ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

After our journalists read , the Star’s online headline said the U of A “apparently rejects� the administration’s proposed compact.

Then, after our staff read , we saw a firmer stand and said the U of A “rejects� the compact.

But after further reading and interviews, it seemed Garimella had left the door open to negotiation. Final verb choice: The U of A “declines to sign� the compact.

What becomes clear after reading these responses is the University of Arizona administration remains eager to please and perhaps strike deals with the Trump administration, but was forced to say no to these terms because they violate dear values.

In his letter to McMahon, Garimella never says he is turning down the compact but delicately terms it unacceptable in its current form. Specifically, as other university presidents have noted, Garimella emphasized that he doesn’t want a two-tier funding system, where universities that sign on to the compact get special access to federal funds, and those that don’t are treated as second-class.

The key paragraph in the letter to McMahon says: “A federal research funding system based on anything other than merit would weaken the world’s preeminent engine for innovation, advancement of technology and solutions to many of our nation’s most profound challenges. We seek no special treatment and believe in our ability to compete for federally funded research strictly on merit.�

No firm rejection

The other six universities that have rejected the terms offered in the federal compact have cited similar reasons but made their decision firmer.

The : “In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence. In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences. Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.�

Beong-Soo Kim, : “We are concerned that even though the Compact would be voluntary, tying research benefits to it would, over time, undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote.�

Of course, it’s important to note that the other eight universities initially invited to sign can afford their principles, much more than the University of Arizona can. Here’s the endowment of each of those nine universities:

• University of Texas: $47.5 billion
• MIT: $27.4 billion
• U Penn: $22.3 billion
• Vanderbilt: $10.2 billion
• Dartmouth: $8.3 billion
• USC: $8.2 billion
• Brown University: $7.2 billion
• University of Virginia: $7 billion
• University of Arizona: $1.4 billion

One of these universities is not like the other, obviously — the one here in Tucson. And that financial vulnerability may help explain why the U of A has been less firm in its rejection of the compact.

Reform justified

In some ways, American academia has clearly veered off course over decades, so negotiation over reforms is justified. Our universities have become too expensive, too politically unrepresentative and too dependent on lucrative foreign students, among other problems.

The compact’s requirements that the universities not consider race, gender or other demographic categories in hiring or admissions was met with acceptance at the U of A. They say they already meet these criteria.

The demand that universities stop grade inflation, publish their admissions standards and freeze tuition for American students similarly met with concurrence from faculty and others. Frankly, it’s about time.

But some of the compact reflects what it was: The product of one billionaire’s anger at his alma mater for their handling of pro-Palestinian protests on campus. , the New York Times reported, and turned his anger into this program of what he terms “reform� for American universities.

Certain of these so-called reforms simply cannot be accepted, even as part of an ongoing negotiation, because they give the federal administration too much political power over free speech and thought on campus. Among those:

• Giving the government power over which university departments deserve abolition because they allegedly “belittleâ€� conservative ideas.
• Demanding the universities crack down on demonstrations where protesters “heckleâ€� students — a subjective assessment on a campus like the U of A, where state law mandates that even street preacher Brother Dean’s ugly misogyny is permitted.
• Requiring that faculty members be prohibited from speaking out on “societal and political eventsâ€� if they are seen as “university representativesâ€� but not if they are speaking as “individualsâ€� — a crucial but unclear distinction.

Even the demand that universities prohibit “support for entities designated by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations� should be unacceptable. This was likely aimed at supposed support for Hamas among campus demonstrators, but it easily expands to include the ever-lengthening list of “terrorists� claimed by the Trump administration to the ill-defined

The financial terms, of course, remain unacceptable. The compact, as written, is all stick and no carrot, with drastic financial penalties for purported compact violations and no specific benefits spelled out.

As the negotiation goes on, the U of A needs to stick to these principles, even if its relative poverty makes compromising them tempting.