President Donald Trump should be commended for his resolute efforts to rid the nation’s colleges and universities of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) practices that discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, gender, and ethnicity in violation of federal law. The President correctly believes that employment and admissions decisions should be made, and are required by law to be made, on the basis of merit.
For example, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) October 1, 2025, Compact for Excellence in Higher Education proclaims the following with respect to employment practices:
A steadfast commitment to rigorous and meritocratic selection based on objective and measurable criteria in the appointment process is pivotal for the University’s sustained excellence. Consistent with the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts and other federal employment discrimination statutes, no factor such as sex, ethnicity, race, national origin, disability, or religion shall be considered in any decision related to the appointment, advancement, or reappointment of academic, administrative, or support staff at any level, except as described in section 9 or otherwise provided by Title VII or other federal employment discrimination statutes.
I could not agree more. That said, age is missing from the Compact’s list of illegal non-merit-based factors. I presume this was an oversight, and that the Trump administration would concur that, like all entities employing 20 or more people, it is illegal for colleges and universities to take an individual’s age into account in employment decisions. Indeed, the list is prefaced by “such as,” which is a phrase used to introduce an example or series of examples.
[RELATED: Why Universities Should Welcome (and Sign) Trump’s Compact]
Moreover, the cover letter accompanying the Compact mentions that the ED “welcome[s] limited, targeted feedback to ensure mutual alignment.” I strongly suspect that adding age to the list of examples of factors that cannot be considered in higher education employment decisions would be acceptable to the Trump administration. After all, several federal civil rights statutes expressly forbid discrimination against individuals on the basis of age in employment practices. The three most significant are the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA).
The ADEA is the principal federal law addressing age discrimination in the workplace. It protects individuals aged 40 and older from age-based discrimination. The ADEA is enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 bars age discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. It applies to individuals of all ages, although it allows for certain age distinctions if specific requirements are met. The U.S. Department of Labor enforces this law.
In 1990, the ADEA was amended by the OWBPA, which protects older employees aged 40 and above from age discrimination in employee benefits and ensures they receive equal benefits compared to younger workers. It is enforced by the EEOC.
Other federal laws likewise forbid age discrimination, as do numerous state laws. Unfortunately, many colleges and universities routinely discriminate against individuals on the basis of age, either by refusing to hire them or by harassing them to retire.
I hope that President Trump requires colleges and universities to stop engaging in those practices. Not only are they illegal, but they are inconsistent with the merit-based fact that some of the most significant academicians did their most important work decades past 40. In truth, older professors often have more merit than their younger colleagues because of their experience and accomplishments.
[RELATED: Just Say No to Discrimination]
To mention three of my historian heroes, Bernard Bailyn penned The Barbarous Years: The Peopling of British North America: The Conflict of Civilizations, 1600-1675 when he was 90; George Athan Billias won the New England Historical Association’s 2010 book award for American Constitutionalism Heard Round the World, 1776-1989: A Global Perspective at 90; and Gordon S. Wood authored Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution when he was 88. I also should note that a longtime member of the National Association of Scholars’ Board of Directors, economics professor Richard K. Vedder, published Let Colleges Fail: The Power of Creative Destruction in Higher Education, the third part of his higher education trilogy, earlier this year at 85.
In closing, the nation’s colleges and universities should familiarize themselves with Congress’s statement of findings and purpose that opens the ADEA and comply with it. I will conclude this essay by quoting it in full:
SEC. 621. [Section 2]
(a) The Congress hereby finds and declares that-
(1) in the face of rising productivity and affluence, older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs;
(2) the setting of arbitrary age limits regardless of potential for job performance has become a common practice, and certain otherwise desirable practices may work to the disadvantage of older persons;
(3) the incidence of unemployment, especially long-term unemployment with resultant deterioration of skill, morale, and employer acceptability is, relative to the younger ages, high among older workers; their numbers are great and growing; and their employment problems grave;
(4) the existence in industries affecting commerce, of arbitrary discrimination in employment because of age, burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce.
(b) It is therefore the purpose of this chapter to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment; to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.
Image by Vitalii Vodolazskyi on Adobe; Asset ID#: 132214651
Age as the untold aspect of the Bakke case, Allan Bakke was 32 when he applied to medical school, ten years older than the traditional applicant, Bakke was 38 when finally admitted.
Bakke, a Vetnam Vet, was considered too old to train to be a MD.
The irony is that Patrick Chavis, the minority applicant who got Bakke’s seat in med school, had his license REVOKED in 1997 after he killed a woman and nearly killed two others. Bakke, on the other hand, had a quiet career in Minnesota.
So, let me get this straight — discrimination is unacceptable unless it’s disguised as opposition to DEI? You can’t cherry-pick which biases to condemn and still claim to value merit. Dismantling DEI doesn’t protect fairness; it protects privilege. And if you believe age bias is wrong, you’ve already proven why DEI matters.
Fairness isn’t conditional — and when it is, it ceases to be fairness at all.
I’m going to regret asking this, but how does ending privilege protect privilege?
Everyone who benefited from male privilege in higher ed is now dead — it’s been female privilege for the past 55 years. So ending it would protect it?!?
” And if you believe age bias is wrong, you’ve already proven why DEI matters.”
You do understand that there is a difference between (a) not refusing to hire someone because of a physical characteristic and (b) being required to hire someone because of a physical characteristic.
In case you don’t, let me explain it in terms of inter-racial dating (in any gender combination).
It is one thing to be PREVENTED FROM dating someone of a different race (Loving v. Virginia).
It’s something else entirely to tell you who you can date.