The White House’s decision to label the nine targeted universities “good actors” is a key part of a strategic gambit designed to divide and conquer the American higher education sector. By singling out a select group for a special offer, the administration is attempting to break the unified front of opposition among universities and create a class of institutions that are aligned with its agenda.
This “good actor” label serves as both a carrot and a stick. For the nine chosen universities, it is a form of flattery, suggesting they are seen as more reasonable and reform-minded than their peers. It invites them to see themselves as special partners with the White House, distinct from the “bad actors” in the rest of academia (like Harvard, which has sued the administration).
Simultaneously, it sends a threatening message to every other university: if you are not a “good actor” on our terms, you risk being shut out or even punished. This creates a powerful incentive for other institutions to moderate their criticism of the administration and perhaps even adopt some of the compact’s policies voluntarily in the hope of being designated a “good actor” in the future.
This strategy could effectively shatter the collective power of higher education lobbying groups like the American Council on Education. If the administration can successfully peel off nine of the most prestigious universities, the rest of the sector’s ability to resist will be severely weakened. It’s a classic “divide and conquer” tactic, aimed at preventing a unified response.
The success of this gambit now depends on the nine universities themselves. If they reject the “good actor” label and stand in solidarity with the rest of higher education, the strategy will fail. But if they accept the deal, they will have validated the administration’s approach and become willing participants in a plan to fracture the very academic community they belong to.