Trump wants to monitor speech of American universities. Libertarians are silent

There is some time. I'm not sure what past actions by the administration would make anyone hopeful that the administration will make their proposal and policy more friendly to the first amendment.

 

the university I've worked at has been negotiating for eight months and by all the outward signs I've been privileged to been made aware of, I'd suggest there's room for cautious optimism. I think this administration values and respects institutions that are willing to work with them, and I think they go out of their way to publicly embarrass and/or harass institutions that appear to obstinately refuse to negotiate

 

@FranchiseBlade is right to be concerned about the vagueness. Past actions should make any supporter of free speech wary that this administration will keep finding new ways to suppress it. When the POTUS says negative media coverage about him isn't free speech, that should be clear enough. When actions are later ruled unconstitutional, that's legal confirmation of the pattern.

This is directly relevant: just a few days ago a federal court ruled that the administration had "chilled the right to freedom of speech" for students.

"This Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, together with subordinate officials and agents of each of them, deliberately and with purposeful aforethought, did so concert their actions and those of their two departments intentionally to chill the rights to freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble..." - U.S. District Court Judge William Young

I see that @Os Trigonum have shifted from "this is just normal funding conditions" to "it's performative bullshit that probably won't survive." Which is it? If it's meaningless theater, why defend it? And if it's serious policy, the vagueness makes it more dangerous, not less - vague speech restrictions give maximum discretion to punish disfavored viewpoints.

Your suggestion that universities should "negotiate" to avoid being "publicly embarrassed and harassed" isn't standard grant administration - that's a protection racket.... comply or face retaliation.

 

Colleges shouldn't sign anything that limits free speech, the REASON they get federal funding for the most part is for research which drives industry.

Trump would be a ****ING MORON by shutting that off.

DD

 

related

https://reason.com/2025/10/02/how-to-fix-college/

How To Fix College
Liz Wolfe | 10.2.2025 9:30 AM

Trump asks colleges to get serious: Yesterday, the White House sent 10-page compacts to nine of colleges and universities—Vanderbilt University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Texas, the University of Arizona, Brown University, and the University of Virginia—asking them to assent to certain commitments in order to receive access to a wider array of federal funding.

Called the "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education," most of the asks are eminently reasonable, and would make it so colleges now conform with the law instead of flouting it outright.

"The memo demands that schools ban the use of race or sex in hiring and admissions," reports The Wall Street Journal. It also calls for schools to "freeze tuition for five years; cap international undergrad enrollment at 15%; require that applicants take the SAT or a similar test; and quell grade inflation."

But the memo also asks that universities abolish any departments that "purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas" and strengthen policies meant to deter such ideological conformity. Of course, "institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits," reads the document.

"The first round of schools received the compact along with a letter that frames the pledge as an opportunity to proactively partner with the administration and its effort to shift the ideological tilt of the higher education system," per The New York Times. Interestingly, "the demands in the compact also include providing free tuition to students studying math, biology, or other 'hard sciences' if endowments exceed $2 million per undergraduate."

In a sense, this is federal government intrusion into the affairs of universities. Who is a federal bureaucrat to decide how many international students a college ought to admit, when the college should be able to decide what's in their best interest and what's not? It's not like a system of arbitrary nationality limits is especially meritocratic. But the case made by Trump administration officials like May Mailman is that we don't get to pour tons of American taxpayer dollars into the higher education system and then routinely educate the world's students; that's not a good return on investment or aligned with what's in the nation's best interest.

The solution Mailman and the Trump administration more broadly offer is, I think, sound: If you're a university that doesn't want to sign onto these demands, you may forego federal funding and retain full independence. But if you'd like to dip into federal coffers, you must agree to certain standards and maintain environments that foster more intellectual diversity. We'll see whether this holds up whenever it's challenged in court.

Also, I think it's interesting—and a welcome development—that the administration also snuck in some lines about tuition-freezing. Ballooning cost of attendance has been a huge problem for years, and shedding light on administrative bloat and wasteful spending is surely in the American public's best interest.


​

 

The same clowns @Os Trigonum claiming this is no big deal said back in January that Trump would never go after free speech in campuses and it was TDS to think he would. Now that hes done it the boomer claims it's no big deal lol.

I respect @Amiga but yall need to realize @Os Trigonum is a disingenuous clown whos only mission is to rehabilitate Trump. He stands for nothing

 

I have to disagree. Clowns are not deliberately and clinically obtuse.

 

I wasn't aware College and University education needed fixing before Trump started gutting Federal science and research funding.

 

The Proposed "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education" and the First Amendment

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/10/0...-in-higher-education-and-the-first-amendment/

 

M.I.T. Rejects a White House Offer for Special Funding Treatment
The Trump administration offered nine universities benefits in exchange for signing an agreement to protect conservative voices, among other things. M.I.T. was the first to refuse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/us/mit-rejects-white-house-compact.html

 

The government shouldn't be involved in regulating speech, nor in funding universities.

 

Doesn't that mean you?

sorry for saying that, not what I intended.

 

I certainly shouldn't be involved in regulating speech or funding universities (beyond the huge amounts of funding I paid in tuition).

 

Brown University Rejects White House Deal for Special Treatment
Brown was the second university to turn down the deal, which would have given a funding preference to universities that agreed to certain requirements.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/15/us/brown-university-trump-compact-funding.html