Students at the University of Arizona say they’re learning more about a controversial federal compact from social media than from their own university.
The agreement, sent by the Trump administration to nine universities, would tie federal funding to the president’s political priorities — and opposition on campus is growing as students and faculty call for transparency and rejection of the deal.
Students, faculty and staff are waiting for university leaders to decide whether to sign the 10-point compact.
Early Tuesday afternoon, a group of five graduate students sat under a tree between classes near the Administration Building. Among them was Paige Willer, a graduate student studying to be a mental health counselor.
“(If) they sign the compact, they agree with it, and that means this campus no longer feels safe to a lot of students. It doesn’t feel safe for me,” Willer said.
Willer said they found out about the compact through social media and then had to verify through Google.
“We’re students, we don’t get told anything. I’ve seen only things in news articles, not even from the university,” they said. Willer said they didn’t receive an email that UA President Suresh Garimella had spoken out last week.
Garimella released an unsigned statement Oct. 9, recognizing “that this proposal has generated a wide range of reactions and perspectives within our community and beyond” and promising to keep the “community informed as this process moves forward.”
Undergraduate student Magdalena Rizzo also first saw the compact on social media.
“I think that’s embarrassing, low key. I feel like it should be coming from the school, especially if they’re looking at going through with the (compact),” Rizzo said.
Get involved
The Graduate and Professional Student Council is taking feedback from graduate and professional students here
Adriana Grijalva, the president of the school’s undergraduate student government organization, the Associated Students of the University of Arizona, signed a joint statement Oct. 9 with the Dartmouth student government and Penn undergraduate assembly opposing the compact and urging their administrations to reject the deal.
The statement argues that signing the compact could “systemically alter the mission of higher education and erode the independence that has long defined our universities” adding that they must not “allow these attempts to control what can be taught, studied, or spoken on our campuses.”
Willer said the shift in UA’s policies, like excluding DEI-related language, and the administration’s lack of communication have changed their desire to be in the school.
“From my first year on campus to now, I definitely feel like there is a shift and I definitely do feel the need to conform maybe a little bit more,” Willer said.
“I would not recommend other students come here, and when I first joined this program I could not stop talking about it.”
Three of Willer’s peers, including Emily, didn’t want to be identified by their last names due to stress over retaliation.
“We’ve seen how speaking on any DEI issue causes you to be reprimanded and have consequences, and since we’re entering our field and we do feel like there are eyes on us,” Emily said.
“A lot of us as grad students chose this school and our programs because of diversity and different world views,” she added. “They have the power to say no, and it’s up to them to do that.”
The Graduate and Professional Student Council released a statement Oct. 7 asking the university leadership “to provide clear, transparent, timely, and comprehensive information regarding the compact, the review process, and the timeline for decision-making.”
“Regardless of political perspectives, universities should not be placed under the threat of funding withdrawal for declining to adopt externally proposed legislation,” the statement read. They also set up an online forum for feedback from students.
The school’s labor union, the United Campus Workers of Arizona, released an open letter urging Garimella to publicly reject the White House “Higher Education Compact,” calling it a partisan “loyalty oath” that would undermine shared governance and academic freedom. It called for the president to reject the compact by Nov. 7.
The school’s faculty led the opposition to the compact after voting at an Oct. 6 meeting in favor of a resolution urging Garimella not to sign the compact.
Most faculty spoke in opposition to the agreement, questioning its constitutionality and infringement on academic freedom and First Amendment rights.
“In this compact, the faculty and the staff are requested to give up their constitutional rights such that the administration can possibly receive funding for their pet projects,” said Lucy Ziurys, a Regents’ Professor of chemistry, biochemistry and astronomy.
“This is extortion,” Ziurys said
Garimella — along with eight other prominent university presidents across the country — received the compact by email on Oct. 1. The message states that signing and abiding by the pledge would result in potential benefits for the university, including higher overhead allowances, substantial federal grants, and other federal partnerships.
Garimella and the Board of Regents have until Nov. 21, the targeted signing date, to decide whether to abide by the compact, and they have until Oct. 20 to provide “limited, targeted feedback, with written comments” to the administration.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print.
