Washington Post: Trump's Attack on DEI May Hurt White Men
- Thread starter jwinfield
- Start date
Sir Richard Spirit
Superstar
@jwinfield
Do you want me to post the article? If I remember correctly the article was about men vs women.
Do you want me to post the article? If I remember correctly the article was about men vs women.
always trying to placate, feed or sadiate the white ego
slave morality ass motherfukkers
slave morality ass motherfukkers
Personally i think the fallout will affect the asians more in the longrun. Particularly because of those disenfranchised, and entitled white men.
Mark my words that Asians are gonna have their own tulsa moment when those white people realize their own sons aren't getting into the schools they paid to build, or that their white families previously graduated from.
The asian percentage at a place like harvard is almost equal to the white one after their post dei 30% gains. Wonder what will happen when they surpass whites? What Asians don't understand is they can only exist in the position that they exist in because of the battles black people fought. With the exception of the Japanese who still remember iinternment, they are short-term thinkers and they didnt learn from the stop asian hate era.
So im damn certain they will have a rude awakening when they have eliminated all the black students and have to fight the impending battle alone. I don't believe for a second that a Stephen miller or Steve bannon doesn't have plans to pack them up like they are doing the latinos. White people are experts at changing the rules of the game when somebody else is winning.
Mark my words that Asians are gonna have their own tulsa moment when those white people realize their own sons aren't getting into the schools they paid to build, or that their white families previously graduated from.
The asian percentage at a place like harvard is almost equal to the white one after their post dei 30% gains. Wonder what will happen when they surpass whites? What Asians don't understand is they can only exist in the position that they exist in because of the battles black people fought. With the exception of the Japanese who still remember iinternment, they are short-term thinkers and they didnt learn from the stop asian hate era.
So im damn certain they will have a rude awakening when they have eliminated all the black students and have to fight the impending battle alone. I don't believe for a second that a Stephen miller or Steve bannon doesn't have plans to pack them up like they are doing the latinos. White people are experts at changing the rules of the game when somebody else is winning.
Last edited:
Nope. Not afraid of the men like that and they like being with their women, at least for East and South East Asians. There may be more push back for Indians but overall they are non threatening on a racial level, so thinking that white people en masse are going to flip on them without a major war/conflict involving China or India is wrong.
I disagree.
Surely you lived through 2021 just like the rest of us. In one moment all of that model minority nonsense went out the window and the whole East Asian community was pulled off their perch. White people en masse have artificially uplifted them. Surely you remember White people Had Asians running infomercials begging them to still do bussiness with them, begging them not to avoid them in schools or places of bussiness, begging the president to stop insulting them, begging whites to stop assaulting them(like the nail spa), etc.
The whole concept of them being non-threatening is arbitrary too. I encourage you to look up newsreels on asians from the 1940s 1930s 1870s and see that they were not treated much better in the past until post civil Rights era where they were arbitrarily uplifted as a foil to black people. Koreans, chinese, japanese, filipinos, etc were characterized as drunks, lazy, gamblers, and opium friends for most of American history. The trope of them being mild-mannered and hard-working is younger than our parents are. I remember doing a college assignment on their historical representation ages ago.
All I'm saying is, once the key institutions are stuffed with east asians (Indians too) , they will be pulled down from their perch again. This is why I draw the analogy back to Tulsa. When you have these white people struggling, and they see a thriving community of nonwhite people succeeding, they will get their pitchforks out. Even the uproar with latinos is because they can very clearly see themselves being crowded out in various institutions.
I also disagree with the idea that just because your women are lusted after, there wont be retribution for the race. There were mixed babies all over the South at the height of jimcrow . And I guarantee you they weren't made by black men.
Last edited:
A handful of people getting slurs thrown at them is not the same as what black people have collectively dealt with. This has the been such a failed argument that I am still surprised that i still see it: That either other groups are going to finally "get it" and join with black people and our struggle, or white people are going to flip out on the other groups in meaningful numbers.
Has not happened and will not happen. The closest you will get to that is a group showing "solidarity" in order to get more resources for their group.
Kiyoshi-Dono
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 92,342
- Reputation
- 36,435
- Daps
- 493,202
- Reppin
- Petty Vandross.. fukk Yall
Everybody doesn’t recognize fly over states
These are the white people that will hurt and they voted for their own demise
These are the white people that will hurt and they voted for their own demise
As it should
get these nets
Veteran
Disagree with the editorial.
DEI included military vets, so the dismantling of it would limit opportunities for older white men who are vets.
But the ones who benefit most from equity programs are the ones who do not have alternative resources to make up for them, primarily financial resources. All the "bu bu but white women benefit" talk was hollow because in the absence of gender equity programs, these white women come from the same white families that their brothers do, and have access to the same resources.
White college age men wont take much of a hit, as the DEI programs that werent dismantled, now MUST accept white men as applicants/participants. So they are now eligible to apply for scholarships, fellowships, grants, etc that were earnarked for other groups previously.
Sir Richard Spirit
Superstar
Trump’s attack on DEI may hurt college men, particularly White men
The Trump administration’s ban on diversity, equity and inclusion also targets gender. The ban may impact gender balancing practices that often benefit college men.December 4, 2025 at 6:00 a.m. ESTDecember 4, 2025
8 min
Summary
Make us preferred on Google
Students on the Brown University campus in Providence, Rhode Island, earlier this year. (Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images)
By Jon Marcus
Brown University, one of the most selective institutions in America, attracted nearly 50,000 applicants who vied for just 1,700 freshman seats last year.
The university accepted nearly equal numbers of male and female prospects, though, like some other schools, it got nearly twice as many female applicants. That math meant it was easier for male students to get in — 7 percent of male applicants were admitted, compared with 4.4 percent of female applicants, university data shows.
The Trump administration’s policies may soon put an end to that advantage enjoyed by men at some colleges, admissions and higher-education experts say.
While much of the president’s recent scrutiny of college admissions practices has focused on race, these experts say his ban on diversity, equity and inclusion is likely to hit another underrepresented group of applicants: men, and particularly White men — the largest subset of male college applicants.
“This drips with irony,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, or ACE, the nation’s largest association of universities and colleges, who said he expects that colleges and universities will end any consideration of gender in admission. “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.”
Related: The latest group to get special attention from collegeadmissions offices: Men
For years, universities and colleges have been trying to keep the number of men and women on campuses evened out at a time when a growing number of men have been choosing not to go to college. Some schools have tried to attract more men by adding football and other sports, promoting forestry and hunting programs, and launching entrepreneurship competitions. Nationwide, the number of women on campuses has surpassed the number of men for more than four decades, with nearly 40 percent more women than men enrolled in higher education, federal data shows.
Efforts to admit applicants at higher rates based on gender are legal under a loophole in federal antidiscrimination law, one that’s used to keep the genders balanced on campuses.
But the Trump administration has consistently included gender among the characteristics it says it does not want schools to consider for admissions or hiring, along with race, ethnicity, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, gender identity or religious associations. The White House has so far not succeeded in its campaign to press a handful of elite schools to agree to the terms and sign a wide-ranging Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education in exchange for priority consideration for federal funding.
“The racial parts have gotten a lot more attention, but I know from having spoken with practitioners who work in college admissions, they have read very clearly that it says ‘race and gender’” in the administration’s pronouncements about ending preferences in admission, said Shaun Harper, founder and chief research scientist at the University of Southern California’s Race and Equity Center.
“What I think they don’t understand is that taking away the ability of colleges and universities to balance the gender composition of their incoming classes will ultimately have an impact on the college enrollment rates of White males. It is likely to impact them the most, as a matter of fact,” Harper said.
Agreements that the administration has reached with Brown, Columbia and Northwestern universities to settle allegations of antisemitism also include language about gender. In a statement announcing the Brown deal in July, Education Secretary Linda McMahon promised that “aspiring students will be judged solely on their merits, not their race or sex.”
Asked whether the agreement meant male applicants would no longer be admitted at higher rates than female applicants — which has helped Brown keep its undergraduate enrollment at almost exactly 50-50, university figures show, even with twice as many female applicants — spokesman Brian Clark said, “We have made no changes to our admissions practices in this regard.”
The Trump administration has also pledged to make all higher-education institutions submit details about the students they admit, including their gender, to find out whether they’re “discriminating against hard working American” prospective students, McMahon said in another statement.
Spokespeople for the Department of Education did not respond to questions about whether advantages in admissions based on gender will be scrutinized in the same way as purported advantages based on race.
Related: Inaccurate, impossible: Experts knock new Trump plan to collect college admissions data
Universities are looking at the administration’s edicts “and they’re saying, ‘Well, we’d rather be cautious than stick our neck out’” by continuing to give advantages to male applicants, said ACE’s Mitchell, who was undersecretary of education under President Barack Obama. “I think we will see people dropping gender preferences, even though it is still within the law.”
Colleges that have been accepting men at higher rates are trying to avoid a marketing problem they fear will crop up if campuses become too female, said Madeleine Rhyneer, who headed admissions offices at four private universities and colleges and is now vice president of consulting services and dean of enrollment management for the education consulting firm EAB. Colleges worry, “will men look at that and think, ‘That’s essentially a women’s college, and I don’t want to go there’?” Rhyneer said.
Related: Universities and colleges search for ways to reverse the decline in the ranks of male students
“For the Browns and Columbias and highly selective and very competitive institutions, [gender imbalance] is a problem,” she said. “They want to create what feels like a balanced climate.”
Sir Richard Spirit
Superstar
The results of ending this practice could be dramatic, experts predict. In 2023, the most recent year for which the figure is available, 817,035 more women than men applied to universities and colleges, federal data shows. Boys also have lower mean scores on the SAT in reading and writing, score lower overall on the ACT and have lower grade point averages in high school.
“If we were going to eliminate preferences for men, the undergraduate population would skew to 65 percent female overnight,” Mitchell said.
Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the right-leaning think tank the American Enterprise Institute, pointed out that similar predictions were made after the 2023 Supreme Court decision effectively ended race-conscious admissions practices in the case brought by a group called Students for Fair Admission.
The number of Black and Hispanic people enrolled at universities and colleges increased the following year, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
“Before [Students for Fair Admission] we heard colleges talk in apocalyptic terms of the implications for the racial composition of student bodies,” Hess said. “And after SFFA, there was a lot of ‘never mind.’”
The country’s top 50 private colleges and universities have two percentage points more male undergraduates than the top 50 flagship public universities, which do not consider gender in admission, according to research by Princeton economist Zachary Bleemer. He said this suggests that at least some are putting a thumb on the scale for male applicants.
Columbia took 3 percent of women applicants last year and 4 percent of men. At the University of Chicago, 5.6 percent of male applicants were accepted last year, compared with 3.7 percent of female applicants. The ratio at the University of Miami was 22.5 percent to 16.5 percent; and at Vassar College, 20.4 percent to 17.6 percent. None of these universities would respond when asked whether they would continue to accept higher percentages of men than women, and neither would others that do it, including Yale, Baylor and Tulane universities and Pomona College.
Private institutions are allowed to consider gender in admission under Title IX, the federal law otherwise banning discrimination by universities and colleges that get federal funding. That’s due to a loophole dating from when the law was passed, in 1971.
Erlenborn said at the time that forcing colleges to stop considering gender would be “one more giant step toward involvement by the federal government in the internal affairs of institutions of higher education.”
“If we were going to eliminate preferences for men, the undergraduate population would skew to 65 percent female overnight,” Mitchell said.
Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the right-leaning think tank the American Enterprise Institute, pointed out that similar predictions were made after the 2023 Supreme Court decision effectively ended race-conscious admissions practices in the case brought by a group called Students for Fair Admission.
The number of Black and Hispanic people enrolled at universities and colleges increased the following year, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
“Before [Students for Fair Admission] we heard colleges talk in apocalyptic terms of the implications for the racial composition of student bodies,” Hess said. “And after SFFA, there was a lot of ‘never mind.’”
The country’s top 50 private colleges and universities have two percentage points more male undergraduates than the top 50 flagship public universities, which do not consider gender in admission, according to research by Princeton economist Zachary Bleemer. He said this suggests that at least some are putting a thumb on the scale for male applicants.
Columbia took 3 percent of women applicants last year and 4 percent of men. At the University of Chicago, 5.6 percent of male applicants were accepted last year, compared with 3.7 percent of female applicants. The ratio at the University of Miami was 22.5 percent to 16.5 percent; and at Vassar College, 20.4 percent to 17.6 percent. None of these universities would respond when asked whether they would continue to accept higher percentages of men than women, and neither would others that do it, including Yale, Baylor and Tulane universities and Pomona College.
Private institutions are allowed to consider gender in admission under Title IX, the federal law otherwise banning discrimination by universities and colleges that get federal funding. That’s due to a loophole dating from when the law was passed, in 1971.
Erlenborn said at the time that forcing colleges to stop considering gender would be “one more giant step toward involvement by the federal government in the internal affairs of institutions of higher education.”
