The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is taking a definitive stance against a recent White House memorandum that outlines funding conditions for federal grants. President Sally Kornbluth highlighted concerns over these policies, stating they compromise the institution’s values.
MIT’s Opposition to White House Memo
In a letter addressed to U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Kornbluth expressed her inability to support the memo. She stressed that the core principle of funding should be based purely on scientific merit.
Controversial Policies Outlined
The White House memo includes several contentious measures, such as:
- Capping international undergraduate enrollment at 15%.
- Banning consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions.
- Defining gender based solely on biological criteria.
Institutions that do not comply will face potential loss of federal benefits, while those that adhere to the stipulations may receive preferential funding.
Response from Other Universities
MIT was the first institution to publicly reject the memo. Other universities, such as Brown University and the University of Virginia, are currently assessing their responses. Brown University President Christina Paxson noted that her institution is working with its community to formulate a reply.
The University of Virginia plans to create a working group to evaluate the implications of the memorandum. Institutions like Dartmouth, the University of Arizona, and the University of Southern California are also deliberating their positions. Meanwhile, the University of Texas has shown positive intent towards collaborating with the administration.
Controversial Objectives of the Memo
The White House’s memorandum outlines goals aimed at transforming or abolishing institutional policies that allegedly suppress conservative voices. However, it did not address similar protections for liberal viewpoints, raising concerns about bias in educational policies.
Political Context and Implications
Under the Trump administration, there have been various initiatives aimed at what it describes as liberal biases in higher education. These have included threats to withdraw funding from institutions perceived to favor progressive agendas, encompassing a wide range of issues from diversity programs to political expression.
As universities grapple with this memo, the implications of conforming or resisting these demands could significantly impact the future of federal funding in higher education.
