Donald Trump¡¯s ¡°Compact for Academic Excellence¡± is an ¡°undemocratic, unconstitutional and blatantly illegal¡± attempt to nationalise US universities, a leading American free speech champion has argued, even as she agreed with much of the content.

As the 20 October deadline loomed for institutions to respond to the president over his proposed deal, Nadine Strossen, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Fire), called the move a ¡°hostile takeover of US higher education¡±.

Trump has offered more access to public funding in exchange for universities?.

While Strossen said she agreed with nearly all of?Trump¡¯s proposals?¨C such as clamping down on grade inflation and ensuring a ¡°vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus¡± ¨C the executive control envisaged by the compact had to be opposed by institutions if they value academic freedom.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

¡°When you read the compact it literally talks about the executive having power to enact its provisions ¨C that¡¯s not just attacking university autonomy, it bypasses Congress,¡± said Strossen, an emerita professor at New York Law School who was president of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1991 to 2008.

¡°Even if you don¡¯t care about universities you have to admit this is an example of undoing what our founding fathers rebelled against in the time of George III. There are no checks and balances,¡± she continued.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

¡°It is no exaggeration to say Donald Trump is seeking to nationalise universities.¡±

To understand Trump¡¯s approach, university leaders had to think beyond the Democrat-Republican or liberal-conservative paradigms that have informed US politics for generations, Strossen continued.

¡°Trump doesn¡¯t think in terms of the First Amendment, his mindset is ¡®Art of the Deal ¨C and it¡¯s proving incredibly effective. This isn¡¯t a compliment but he is extremely adept in wielding power to make deals ¨C or, more precisely, extort deals,¡± said Strossen, who was speaking to?̽»¨ÊÓƵ?at the Committee for Academic Freedom¡¯s inaugural annual conference in London.

¡°What he is doing is undemocratic, unconstitutional and blatantly illegal ¨C it violates all sector norms ¨C but that doesn¡¯t matter. Harvard has won a couple of important lawsuits, so have law firms, but this isn¡¯t enough to change what¡¯s happening,¡± said Strossen, who added that this ¡°legal grind for institutions is slow and expensive, particularly as Trump cuts off funds¡±.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

¡°Even if lawyers say universities can win, most feel it¡¯s not worth the political or economic cost¡­it¡¯s easier to settle than to fight. Whether Trump¡¯s actions are lawful or not is irrelevant,¡± she said.

¡°Universities have to form a unified front to stand any chance if they are going to survive this ¨C institutions need to mobilise, not cower away hoping they won¡¯t be next on the hit list,¡± advised Strossen.

For much of Fire¡¯s 20-year history the advocacy group has been labelled ¡°right-wing¡± given its frequent criticisms of woke campus culture, but it has become one of Trump¡¯s most trenchant critics. By doing so, it has been embraced by left-wing media that have long attacked its work, notes Strossen. ¡°The?New York Times?always called us a ¡®right-wing organisation¡¯ but its latest op-ed described us as a ¡®civil liberties group¡¯,¡± she reflected.

¡°Fire has been one of Trump¡¯s most fervent critics, but we are simply saying ¡®please be true to the free speech principles you espoused when the liberals were doing things in the past¡¯,¡± she said.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

For Strossen, the difference between Fire activists and the Trump administration is clear.

¡°Some of us love universities and seek to reform them. Others hate universities and want to destroy them. Trump isn¡¯t doing what he¡¯s doing to make Harvard or anywhere better ¨C he hates Harvard, what it stands for and wants to reduce its cultural influence,¡± she said.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com