{"id":135189,"date":"2025-10-15T15:17:48","date_gmt":"2025-10-15T23:17:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/10\/15\/trump-is-right-ban-gender-in-college-admissions\/"},"modified":"2025-10-15T15:17:48","modified_gmt":"2025-10-15T23:17:48","slug":"trump-is-right-ban-gender-in-college-admissions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/10\/15\/trump-is-right-ban-gender-in-college-admissions\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Is Right: Ban Gender In College Admissions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ed. note<\/u>: Please welcome Vivia Chen back to the pages of Above the Law. Subscribe to her Substack, \u201cThe Ex-Careerist,\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

BRACE YOURSELF, PEOPLE. I have something nice to say about Trump: I don\u2019t think his recent proposal to the nine colleges was completely nuts.<\/p>\n

Sure, the \u201cCompact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education<\/a>\u201d forces Trump\u2019s cultural agenda down the colleges\u2019 throats \u2013 from abiding by the administration\u2019s definition of gender, bathroom rules (has there ever been a presidency so potty-obsessed?) to SAT\/ACT mandates, and promotion of \u201cdiversity of viewpoints\u201d (colleges commit to \u201cabolishing institutional units\u201d that \u201cbelittle\u201d conservative ideas).<\/p>\n

And, yeah, the tone was a tad threatening: \u201cInstitutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forgo federal benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n

But for colleges that sign on, the benefits are awesome: priority access to funds and a presumption that they are in compliance with civil rights laws. It\u2019s like getting a TSA pre-check at the airport \u2013 shorter lines and automatic exemption from the terrorist list.<\/p>\n

The lucky institutions that got the president\u2019s\u00a0ultimatum<\/s>\u00a0offer are the University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, MIT, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia. Why these nine, who knows? (Funny how it was also\u00a0nine law firms<\/a>\u00a0that capitulated to Trump. Must be his lucky number.)<\/p>\n

So far, only\u00a0MIT has refused<\/a>\u00a0to comply. The others have been largely quiet \u2013 except for the University of Texas, which gushed: \u201cWe enthusiastically look forward to engaging with university officials and reviewing the compact immediately.\u201d (It\u2019s Texas, okay?)<\/p>\n

Those who value educational independence are alarmed, including some on the right. \u201cThis is not engagement,\u201d\u00a0writes<\/a>\u00a0conservative David Ramadan, a professor at George Mason University, in USA Today. \u201cThis is coercion \u2013 an attempt to remake higher education through executive fiat and financial threat.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even the Wall Street Journal<\/a>\u00a0thinks the proposal went too far, though its main objection seems to be the five-year tuition freeze and the 15% limit on international students \u2013 that free market stuff \u2013 rather than the threat to free speech and educational autonomy.<\/p>\n

So what\u2019s positive about this deal?\u00a0<\/strong>Well, who doesn\u2019t like freezing tuition? One thing the left and the right can agree on is that the price of college is too damn high. Tuition at Brown, Penn, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and USC \u2013 to name some colleges on Trump\u2019s hit list \u2013 is well-over $72,000 a year, not counting room and board.<\/p>\n

But what really knocked my socks off was the directive that colleges eliminate gender in admissions, along with race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.<\/p>\n

Does the Trump administration realize what this will mean for the future of American men?<\/p>\n

Truth is, boys and men need an extra bump<\/strong> to play in the sandbox. \u201cAffirmative action for men has been an open secret for decades,\u201d says admissions consultant Anna Ivey, a former admissions dean at the University of Chicago Law School. To opponents of DEI, though, \u201caffirmative action just means women and people of color,\u201d Ivey tells me.<\/p>\n

Fact is females\u00a0outperform males<\/a>\u00a0from the get go \u2013 and men are not catching up. Women now represent the majority in undergraduate institutions (58% as of 2020), law schools (56% in 2024), and medical schools (55% in 2024). And in Biglaw, women\u00a0outnumber<\/a>\u00a0men in the associate ranks. (Interestingly, women make up only 42% of MBA students.)<\/p>\n

As any parent who\u2019s played the school admissions game knows, boys get brownie points. I can\u2019t tell you how many open houses I\u2019ve been to \u2013 from nursery schools to colleges \u2013 where the admissions officer talks about the importance of striving for a \u201cgender-balanced\u201d class. As the mother of girls, I know the subtext: too bad your kid isn\u2019t a boy.<\/p>\n

But what happens if gender considerations are tossed out the window and admission is based solely on test scores, grades, and talent? The number of girls and women in higher education will soar. No longer will they have to give up their seat for some dithering, mediocre dude! And before you know it, women will comprise 70%, maybe 80%, of all college students in this country. And dominate the professions and run America \u2013 leaving men in the dust.<\/p>\n

Poor men. It seems they\u2019ve been screwed.<\/strong> Just when they thought this administration was going to reset America and make masculinity great again, it\u2019s women who\u2019ll win with this policy. Oh, what havoc Trump has wreaked by pulling the DEI rug out from under the men of America.<\/p>\n

Of course, none of that will happen because this talk about instilling a culture of meritocracy is pure bull. One glaring example of the chicanery: there\u2019s no mention about ridding preferential treatment for children of alumni or big donors. (Not that I\u2019d ever suggest that Trump and his children didn\u2019t get into Wharton based on their stellar academic records, or that\u00a0Jared Kushner\u2019s admission to Harvard<\/a>\u00a0had anything to do with his dad\u2019s $2.5 million donation to that college.)<\/p>\n

All this is to say that privilege has its privileges, and affirmative action for men will continue unabated \u2013 with Pete Hegseth, our\u00a0brawniest secretary of war<\/a>, as the ultimate poster child. Except we\u2019re not allowed to call it that, because how can something as low rent as affirmative action possibly apply to them?<\/p>\n

Subscribe to read more at The Ex-Careerist\u2026.<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Vivia Chen\u00a0writes\u00a0\u201cThe Ex-Careerist\u201d<\/a>\u00a0column on Substack where she unleashes her unvarnished views about the intersection of work, life, and politics. A former lawyer, she was an opinion columnist at Bloomberg Law and The American Lawyer. Subscribe to her Substack by clicking here:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

The post Trump Is Right: Ban Gender In College Admissions<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Image via Getty)\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ed. note<\/u>: Please welcome Vivia Chen back to the pages of Above the Law. Subscribe to her Substack, \u201cThe Ex-Careerist,\u201dhere<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

BRACE YOURSELF, PEOPLE. I have something nice to say about Trump: I don\u2019t think his recent proposal to the nine colleges was completely nuts.<\/p>\n

Sure, the \u201cCompact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education<\/a>\u201d forces Trump\u2019s cultural agenda down the colleges\u2019 throats \u2013 from abiding by the administration\u2019s definition of gender, bathroom rules (has there ever been a presidency so potty-obsessed?) to SAT\/ACT mandates, and promotion of \u201cdiversity of viewpoints\u201d (colleges commit to \u201cabolishing institutional units\u201d that \u201cbelittle\u201d conservative ideas).<\/p>\n

And, yeah, the tone was a tad threatening: \u201cInstitutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forgo federal benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n

But for colleges that sign on, the benefits are awesome: priority access to funds and a presumption that they are in compliance with civil rights laws. It\u2019s like getting a TSA pre-check at the airport \u2013 shorter lines and automatic exemption from the terrorist list.<\/p>\n

The lucky institutions that got the president\u2019s\u00a0ultimatum<\/span>\u00a0offer are the University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, MIT, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia. Why these nine, who knows? (Funny how it was also\u00a0nine law firms<\/a>\u00a0that capitulated to Trump. Must be his lucky number.)<\/p>\n

So far, only\u00a0MIT has refused<\/a>\u00a0to comply. The others have been largely quiet \u2013 except for the University of Texas, which gushed: \u201cWe enthusiastically look forward to engaging with university officials and reviewing the compact immediately.\u201d (It\u2019s Texas, okay?)<\/p>\n

Those who value educational independence are alarmed, including some on the right. \u201cThis is not engagement,\u201d\u00a0writes<\/a>\u00a0conservative David Ramadan, a professor at George Mason University, in USA Today. \u201cThis is coercion \u2013 an attempt to remake higher education through executive fiat and financial threat.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even the Wall Street Journal<\/a>\u00a0thinks the proposal went too far, though its main objection seems to be the five-year tuition freeze and the 15% limit on international students \u2013 that free market stuff \u2013 rather than the threat to free speech and educational autonomy.<\/p>\n

So what\u2019s positive about this deal?\u00a0<\/strong>Well, who doesn\u2019t like freezing tuition? One thing the left and the right can agree on is that the price of college is too damn high. Tuition at Brown, Penn, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and USC \u2013 to name some colleges on Trump\u2019s hit list \u2013 is well-over $72,000 a year, not counting room and board.<\/p>\n

But what really knocked my socks off was the directive that colleges eliminate gender in admissions, along with race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.<\/p>\n

Does the Trump administration realize what this will mean for the future of American men?<\/p>\n

Truth is, boys and men need an extra bump<\/strong> to play in the sandbox. \u201cAffirmative action for men has been an open secret for decades,\u201d says admissions consultant Anna Ivey, a former admissions dean at the University of Chicago Law School. To opponents of DEI, though, \u201caffirmative action just means women and people of color,\u201d Ivey tells me.<\/p>\n

Fact is females\u00a0outperform males<\/a>\u00a0from the get go \u2013 and men are not catching up. Women now represent the majority in undergraduate institutions (58% as of 2020), law schools (56% in 2024), and medical schools (55% in 2024). And in Biglaw, women\u00a0outnumber<\/a>\u00a0men in the associate ranks. (Interestingly, women make up only 42% of MBA students.)<\/p>\n

As any parent who\u2019s played the school admissions game knows, boys get brownie points. I can\u2019t tell you how many open houses I\u2019ve been to \u2013 from nursery schools to colleges \u2013 where the admissions officer talks about the importance of striving for a \u201cgender-balanced\u201d class. As the mother of girls, I know the subtext: too bad your kid isn\u2019t a boy.<\/p>\n

But what happens if gender considerations are tossed out the window and admission is based solely on test scores, grades, and talent? The number of girls and women in higher education will soar. No longer will they have to give up their seat for some dithering, mediocre dude! And before you know it, women will comprise 70%, maybe 80%, of all college students in this country. And dominate the professions and run America \u2013 leaving men in the dust.<\/p>\n

Poor men. It seems they\u2019ve been screwed.<\/strong> Just when they thought this administration was going to reset America and make masculinity great again, it\u2019s women who\u2019ll win with this policy. Oh, what havoc Trump has wreaked by pulling the DEI rug out from under the men of America.<\/p>\n

Of course, none of that will happen because this talk about instilling a culture of meritocracy is pure bull. One glaring example of the chicanery: there\u2019s no mention about ridding preferential treatment for children of alumni or big donors. (Not that I\u2019d ever suggest that Trump and his children didn\u2019t get into Wharton based on their stellar academic records, or that\u00a0Jared Kushner\u2019s admission to Harvard<\/a>\u00a0had anything to do with his dad\u2019s $2.5 million donation to that college.)<\/p>\n

All this is to say that privilege has its privileges, and affirmative action for men will continue unabated \u2013 with Pete Hegseth, our\u00a0brawniest secretary of war<\/a>, as the ultimate poster child. Except we\u2019re not allowed to call it that, because how can something as low rent as affirmative action possibly apply to them?<\/p>\n

Subscribe to read more at The Ex-Careerist\u2026.<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Vivia Chen\u00a0writes\u00a0\u201cThe Ex-Careerist\u201d<\/a>\u00a0column on Substack where she unleashes her unvarnished views about the intersection of work, life, and politics. A former lawyer, she was an opinion columnist at Bloomberg Law and The American Lawyer. Subscribe to her Substack by clicking here:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ed. note: Please welcome Vivia Chen back to the pages of Above the Law. Subscribe to her Substack, \u201cThe Ex-Careerist,\u201d\u00a0here. BRACE YOURSELF, PEOPLE. I have something nice to say about Trump: I don\u2019t think his recent proposal to the nine colleges was completely nuts. Sure, the \u201cCompact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education\u201d forces Trump\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":135190,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Vivia-Chen-Ex-Careerist-uJe0ii.png?fit=286%2C72&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135189\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/135190"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}