I have only found the full text on Reddit, so I link to that. Put aside that conditioning federal funding on adopting the government’s viewpoint is a textbook First Amendment violation (at least in the old days!). I’d like to call attention to one provision in particular (some of the provisions are actually banal, requiring universities to comply with existing law), which no real university could agree to:

A vibrant marketplace of ideas requires an intellectually open campus environment, with a broad spectrum of ideological viewpoints present and no single ideology dominant, both along political and other relevant lines. Signatories commit themselves to revising governance structures as necessary to create such an environment, including but not limited to transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas. 

First of all, in serious scholarly disciplines, “political” ideologies are not relevant. In somewhat less serious disciplines they are. There are Millian reasons for preferring some diversity of viewpoints, but no way to enforce that consistent with the academic freedom of scholars to make hiring decisions. But the singling out of “conservative ideas” for special solicitude by scholarly institutions is beyond belief. What counts as “conservative ideas”? A belief in markets over state regulation? That idea is well-represented in universities (indeed, there are whole departments and schools devoted to it). A belief that humans are making no contribution to climate change? That has no place in the universities, since it is false. A belief that affirmative action is bad for racial and ethnic minorities, and that individual merit should prevail? Many faculty, but certainly a minority, hold that view, and to the extent it is used as a factor in faculty appointments, it is both unlawful (at public universities) and inconsistent with academic freedom. A belief that the Trump tax bill will not deprive people of medical care and not worsen the fiscal health of the nation? This belief is also false, so it is hard to see how universities can go out of their way to accomodate it.

“Conservative ideas” is unconstitutionally vague as a standard, but apart from that, universities are places where ideas are subjected to critical appraisal and bad ideas are rejected. That is the essence of the university. The essence of academic freedom is that scholars in the various disciplines make judgments about which ideas are good and which are bad. Some disciplines fall short (e.g., economics, the softer humanities at times), but mostly they do pretty well. This “compact” would require massive violations of academic freedom, and risks elevating stupid ideas that are popular in “conservative” circles (that list is long these days!). No university could sign on to that provision, unlike, ironically, many of the others.