This is a quick note summarizing my thoughts on the proposed compact between the U.S. government and universities.

For a point-by-point response to the contents of the compact, I recommend this Heterodox STEM article.
Prof. Krylov’s article concludes that, though there are some points that require further discussion, broadly speaking the compact, if implemented, would indeed help achieve its stated aim of academic excellence.
This leaves us with criticisms of the compact in itself, which I briefly address here.

A cursory meditation on the nature of the state–university relationship reveals that a compact between universities and the state has, in fact, always existed, and it reads as follows:

The American public has a desire to benefit from the discovery of true knowledge and access to high-quality education, i.e., academic excellence.
This desire is implemented democratically in the form of payment from the people to the universities by means of taxation.
In return for this funding, universities are trusted implicitly to provide the desired value to the citizens.
In other words, universities are engaged in a voluntary, (ideally) value-generating service rendered to taxpayers as represented by the government.

I must pause here to note that the voluntary and transactional nature of this relationship invalidates any talk of suppression of freedom of speech as irrelevant.
This funding is not owed to the universities, nor does it constitute the protection of any fundamental rights.
As stated in the compact, universities remain free to act as they wish, but by the same token, the people are free to withhold further funding if they believe their interests are no longer being served.

And now the problem.
The last ten years have made it abundantly clear that this trust is broken, and that serious doubts about the value we claim to provide are warranted.
Given this reality, the public now faces a difficult choice: cease university funding altogether, or find a better solution than the implicit compact.
We should be glad to find that the public has chosen the latter and see it as a goodwill attempt at mending our relationship with the public, not an attack on academia.
The existence of the compact is a signal that the public shares our belief that “academic excellence” is worth pursuing; otherwise, funding would simply be rescinded without this much fuss.
It follows that, in the name of this belief and in the name of humility toward the taxpayer whom we serve, we must be prepared to clearly state the means by which we intend to provide academic excellence.
To put it bluntly, this is an opportunity to dispel the public’s (warranted) suspicions of our weak character and sense of entitlement.

I grant that the university would be right to engage in further discussion with the administration to clarify some of the ambiguities, legality, and negotiate certain points (as mentioned in the Heterodox STEM article).
But for academics to reject a compact in itself is the suicide of the university—it is to stand courageously on principle only to declare we have no principles.