interests.”
More than 20 USC faculty members offered comments during the meeting, which did not include an advisory vote or other formal action. Speaker after speaker told Kim that the university should not negotiate with the Trump administration and that the compact should be rejected.
“History will not judge USC kindly if it agrees to this compact,” said Edward Saxon, professor of cinematic arts. “The government is clearly engaged in a war on education. … Capitulation is the fastest route to ruin.”
Amelia Jones, a professor at the USC Roski School of Art & Design, said that “there can be no negotiation. They are playing by the fascist playbook.”
“Solidarity is key,” she said. “…We are dealing with an autocrat who is trying to destroy our institutions.”
Several professors said that USC should align with other universities that were also given the compact — and additional schools across the country — to reject the compact while offering a unified message.
Devin Griffiths, an associate professor of English and comparative literature, said that the Academic Senate should reach out to faculty leadership at the eight schools also solicited by Trump to coordinate a “collective statement rejecting the entire process and offering a substantive critique of the elements of the compact, which I think are not only violations of free speech and academic freedom, but have elements that violate basic knowledge that is being produced at the universities.”
The compact was sent to institutions including the University of Arizona, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Texas and Brown University.
The University of Texas has suggested it could agree to Trump’s terms. Leaders of the Texas system were “honored” that the Austin campus was chosen to be a part of the compact and its “potential funding advantages,” according to a Thursday statement from Kevin Eltife, chair of the board of regents.
Newsom, who has threatened to pull state funding from California universities that sign Trump’s compact, has blasted any institution that would agree to it.
“Do the right thing,” he said Friday, addressing USC. “What’s the point of the system? What’s the point of the university? What’s the point of all of this if we don’t have academic freedom? … It’s not a choice, and the fact that I felt I needed to even send that message is rather shocking, because some people think it is.”
A handful of the meeting’s participants suggested that Trump could not be trusted to abide by the terms of the compact. Richard Green, director and chair of the USC Lusk Center for Real Estate, said that the president “is a person who has not kept agreements for a very long time.”
“If we are going to sell our soul, let’s not sell it to someone who is going to pull the football away,” he said, alluding to the “Charlie Brown” character Lucy, who habitually yanks the ball away before Charlie can kick it.
As the meeting wore on, and the speeches railing against the compact continued to cascade, Ryo Sanabria, an assistant professor of gerontology, pressed Kim to respond to the apparent unanimity.
Kim didn’t address the group until the end of the gathering, saying, “I would ask that you not over-interpret my silence. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to listen. … I appreciate your commitment. I appreciate your patience. I appreciate your love for USC, which I share.” He added that he would communicate the views expressed during the meeting to the school’s board of trustees.
Afterward, Griffiths told The Times that he was pleased by the tenor of the meeting.
“I feel really heartened,” he said. “It reminded me that we really all care deeply about what happens here at USC but also what happens around the country.”
Times staff writers Melody Gutierrez and Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.