Summary of Responses to the Hopkins Administration Survey
Background:
On September 15, 2026, in response to faculty demands, the university administration released an open online questionnaire to gather opinions on how to respond to Compact 2.0 (“Call to Action”) issued by Secretary of the Department of Education [DoE] Linda McMahon on August 3rd. The survey closed on Friday, October 9th. The University Administration has promised to use the gathered responses from the community to draft the university response, to circulate the draft for further comments, and to publish the comments as well as the amended draft. On September 28th, based on faculty feedback, the Hopkins AAUP Chapter published a guide for responding to the university survey. The guide included sample responses from faculty representing different viewpoints. Because the university survey was not digitally secure and allowed multiple unauthenticated responses, we offered faculty the option of sending us their responses to ensure transparency.
Over the past two weeks, we have received a remarkable number of responses from across the university—through the dedicated email, direct emails, or individual meetings and conversations. Many faculty used the sample responses to share their agreement with the points raised in the guide. Other responses ranged from boycotting the survey (including active boycotts by documenting their decision with us or in the university survey) to demanding that Hopkins boycott the “Call to Action,” to proposing that the university issue sets of principles that represent our values, to offering point-by-point responses to the different questions. Yet, every response shared a deep and unwavering commitment to academic freedom and a serious concern about threats to the independence of higher education.
Below is a summary of the main points faculty raised in their responses.
Click here to see the raw data, which includes sample responses (in faculty’s own words).
We expect the university administration to frame its action based on this consistent, overwhelming faculty feedback and to directly involve shared governance bodies in the drafting process.
I. Summary responses and outcomes
Overwhelmingly, faculty believe that Johns Hopkins should:
Refrain from engaging with the DoE’s “Call to Action.”
Issue a statement of principles, affirming our values AND rejecting federal government intrusion and bullying of higher education.
Use its history and position as a preeminent global research university to lead and shape the future of higher education, a future that emphasizes independence, shared governance, academic freedom, and international collaboration.
More specifically, faculty responses were centered around the following points, which should structure any statement of principles:
Hopkins has moral responsibility and a leading role in higher education. Hopkins has a role to play as a leader in higher education. “JHU must act in solidarity with even the smallest institutions” to ensure the survival and independence of higher education. Being a member of AAU, let alone a leader, comes with a responsibility to all the faculty and institutions that work hard to earn this position. President Daniels’ position at AAU makes his actions, and Hopkins’s response, all the more important. “As President Daniels often asks, what will be our legacy?” “Will we stand for independence and higher education freedom? Or for putting higher education in danger?”
Engagement with the “Call to Action” creates more legal risks. Responding to the letter and answering these questions in good faith risks the university assuming legal responsibilities and endorsing unconstitutional measures and grossly distorted interpretations of the law. “The University can affirm academic excellence, affordability, free inquiry, research integrity, and service to society without submitting to a federally defined framework for demonstrating those commitments.”
Faculty hires, grading, and curriculum designs are non-negotiable. Academic decisions— including faculty hires, grading, and curriculum design—are the sole purview of the faculty and departments and must not be subjected to any political purity. “Keeping our curriculum grounded in the best evidence available is the surest way to build public trust.”
International students and faculty are essential to our community and mission. The university must unambiguously reject threats to international faculty and students, including but not limited to unlawful visa delays, excessive fees, intimidation, and other similar hurdles. The university should commit to providing legal support, when needed, and other appropriate stopgap measures. International cooperation and international members of our community are sources of immense strength and are part of what has made American higher education renowned globally.
Higher education must be accessible and affordable for all who want it. The federal government is acting disingenuously in calling for affordable education. The federal government can impact the cost of higher education by restructuring student loans, facilitating grants, and—most importantly—funding rather than threatening higher education.
Objectivity and rigor, not hollow or partisan diversity, are the key values of higher education. The call for intellectual diversity is disingenuous and designed to force political purity tests as a value that exceeds in importance the search for truth, and the university’s role in education. “[Abstract] intellectual pluralism [is not] a foundational value. Intellectual objectivity, curiosity, and careful research … may or may not produce a ‘pluralist’ range of answers to questions.”
Shared governance protects higher education. “The DoE letter was addressed to university presidents and trustees to evade democratic deliberation and shared governance. Hopkins cannot accept DoE's dangerous misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of how universities function.”
To see a sample of anonymized raw data(in faculty own words), click here
