The Unseen Agreements: How MIT and Dartmouth Navigated Trump-Era Federal Funding Compacts

In a fascinating chapter of federal policy and university relations, prominent institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Dartmouth College found themselves at the heart of a significant controversy, having entered into specific non-discrimination compacts with the Trump administration.

These agreements, quietly inked, became a focal point of debate, particularly concerning their implications for civil rights and institutional autonomy.

At the core of the matter were compacts tied to federal grants administered by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Adolescent Health.

These agreements stipulated that recipient universities would not discriminate on the basis of “gender identity,” “sexual orientation,” or “religion” when delivering programs funded by these grants. While seemingly aligned with broad non-discrimination principles, the specific wording and the context of their implementation sparked considerable scrutiny.

Civil rights advocates and legal experts quickly raised alarms.

Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) voiced concerns that these compacts, rather than broadening protections, might paradoxically narrow them or even offer a pathway for certain forms of discrimination, particularly against LGBTQ+ individuals. Critics argued that by explicitly listing only certain categories, the compacts could be interpreted as tacitly allowing discrimination on other grounds not mentioned, or that they were a politically motivated maneuver rather than a genuine effort to expand civil rights.

The controversy reached a new peak with the change in presidential administrations.

The Biden administration, upon review, moved decisively to rescind these Trump-era compacts. Citing potential conflicts with existing federal laws, including Title IX—which broadly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs—and even First Amendment considerations, the Biden administration reaffirmed a broader commitment to non-discrimination.

This move signaled a clear shift in federal policy, emphasizing a more expansive and inclusive approach to civil rights protections within federally funded programs.

Both MIT and Dartmouth, when queried about their involvement, maintained that their institutional policies already robustly prohibited discrimination across a wide spectrum of characteristics, including those specified in the compacts.

Representatives from both universities indicated that the agreements did not necessitate any changes to their existing practices, suggesting the compacts were either redundant or a formality for securing critical federal funding for their adolescent health initiatives. Their statements aimed to reassure that their commitment to diversity and inclusion remained unwavering, irrespective of the federal compacts.

Beyond MIT and Dartmouth, approximately 20 other institutions had also signed similar agreements, notably including the University of Notre Dame, Catholic University of America, and Brigham Young University.

The broader implications of these compacts, and their subsequent reversal, underscore the complex interplay between federal policy, religious freedom, civil rights, and the operational autonomy of educational institutions, setting a precedent for how future administrations might approach similar agreements.