Professor decries “fascist political tactics”
The White House recently sent a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” to several colleges and universities, outlining new standards for schools that receive federal funding. In an Observer article discussing the compact, Matthew Hall—David A. Potenziani Memorial College Professor of Constitutional Studies and Director of the Rooney Democracy Institute—was quoted as calling the compact, along with several other White House actions, “fascist.”
The Rover interviewed Hall via email to clarify his comments and discuss the relationship between democracy, free speech, and higher education.
In early October, the federal document was sent to nine schools for “agreement and feedback,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The compact seeks to hold universities who benefit from federal funding accountable to U.S. government “priorities,” summarized in 10 points. The standards include nondiscrimination in admissions, hiring, and student treatment, along with a tuition freeze for five years and increased financial transparency.
One key focus of the agreement is free speech—consistent with previous Trump orders, the document cites anti-semitism as a major concern on college campuses.
On October 8, the Observer published an article summarizing the compact, supplemented by reactions from students and faculty members.
According to the Observer, “Hall … argued the compact was a ‘fascist’ tactic.” The article continued with a quote from Hall, “All fascist politicians adopt similar tactics, and one of the most important tactics is to create a sense of unreality by undermining objective facts. Therefore, fascist politicians are threatened by independent institutions that are designed to distinguish fact from fiction: courts, independent government agencies, the press, scientists, and—of course—universities.”
“The compact being presented to universities is a blatant, unprecedented attempt by the executive branch to take control of public and private universities,” Hall continued.
Hall then discussed other instances of “targeting” by the Trump administration, writing, “The fate of academic freedom in this country is likely tied to the broader struggle against these fascist political tactics that have similarly targeted independent agencies (like the Bureau of Labor Statistics), news organizations (like the New York Times), media outlets (like ABC and Jimmy Kimmel), private business (like prominent law firms), and any institution in society that refuses to bend the knee.”
Aedan Whalen, Co-President of the Notre Dame College Republicans, found Hall’s comments poorly timed. Whalen told the Rover, “During a national wave of murderous anti-conservative violence—particularly on college campuses—a Notre Dame professor’s deployment of the ‘fascist’ label is flagrantly irresponsible and deeply concerning. … This inflammatory rhetoric amounts to yet another example of faculty and staff members’ seething contempt for their conservative students.”
Regarding his quotes on fascism, Hall wrote to the Rover, “I never actually said the compact was a fascist tactic. … I was describing how fascist politicians operate in general to provide a background context.”
Hall nevertheless compared the compact and fascist tactics, writing, “Fascists undermine free institutions, like the press and the universities. And the compact is a blatant attempt to take control of public and private universities. Fascism is a collection of political tactics, so [no one] can definitely say that any one particular policy is necessarily fascist.”
On the relationship between the government and universities, Hall wrote, “The federal government definitely has a role in regulating higher education. Because the federal government provides funding to the vast majority of universities, it can set restrictions on how universities operate in a variety of ways. And of course federal civil rights law prohibits various forms of discrimination in higher education.”
Hall argued that such regulations should not include free speech: “Generally speaking, governments do not promote free speech—the First Amendment’s freedom of speech is a limit on the government’s ability to restrict free speech. The way for the government to promote free speech is to not regulate it.”
In response to the compact’s anti-semitism concerns, Hall said that the government already has rules in place to deal with such issues, including “Title VII of the Civil Right, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Equal Campus Access Act.” He added that “ideally,” universities would be regulated by legislation enforced by the executive branch.
When asked whether President Trump represents the American people better than unelected university presidents, Hall answered, “Even democratically elected officials can take actions that violate democratic norms. The constitution limits the powers of democratically elected officials in a variety of ways. … It’s too soon to know the long-term effects of Trump’s presidency on American democracy.”
Although universities are free to refuse the compact if they forego federal funding, Hall argued that schools need government support in order to function: “In practice, it is not feasible for universities to completely forgo federal funding and continue to operate effectively.”
Haley Garecht is a senior studying political science, constitutional studies, and Irish studies. This summer, she learned all about democracy, humidity, and the metro while working in the House of Representatives. For tips on navigating the red line, please contact her at hgarecht@nd.edu.
Photo Credit: Notre Dame Department of Political Science
Subscribe to the Irish Rover here.
Donate to the Irish Rover here.
