����Ӱ��AV

The governor, however, won’t be using the bit of influence she has on the issue — she’s a voting member of the Arizona Board of Regents — on whether UA President Suresh Garimella should take the deal.

Hobbs skipped the executive session of the board late Friday that was called to discuss the Trump administration’s proposed higher-education compact. No action was taken immediately after the closed-door meeting.

Also on Friday, the White House held a virtual meeting with schools, including the UA, that had yet to make a decision on the compact.

“The university and ABOR are really taking the lead,’’ Hobbs said. “And we’ll be supportive of the decision they make.’’

But Hobbs, in an interview with Capitol Media Services, made it clear there are things the president is demanding that she considers improper or, at the very least, troubling.

At the heart of all of this is a 10-page “compact for academic excellence in higher education” that was sent to the UA and eight other schools on Oct. 1. Five of the nine universities invited to join the compact had turned it down as of late Friday — the University of Virginia, Penn, the University of Southern California, Brown and Massachusetts Institute of Technology — and there were no takers.

The compact contains a list of demands, ranging from things the UA already does, like not discriminating on the basis of race and sex in students’ admissions and staff hiring.

Some provisions, however, would have an immediate impact.

For example, it mandates that all undergraduate applicants must take a widely used standardized test like the SAT or ACT.

That isn’t currently required at UA to get in, though the school says those scores “are important post-admission for class placement at orientation.’’

Then there are the more nebulous provisions in the compact.

“Truth-seeking is a core function of institutions of higher education,’’ the letter to the UA and the other schools says, requiring “maintaining a vibrant marketplace of ideas where different views can be explored, debated, and challenged.’’

To qualify for priority access to federal dollars, though, the school would have to revise its governance “to create such an environment, including but not limited to transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposely punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.’’

Hobbs said that is concerning.

“I think we are very much bordering on censorship,’’ she said.

The compact also calls on the UA to freeze tuition for five years and reduce administrative costs.

Hobbs said there’s nothing wrong with the goal — at least on paper.

“Universities should not balance their books on the backs of students,’’ she said. But the governor said it isn’t that simple.

State aid to the university system has not kept pace with inflation.

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee says that the Arizona Legislature, on average, provided $4,015 per full-time student in 2016. This year it is $4,131.

But JLBC analysts say that $4,131 currently is worth just $3,113.

And tuition and mandatory fees for in-state undergrads at UA, which were $11,403 in 2016, now sit at $13,906, a figure that remains unchanged from the prior school year.

“Their hands have been constrained over and over again,’’ Hobbs said of the universities and why tuition has increased.

“I think every university president I talk to is committed to keeping tuition as low as possible,’’ she said. “But I don’t think having arbitrary requirements to do that from the federal government, who isn’t here on the ground and sees direct needs, is helpful.’’

Closely related to that issue of cost is a demand from the Trump administration to cap the number of international undergraduate students at no more than 15% — and no more than 5% from any one country.

That’s not currently a problem. The UA says its international students amount to just 3.3% of the undergraduate population. The figure is 1% at Northern Arizona University and 5.9% at Arizona State University.

Still, Hobbs said, those international students are financially crucial.

The UA estimates that tuition for non-Arizona residents, including foreign students, runs $43,100 a year. By contrast, it pegs that at $13,900 for Arizona residents.

Hobbs said the money coming from foreign students “a lot of times make up some of the costs that in-state tuition doesn’t cover.’’

“And it allows more in-state students to go,’’ she said.

There are other provisions, like a requirement for “institutional neutrality,’’ saying all university employees in their capacity as university representatives “will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.’’

Trump also wants the school to publish “grade distribution dashboards with multiyear trendlines’’ and explain “any unusual upward trends.’’

And he gets into a demand for single-sex spaces, including bathrooms and locker rooms, including that the terms of male versus female be used “according to reproductive function and biological processes.’’

It’s not just what’s in the demands that concerns the governor. It’s also what is not, including that there is no actual guarantee of cash for compliance, while making a single misstep could result in financial benefits disappearing.

What was sent to the UA and other schools says their activities will be subject to review by the U.S. Department of Justice. If that agency finds a willful or even negligent violation, there would be a mandatory loss of benefits “for a period of no less than one year’’ and any federal dollars advanced during that year must be returned.

“I think it’s very concerning,’’ Hobbs said.

All that comes back to what the governor says is the nature of the deal Trump is offering.

“I think that the president prides himself on being a deal maker,’’ Hobbs said. “But a lot of times, the deals he’s making are one-sided. And they benefit him or his agenda, but not the person on the other side.’’

And then there’s the not-so-veiled threat if the UA and the other schools refuse to sign.

“Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values (other than those in the 10-page compact) if the institution elects to forego federal benefits,’’ the document says.

Hobbs declined to call it “extortion.’’ But she said there are reasons to be concerned about the president linking things like dollars for research to a variety of issues unrelated to the merits of that research — and the risk of losing federal dollars for failing to accede to the president’s demands.

“The consequences of politicizing all of that is that it’s just not been about funding,’’ Hobbs said.

“It’s been about ending research that is solving the world’s biggest problems, that is finding cures for cancer, that is interrupting people that are right now in clinical trials for life-saving treatment,’’ she said. “And you’re politicizing all of that.’’

Time for the UA to act is running short.

The reason for Friday’s meeting of the regents was that the White House gave the school until Monday to provide “limited, targeted feedback’’ on the demands. At the same time, though, the administration has said that what’s in the document is “largely in final form.’’

A final decision from the UA has to come by Nov. 21.

While Hobbs isn’t taking a position about whether the UA should take the deal — she’s leaving that to the regents who oversee public universities — others have no such hesitation.

In a letter to Garimella, about 80 top UA professors, with Regents and Distinguished titles, asked him to reject the compact. Much of their concern is over what they call the “ill-defined new benefits’’ and the fear that being found in default “would sacrifice the federal benefits that we already enjoy.’’

Ben Armentrout, a member of the UA’s Graduate and Professional Student Council, echoed those concerns, calling the compact a “great, garbled piece of nonsense’’ that, if the school is found in violation, would force return of all federal dollars for that year, a figure he pegged at about $500 million.

Separately, the Faculty Senate voted on a 40-8 margin to oppose the compact, saying there are provisions which “endanger the independence, excellence, and integrity of the University of Arizona and infringe on the constitutional rights of the members of the University of Arizona Community.’’

The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 along party lines to oppose the compact.

“This is an authoritarian-inclined administration, and this is their attempt to force it into academia,’’ said Rex Scott, who chairs the board.

And there was a unanimous vote by the Tucson City Council to declare the compact “an unacceptable act of federal interference that undermines local control, academic freedom, and opportunity for our residents.’’