To be curious, let go of winning and focus on ideas rather than people: Those were the community expectations an organizer outlined to the over 100 people who attended the campus-wide reflection on the University’s decision not to sign the Trump administration’s Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. 

The Friday panel was held by USC’s Open Dialogue Project — which was announced by Interim President Beong-Soo Kim on Oct. 13 with the goal of increasing civil discourse on campus. 

The compact, sent to USC along with eight other universities Oct. 1, contained a list of demands including requirements to “prohibit” anything that might “punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas.” Kim announced in a school-wide email that USC declined the compact Oct. 16, citing the importance of diverse political opinions and a fear of loss of academic independence.

June Shao, a doctoral student, said she wanted to attend the panel because she believed in the importance of open dialogue. 

“We should all be able to have really difficult conversations with each other … and I wanted to see how USC would explore that and if they would do it in an uplifting way,” Shao said. 

Robert Rasmussen, the J. Thomas McCarthy trustee chair in law and political science at the Gould School of Law, moderated the panel and asked questions regarding what aspects of the compact the four faculty panelists thought USC should and shouldn’t consider, as well as how the compact might have impacted free speech on campus. 

In his first question, Rasmussen asked panelists what their initial reactions to USC’s response to the compact were. Anna Krylov, the associates chair in natural sciences, said that she was disappointed in the University’s response. 

“I was hoping that USC could take a stronger leadership role instead of outright rejection,” Krylov said. “[Instead] to consider the proposed changes and to be part of the conversation.”

Emeritus professor James Moore however said he was not surprised. On the other hand, both Richard Green, director of the Lusk Center for Real Estate, and Ryo Sanabria, assistant professor of gerontology, said they were grateful it was rejected. 

On the topic of free speech, Green said he felt many aspects of the compact were antithetical to free speech. Furthermore, he said it seemed the compact attempted to limit access to ideas outside of the United States’ norm. 

“One thing in the compact that was really striking to me is that it was okay to take students from abroad, so long as they support ‘Western values,’” Green said. “We can learn from Japanese values. We can learn from Indian values. We can learn from African values. … What a boring life it would be if you were only exposed to the values that you had grown up with.” 

The compact states that international students who receive student visas are expected to be “introduced to, supportive of, American and Western values,” and increase global appreciation for the United States. 

Sanabria said the compact was limiting to free speech, specifically through its restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion. 

“DEI is, by definition, free speech and opening up discussion and allowing the perspectives of many different people, whether they hit the merits that you care about or not,” Sanabria said. “Allowing them a place to speak, a place to exist and a place to be seen and a place to be successful. So to vote against that goes against the exact principle of what this compact is trying to say.” 

Krylov said she believes USC should require standardized testing in admissions and include faculty in the admissions process. She said the University needs to curb grade inflation, as well as review syllabi for biases. 

The compact stated that universities must commit to not inflate or deflate a student’s grade for any non-academic reason, and hold themselves accountable by publicly publishing grade distribution trends and explanations for any “unusual” upward trends.

Sanabria, however, said in regards to standardized testing, students have inequitable access to tutoring and other testing resources. Furthermore, he said it is possible for students to master the act of testing itself so testing is often not a reflection of academic abilities. 

Moore said USC was a “miserable” place to be conservative, and the compact brings up the importance of amplifying all student voices for the sake of discourse. 

“When I retired, the three conservative student groups that I advised had to find new advisors,” Moore said. “It’s hard for conservative student groups to find advisors, because faculty, even conservative ones, don’t want to admit to being conservative.” 

Krylov pointed to data that found conservative professors and students feel unsafe expressing their views on college campuses. In response to this, Sanabria said students’ fear of expressing themselves is one that other populations, such as people of color, women and LGBTQ+ individuals, have been dealing with for decades. 

Though an intense conversation with differing viewpoints, the atmosphere stayed positive with panelists and moderator Rasmussen making jokes during their statements.

Green said students should feel comfortable respectfully disagreeing with each other, but should be careful to not let their debates devolve into ridicule. 

“I do worry about people not giving each other enough grace,” Green said. “There is a ‘Oh, you said the wrong thing’ or ‘You use the wrong word, I’m now going to think less of you.’ And I don’t know how you stop that, but I do think there is more of that than there used to be.”

Following the questions by Rasmussen, audience members from both Zoom and in-person had the opportunity to ask the panelists questions. In these questions, students and faculty members asked questions about specific parts of the compact and how the panel thinks USC should improve aspects of campus. They asked about how to identify biases as well as gender diversity in education. 

In regard to next steps, Krylov called on STEM faculty specifically to involve themselves in issues going on in the world around them by speaking up when they feel the need to, rather than only being immersed in their scientific research. 

“We should lead by example,” Krylov said. “From my experience, when I started writing about controversial issues, a number of students were reaching out to me privately and saying how they are happy to see that someone is putting out ideas … that they now feel more confident to discuss their views.” 

Shao said the Open Dialogue Project could benefit specifically from more student participation. 

“The space itself has a potential for open dialogue. But I think that you do see leanings in the room,” Shao said. “ So I don’t think it’s necessarily a proper open dialog yet.” 

Lance Ignon, the senior associate dean of marketing and communication at the Price School of Public Policy, who attended the panel, also said he thought the event was good, but said there is room to better include students. 

“This is the most productive panel discussion I’ve attended at USC since I arrived in 2017,” Ignon said. “But I hope this is the beginning of a growing movement here, because I think the majority of people really want a space where they can talk about controversial issues without fear or favor.”