via
Getty)
Ed.
note:
Please
welcome
Vivia
Chen
back
to
the
pages
of
Above
the
Law.
Subscribe
to
her
Substack,
“The
Ex-Careerist,” here.
BRACE
YOURSELF,
PEOPLE.
I
have
something
nice
to
say
about
Trump:
I
don’t
think
his
recent
proposal
to
the
nine
colleges
was
completely
nuts.
Sure,
the
“Compact
for
Academic
Excellence
in
Higher
Education”
forces
Trump’s
cultural
agenda
down
the
colleges’
throats
–
from
abiding
by
the
administration’s
definition
of
gender,
bathroom
rules
(has
there
ever
been
a
presidency
so
potty-obsessed?)
to
SAT/ACT
mandates,
and
promotion
of
“diversity
of
viewpoints”
(colleges
commit
to
“abolishing
institutional
units”
that
“belittle”
conservative
ideas).
And,
yeah,
the
tone
was
a
tad
threatening:
“Institutions
of
higher
education
are
free
to
develop
models
and
values
other
than
those
below,
if
the
institution
elects
to
forgo
federal
benefits.”
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’s
like
getting
a
TSA
pre-check
at
the
airport
–
shorter
lines
and
automatic
exemption
from
the
terrorist
list.
The
lucky
institutions
that
got
the
president’s ultimatum offer
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 nine
law
firms that
capitulated
to
Trump.
Must
be
his
lucky
number.)
So
far,
only MIT
has
refused to
comply.
The
others
have
been
largely
quiet
–
except
for
the
University
of
Texas,
which
gushed:
“We
enthusiastically
look
forward
to
engaging
with
university
officials
and
reviewing
the
compact
immediately.”
(It’s
Texas,
okay?)
Those
who
value
educational
independence
are
alarmed,
including
some
on
the
right.
“This
is
not
engagement,” writes conservative
David
Ramadan,
a
professor
at
George
Mason
University,
in
USA
Today.
“This
is
coercion
–
an
attempt
to
remake
higher
education
through
executive
fiat
and
financial
threat.”
Even
the
Wall
Street
Journal thinks
the
proposal
went
too
far,
though
its
main
objection
seems
to
be
the
five-year
tuition
freeze
and
the
15%
limit
on
international
students
–
that
free
market
stuff
–
rather
than
the
threat
to
free
speech
and
educational
autonomy.
So
what’s
positive
about
this
deal? Well,
who
doesn’t
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
–
to
name
some
colleges
on
Trump’s
hit
list
–
is
well-over
$72,000
a
year,
not
counting
room
and
board.
But
what
really
knocked
my
socks
off
was
the
directive
that
colleges
eliminate
gender
in
admissions,
along
with
race,
ethnicity,
and
sexual
orientation.
Does
the
Trump
administration
realize
what
this
will
mean
for
the
future
of
American
men?
Truth
is,
boys
and
men
need
an
extra
bump
to
play
in
the
sandbox.
“Affirmative
action
for
men
has
been
an
open
secret
for
decades,”
says
admissions
consultant
Anna
Ivey,
a
former
admissions
dean
at
the
University
of
Chicago
Law
School.
To
opponents
of
DEI,
though,
“affirmative
action
just
means
women
and
people
of
color,”
Ivey
tells
me.
Fact
is
females outperform
males from
the
get
go
–
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 outnumber men
in
the
associate
ranks.
(Interestingly,
women
make
up
only
42%
of
MBA
students.)
As
any
parent
who’s
played
the
school
admissions
game
knows,
boys
get
brownie
points.
I
can’t
tell
you
how
many
open
houses
I’ve
been
to
–
from
nursery
schools
to
colleges
–
where
the
admissions
officer
talks
about
the
importance
of
striving
for
a
“gender-balanced”
class.
As
the
mother
of
girls,
I
know
the
subtext:
too
bad
your
kid
isn’t
a
boy.
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
–
leaving
men
in
the
dust.
Poor
men.
It
seems
they’ve
been
screwed.
Just
when
they
thought
this
administration
was
going
to
reset
America
and
make
masculinity
great
again,
it’s
women
who’ll
win
with
this
policy.
Oh,
what
havoc
Trump
has
wreaked
by
pulling
the
DEI
rug
out
from
under
the
men
of
America.
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’s
no
mention
about
ridding
preferential
treatment
for
children
of
alumni
or
big
donors.
(Not
that
I’d
ever
suggest
that
Trump
and
his
children
didn’t
get
into
Wharton
based
on
their
stellar
academic
records,
or
that Jared
Kushner’s
admission
to
Harvard had
anything
to
do
with
his
dad’s
$2.5
million
donation
to
that
college.)
All
this
is
to
say
that
privilege
has
its
privileges,
and
affirmative
action
for
men
will
continue
unabated
–
with
Pete
Hegseth,
our brawniest
secretary
of
war,
as
the
ultimate
poster
child.
Except
we’re
not
allowed
to
call
it
that,
because
how
can
something
as
low
rent
as
affirmative
action
possibly
apply
to
them?
Subscribe
to
read
more
at
The
Ex-Careerist….
Vivia
Chen writes “The
Ex-Careerist” column
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:
