Comment on FR Doc # 2026-13248
Kiki Mackaman-LoflandOpposeAcademic
Summary: A faculty member at an R1 university opposes the proposed rescission, arguing that it lacks specific details on replacement procedures and could allow for funding decisions based on political interests rather than academic merit. They emphasize the importance of maintaining peer review processes for federal grants.
As a faculty member in a program that receives Title VI funding at an R1 university, I strongly urge the Department of Education to reconsider its proposed rule change. I imagine there certainly are areas were evaluation of programs and proposals for Title VI and Fulbright-Hays can be streamlined. However, the provided proposal provides no specifics about what procedures for evaluation will replace the existing ones. Existing processes of peer reviews which assess programs and individuals' proposals are the basis of the academic process. To remove this requirement (as has recently been proposed in other settings the proposed rule for the regulation of federal financial assistance in May 2026) could open up the dispensation of government funding according to the administration's interests without feedback from the scientific community. Students, researchers, and departments that use these federal grants deserve to have the certainty that their proposals on the basis of their academic merits.