Committee on the Future of the American University

Subcommittee on University-Government Relations
Issue Summary and Core Questions, November 2025

Ariel Avgar (co-chair), Brian Crane, Milton Curry, Eve DeRosa, Richard Geddes, Durba Ghosh, and Praveen Sethupathy (co-chair)

Setting the Stage

Though American liberal arts colleges date back to the 18th century, the contours of modern university-government relations only started taking shape in the mid-to-late 19th century and progressed further in the early-to-mid 20th century. In the mid-1800s, American universities (including land-grant institutions established by the Morrill Act of 1862 such as Cornell) were modeled after German institutions of higher education, which emphasized research and discovery. Federal investment increased as a result but remained relatively modest, which limited the expansion of the student population and research programs.

University relations with the federal government developed significantly in the early to mid-20th century. The increased public value placed on educational institutions was underscored by the Revenue Acts of the early 1900s, which afforded universities tax-exempt status. Beginning in the 1930s, the federal government recognized universities as powerful engines for addressing national security needs and priorities. In 1945, a landmark treatise (“Science, the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research”) was published on the importance of federal investment in scientific research even in times of peace. The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities were created shortly thereafter in 1965, the same year in which the Higher Education Act was passed, creating the framework for federal student aid, accreditation, and related programs. This era marked a cataclysmic shift in the partnership between institutions of higher education and the government, including the amount of federal funding for universities, while maintaining university self-governance and academic freedom.

America’s universities have long helped inform federal and state priorities that benefit society. However, the current moment is rife with varied critiques and challenges from the public relating to how and why universities are supported and funded. Core to the concern about the existing university-government model is the notion that the longstanding arrangement and associated responsibilities and obligations are no longer serving the public’s interests, either fully or partially. It is important to note that some of the fissures in the existing system have developed over a much longer period and, as such, require careful consideration of how they were formed, what they mean, and how universities might work to address them.

Contours of the Current Model

Though over decades we have taken the current model of university-government relations for granted, the key features of this ‘social contract’ are rarely explicitly stated or understood.

We propose that there are six core expectations of universities to deliver to the public based on government support: (1) Breadth of expertise: drive solutions to complex societal issues, promote public interests and economic progress, and advance national priorities across a wide array of domains. The government has long leaned on unique and wide-ranging expertise in universities to inform on and help address important matters for the nation’s future; (2) Educated citizenry: teach the core competencies for being a productive member of society, including but not limited to critical thinking, dialogue in a pluralistic context, constructive civic engagement, and leadership skills; (3) Educational access: expand access to higher education across all states; (4) Workforce preparation: provide the skills and capabilities necessary for entering and succeeding in the evolving workforce across an array of critical industries; (5) Research products: make research outputs available to the public to promote knowledge and innovation across academic and commercial institutions; and (6) Extension work: perform direct public engagement work including partnership with policymakers (particularly true for land-grant institutions).

Likewise, we propose that there are six core expectations that universities have of the government: (1) Academic freedom: independence from government intervention and control on academic matters as afforded by the First Amendment (e.g., Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 1967); (2) Upholding rights: enforcement of human and civil rights as it pertains to education access; (3) Accountability: structures for rigorous peer-review of funding proposals to ensure the highest-quality and most impactful work; (4) Regulation: guidelines and laws for safe and ethical administration of education and research, which help to support academic legitimacy and trust in our research; (5) Intellectual property (IP): university ownership of IP developed using federal funds (Bayh-Dole Act, 1980); and (6) Resources: tax-exempt status, accreditation, and tuition aid for education, and funding/support for fundamental and applied research and creative activities.

Although this implicit social contract has appeared to serve the needs of the public, the government, and universities for decades, a variety of new and longstanding issues are raising questions about its viability and sustainability.

Pressing Issues

Some of the challenges to the current university-government relations model have developed and evolved over years and others appear to stem from the current political moment. In either case, we need to better understand these pressures as we seek to reimagine the future.

First, government funds, especially at the federal level, can be a source of considerable leverage against universities. That threats to accreditation, tuition aid, and/or research funding can be used to successfully pressure universities has exposed what some have referred to as an “addiction” to the government, which may be a shortcoming of the current university-government relations model. Further diversification of funding streams may thus be advisable. Second, some misgivings about the current model are driven by perceptions that universities should use even more of their high tuition revenue and substantial endowments, rather than the federal government, to increase student aid and/or fund initiatives. Third, there is a growing sentiment that federal funds could be redirected away from universities toward other educational opportunities for Americans such as trade schools. Finally, there is widespread concern across the government and public that universities have not lived up to their responsibility to produce balanced thinkers, and instead develop left-wing ideologues. While some of the critique may be a reflection of the current tech-first and social media context that rewards outrage and sows distrust , it is incumbent on universities to assess the extent to which the challenges might also reflect long-brewing trends within institutions of higher education (as explored by our Technological Change and Artificial Intelligence Subcommittee and Trust Subcommittee). There is a sense that the present-day surge of criticism and scrutiny is particularly pointed and strong, and merits careful attention.

Emerging Principles

We have developed a number of emerging principles that can serve as a foundation for our stakeholder engagement efforts and as a starting point for broad discussions in the Cornell community. Cornell should…

  1. …remain committed to “… any person … any study” and “doing the greatest good” through education, scholarship, and public engagement, irrespective of our funding model and/or sources.
  2. …uphold the inviolability of lawful academic freedom in the university (independence from government intervention and control on academic matters).
  3. …remain a world leader in well-reasoned fundamental and early-stage research and creative activities even where long-term application appears risky.
  4. …define the key exposures/vulnerabilities in how we currently support our research, education, and public impact activities. Increasing some level of funding independence from the government (e.g., diversifying partnerships) should be a priority to ensure long-term resilience.
  5. …be willing to reflect honestly on if/how universities are not meeting their expectations, and avoid a posture that is overly defensive or unduly conciliatory toward the current critiques.
  6. …avoid both underreaction and overreaction to current political pressures as we envision the university’s future and reimagine our relationship with federal and state governments.
  7. …lean into our land-grant mission and structure, and in doing so, explore new models of bi-directional communication with the public in order to deepen the university's connection with the public’s interests and concerns as well as strengthen the public’s understanding of the university’s work and benefits.

Core Questions

Building on our assessment of the reciprocal responsibilities/obligations of the current university-government relations arrangement and the pressures on this model, a number of fundamental questions arise that should be addressed as part of our committee’s work.