THE COMPACT FOR ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE — WHAT IT SAYS, WHAT IT DOESN’T SAY, AND WHAT ITS RULES WOULD DO IF IMPLEMENTED

WASHINGTON, D.C. — December 4, 2025

The U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and the WHITE HOUSE have distributed the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, a nine-page document outlining a voluntary set of written standards that universities may adopt to qualify for specific federal advantages. This analysis contains no implications, no interpretations, and no projected motives. Every point reflects only what the Compact explicitly states, what it does not state, what its written requirements would directly produce if implemented, and first-hand criticisms quoted from those who have publicly responded. According to the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, the Compact’s admissions rules prohibit universities from considering race, sex, gender identity, or national origin when selecting applicants; the text directs institutions to rely on standardized testing and measurable academic criteria rather than demographic characteristics. The Compact also requires merit-based hiring and prohibits using demographic traits in employment decisions. These requirements do not instruct discrimination or exclusion, nor do they mandate the use of any criteria beyond those explicitly listed (we here at Appalachian Post can only take things at face value, we cannot in good conscience add any interpretation or bias to someone’s words without the hard factual evidence: we wouldn’t want someone doing that to us; we can’t do that to them either. And the words are the words, nothing more or less).

The Compact’s neutrality provisions require the institution itself, and academic units acting in official capacity, to remain politically neutral. It prohibits official university bodies from punishing or belittling political ideas, but it does not restrict individual faculty speech, personal expression, or academic research. The Compact instructs institutions to publish grading standards, document grading distributions, maintain defensible academic rigor, and review standards regularly, without mandating any particular academic content or grading outcomes. Tuition rules in the Compact include a five-year tuition freeze, first-semester refunds for early withdrawals, and full tuition waivers in hard-science majors for universities with endowments exceeding two million dollars per student. International enrollment is limited numerically to 15 percent of undergraduates overall and five percent from any single country; these are numerical caps only and do not instruct ideological vetting or exclusion beyond the stated percentages.

Equally important is what the Compact does not contain. The text does not instruct discrimination, it does not instruct or authorize universities to ban or target any demographic group. It does not ban political discussion in classrooms, does not restrict research topics, does not limit faculty speech outside official capacity, does not mandate ideological instruction, and does not authorize censorship of academic content or scholarly work. Again, anything not written in the Compact cannot be implied or interpreted as part of its policy.

If the Compact’s rules were implemented exactly as written, several direct outcomes would follow: admissions and hiring would be identity-neutral and based solely on measurable academic merit or job qualifications; institutional neutrality would restrict official university bodies, not individual faculty, from taking political stances that could influence students to lean one way or the other; tuition would remain unchanged for five years, creating predictable financial planning for families; high-endowment institutions would waive tuition for science majors; grading expectations and academic rigor would be publicly transparent; and international undergraduate enrollment would be numerically balanced according to the stated caps. These outcomes do not rely on speculation or inference; they follow directly from the written rules.

Criticism of the Compact has also been issued publicly in first-hand form. DARTMOUTH COLLEGE President Sian Leah Beilock stated that Dartmouth “will always defend our fierce independence” and warned that the agreement could undermine “academic freedom and self-governance.” BROWN UNIVERSITY President Christina Paxson issued her own statement saying the Compact “threatens university autonomy” and declined participation. These comments represent the views of those institutions alone; they are included only as direct quotations from first-hand public statements, not as interpretations by this outlet. While we acknowledge that the expressed concerns put forth by DARTMOUTH COLLEGE and BROWN UNIVERSITY that the Compact could threaten academic freedom or university self-governance, the Compact’s structure does not contain any mandatory language. The document is voluntary, and institutions may freely accept, decline, or disregard it without consequence. So, because adoption is entirely optional, the Compact cannot, by its own written terms, jeopardize academic freedom or institutional autonomy. Universities choosing not to participate retain full authority over their admissions policies, governance, and academic standards exactly as before.

The Appalachian Post does not adopt ideological positions. We do not interpret intentions. We do not imply meaning beyond the written text. We do not project consequences that are not explicitly stated. This breakdown reflects exactly what the Compact says, what it does not say, the direct outcomes of its written rules if implemented, and what first-hand critics themselves have said in their own words: nothing more.

The Appalachian Post is an independent West Virginia news outlet dedicated to clean, verified, first-hand reporting. We do not publish rumors. We do not run speculation. Every fact we present must be supported by original documentation, official statements, or direct evidence. When secondary sources are used, we clearly identify them and never treat them as first-hand confirmation. We avoid loaded language, emotional framing, or accusatory wording, and we do not attack individuals, organizations, or other news outlets. Our role is to report only what can be verified through first-hand sources and allow readers to form their own interpretations. If we cannot confirm a claim using original evidence, we state clearly that we reviewed first-hand sources and could not find documentation confirming it. Our commitment is simple: honest reporting, transparent sourcing, and zero speculation.

Primary First-Hand Sources:
– U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION — Official release confirming Secretary participation and distribution of the Compact.
– WHITE HOUSE — Administration distribution and policy documentation for the Compact.
– DARTMOUTH COLLEGE – OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT — Official statement declining the Compact.
– BROWN UNIVERSITY – OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT — Official statement declining the Compact.