From Nine to Many: Colleges and Universities Beware

By Karen Gross and Nancy Rapoport

The Trump administration has sought to alter higher education. Its latest foray into educational reform is a request that apparently all colleges and universities sign onto a detailed pledge (the “Compact”) in order to gain priority for, and increased access to, federal funds. Originally, the Compact was directed at nine universities. Last week, MIT publicly refused to sign. The approach to all higher ed institutions appears to have been generated after MIT’s decision.

We need to recognize how important and courageous MIT’s choice is. It messages to all potential signers of the Compact and to our nation writ large: stand up to governmental overreach, even if there are adverse monetary consequences. In short, there is no price tag worth sacrificing academic freedom.

The 10-page Compact contains a myriad of commitments to which colleges and universities must agree to gain “priority access.” Much like the $100,000 H1-B visa program, the Compact is like priority boarding on airplanes: the Compact’s signers get the best seats and the best food, and they get to board the aircraft first, leaving other passengers to struggle with finding their smaller seats, the limited overhead space, and the paltry food and drink options.

In the abstract and if one does not read the Compact’s exact language too closely, some of these demands appear to be reasonable: a “vibrant marketplace of ideas” is exactly what universities should host; sharing average salary data across academic programs is fair play; allowing students, faculty, and staff to express their individual views on political and social current events is a necessity. As in everything, though, the devil rests in the details. For example, forcing certain universities to give free rides to “hard” science majors but not to other majors is not free-market capitalism, and limiting the percentage of foreign students threatens viewpoint diversity and the institutional bottom line.

But what happens if the government changes the rules on the signers after they sign? What if, for example, the government forces the universities that will have to give free rides to hard science majors that they also have to give free rides to other, favored majors? This Compact is much like the traditional unilateral gym membership that reserves the right to change all of the terms and conditions unilaterally in exchange for a member’s monthly dues.

With MIT saying “no” to the Compact, that leaves other institutions to decide if they will be signatories. These colleges and universities would be wise not only to follow MIT’s lead but to learn from the consequences of similar demands of BigLaw in Winter/Spring.

Here’s why.

Twenty or so BigLaw firms were singled out in 2025, for reasons that included which lawyers these firms had and which clients they served. Rather than standing together as a powerful collective, some BigLaw firms agreed to, among other things, perform millions of dollars of “pro bono” work at the government’s behest, not pro bono that the firms chose, but pro bono that the government chose. In so doing, these firms sacrificed critical duties their lawyers had sworn to obey: lawyer independence, client loyalty, and a commitment to serve the poor and unpopular clients.

Nine targeted BigLaw firms capitulated. One firm’s managing partner asserted that his firm faced an “existential crisis” if it didn’t reach an agreement with the President. Once that firm broke ranks with the firms fighting the Executive Orders, eight other firms followed suit and capitulated. The outcome? The cratering firms have lost lawyers and clients to other firms. Their reputations have been tarnished, too.

In contrast to the capitulators, the four BigLaw firms that sued have thus far won: they have won in the courts with full-throated judicial support, and they have won in the legal marketplace by gaining clients, garnering internal support, and enhancing their reputations from the outside world. In short, standing up to illegal demands by our government paid off positively for those four BigLaw firms, at least so far.

By refusing to sign the Compact, MIT is standing tall, much like the non-capitulating law firms, and it should be commended for its support of academic freedom and autonomy and its unwillingness to bend to governmental overreach.

By its example, MIT’s decision begs for the other institutions to do what far too many BigLaw firms failed to do: act together as a collective voice (a hard ask in academia, as in law) and reject coercion. Yes, higher education needs to change. but universities should make internal changes (with meaningful faculty input) based on their own convictions, not because of government dictates.

BigLaw teaches us that the price of acquiescence is high. And game theory teaches us that it’s unlikely that all universities will follow MIT’s lead, though we certainly hope that they will. And when one university breaks ranks, it will be that much easier for other universities to sign the Compact, just as other law firms followed the first capitulating law firm’s lead.

There is one added point, also law-related. Early signers will get benefits, no matter what, and that’s why caution is needed. The nine universities and now new possible signers who received the Compact are akin to stalking-horse bidders. In a bankruptcy court context, a stalking-horse bidder refers to an entity that commits to an early bid on assets being auctioned by a court; if that bidder is not the highest bidder, it gets a payoff, a reward for its willingness to set the base price. If any universities sign and the Compact changes, or it isn’t widely adopted, the signers (the stalking-horse bidders) likely still will get something for their acquiescence: more federal money for their institutions. But they will also make it more difficult for non-signers to tap into those same resources, because they will have rejected the opportunity to act as a united front and because the resource grab will leave less funding for the other universities.

The federal government had no right to decide how the nation’s law firms conduct their law practices. Similarly, the federal government should not coerce concessions from educational institutions as a quid pro quo for a fast lane to federal funding.

We all should applaud MIT’s courage and follow its lead.