The Impact of Trump’s DEI Executive Orders on College Admissions: An Unexpected Backlash?

The landscape of higher education is shifting dramatically following President Trump’s sweeping executive orders issued in January, which targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. While the focus of these policies prominently spotlighted race and marginalized groups, a closer examination reveals that another demographic may be inadvertently affected: men, specifically White men. This development adds a complex layer to the ongoing discussion about admissions practices in colleges and universities.

At prestigious institutions like Brown University, recent statistics highlight a troubling trend: the incoming first-year class consisted of only 7 percent men compared to 4.4 percent women. As institutions strive for gender balance among incoming classes, the enrollment gap is alarming, especially since data indicates that women are enrolling in higher education at rates 40 percent greater than men. This discrepancy presents a paradox; with increasing numbers of men opting out of college, it seems they may have found an unexpected ally in the recent policy changes.

Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education (ACE)—the largest association of colleges and universities in the U.S.—observes this conflicting scenario. He anticipates that colleges will likely abandon gender considerations in admissions, stating, “the idea of males, including White males, being at the short end of the stick all of a sudden would be a truly ironic outcome.” This unintended consequence of policy could redefine the demographic dynamics of college admissions.

In addition to changes within higher education, several corporations, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, are aligning their practices with the Trump administration’s policies, stepping back from DEI efforts. However, many elite institutions remain hesitant to fully comply with the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, which advocates for the cessation of affirmative action, tuition freezes, and caps on international student enrollments, among other measures. The trend raises questions about the future of institutional integrity in the face of federal funding pressures.

The administration’s shift in policy places gender alongside race as criteria that should not be considered in hiring or admissions decisions. Shaun Harper, founder and chief research scientist at the University of Southern California’s Race and Equity Center, emphasizes the broader implications of these directives. “The racial parts have gotten a lot more attention,” he notes, “but it says ‘race and gender,’ and colleges are reading that clearly.” Harper warns that the inability to factor in gender balance may disproportionately affect White males, a situation many may not foresee.

The ripple effects of Trump’s DEI policy are already being felt nationwide. Notable resignations, including that of a president from the University of Virginia, underscore the tension between institutional leaders and the administration. Former supporters of Trump’s agenda have also begun to voice their criticisms. Take, for example, Candace Owens, who recently expressed her discontent with the administration’s handling of college relations. “I never thought that I would see a day where I would be rooting for a university above Donald J. Trump,” she remarked, emphasizing a growing disillusionment with the current political climate.

Owens articulates a theory that sheds light on a broader concern regarding free speech and academic freedom. “Going after college universities, trying to suppress speech while you’re telling us that you’re not suppressing speech… it’s so messy. It’s so obvious. Everyone knows what you’re doing.” Her perspective reflects a growing unease about how policies ostensibly designed to remove bias may lead to further complexities and challenges within the academic landscape.