MFSA Assessment of the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education

 

The MIT Free Speech Alliance (MFSA) promotes free expression, academic freedom, viewpoint diversity, and open scientific inquiry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This assessment focuses on Section 2 (Marketplace of Ideas and Civil Discourse) and Section 4 (Institutional Neutrality) where MFSA maintains strong, longstanding positions. Additionally, Section 8 (Foreign Entanglements) and Section 10 (Enforcement) intersect with our interests.

 

The MIT Council on Academic Freedom (MITCAF) has published their detailed review, which concluded that “[t]he compact in its present form is not acceptable.” MFSA generally concurs with MITCAF’s analysis and will not duplicate here.

The Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education can be read in full at this link.

 

This section significantly aligns with MIT's official Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom — a policy MFSA both advocated for and fully supports.

 

MFSA strongly endorses student and faculty viewpoint diversity at MIT. While the Compact emphasizes political and ideological diversity, MFSA believes true scientific advancement depends on a wide range of perspectives, including scientific and technical ones. While MIT’s culture is enriched by actively welcoming diverse viewpoints, requiring ideologically balanced departments is unworkable. MFSA instead recommends viewpoint neutrality in admissions and hiring, based on academic merit — a practical method for enabling diversity of thought.

 

Despite having robust free speech and academic freedom policies, MIT has not consistently implemented or enforced them. We have long made the Compact’s same calls for “swift, serious, and consistent sanctions” for violations of university rules, and for “impartial, vigorous” enforcement. Recent events, such as the university’s handling of campus incidents following October 7th, revealed gaps in impartial enforcement and application of sanctions. Rules treated inconsistently are effectively reduced to suggestions, and the appearance of favoritism is toxic to community relations.

 

The Compact calls for MIT to commit to “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.” As MITCAF also states, the government errs by focusing specifically on “conservative ideas.” MIT should ensure that no ideas, regardless of political or other viewpoint, are wrongly sanctioned. In addition, policing speech that “belittles” ideas is incompatible with MIT’s commitment to free expression. The Compact’s calls are consistent with MFSA’s repeated calls to abolish MIT’s Bias Response Team, which has proven inimical to free expression and has a record of wrongly sanctioning speech.

 

 

MFSA has consistently advocated for a policy of institutional neutrality modeled on the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report. Such a stance would reinforce the Institute’s commitment to free inquiry and resist pressures to take positions on controversial political and social issues, preserving MIT as a forum for diverse perspectives.

 

Most of this section does not pertain to MFSA’s core concerns. However, MFSA strongly disagrees with the Compact’s expectation that institutions should assess security threats when admitting students or hiring faculty. Determining national security risk is properly the responsibility of the government, which controls immigration policy, visa issuance, and related legal restrictions. MIT and similar universities should be free to admit or employ any candidate who has been vetted and authorized by the proper governmental authorities.

 

Enforcement is largely outside MFSA’s direct scope; however, MFSA has long recommended that MIT conduct, or commission an external party to conduct, an annual, independent, empirically rigorous, and anonymous survey of faculty, students, and staff to measure perceptions regarding freedom of expression and academic freedom, and to gauge levels of self-censorship. MFSA agrees with the Compact’s requirement that survey results be transparently published and made available to the campus community.

 

 

Even if MIT declines a compact with the government, it should commit to long-term reforms in areas where MIT and the government share common ground. The free speech requirements in the Compact’s sections—many previously recommended by MFSA—could be implemented consistent with MIT’s existing policies or principles on free expression.

 

Some within the academic community argue the Compact represents an unprecedented threat to academic freedom and urge outright rejection. MFSA agrees that the Compact as written raises serious concerns, but advocates thoughtful engagement with its substance. MIT’s relationship with the federal government, dating back to the original postwar arrangement enabling basic research funding, has long entailed tension between autonomy and dependency.

 

President Kornbluth was correct in deciding not to sign the Compact in its current draft form. But MIT’s research model is undeniably dependent on federal funding with its attendant requirements. MFSA encourages MIT to continue engaging in constructive discussions with government partners, leveraging MIT’s unique strengths and contributions to achieve outcomes that serve both the Institute’s—and the nation’s—best interests.

Read at Permalink.