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.
Larry Summers, who is now “sort of” a hero to the right (because he brought up possible sex differences as a reason for the low number of women in physics and mathematics), denied tenure to a 54-year-old historian (who had gone through the hoops (departmental and provost) and been recommended for tenure) on the grounds that he was too old.
Here’s Google AI’s take:
>
The phrase “Summers denied tenure [to a] historian [because their] best work [was] behind him” refers to a controversial statement attributed to former Harvard President Lawrence Summers, which led to speculation about his views on age and tenure. 
In 2002, Lawrence Summers caused a significant controversy by reportedly overriding the unanimous recommendations of their departments to deny tenure to two 54-year-old scholars: Istvan Hont, a political theorist, and Karol Berger, a music historian. 
During this period, Summers reportedly stated his general policy that age was a reasonable factor to consider in the tenure process, and emphasized recruiting “younger faculty”. The phrase “best work behind him” was a common characterization or interpretation of his view on older candidates, suggesting he preferred younger faculty with “greater upside” and future promise over established scholars whose most significant work might already be published. 
The tenure denials, along with other issues regarding his leadership style and the handling of the Cornel West case, contributed to a major rift with the faculty that eventually led to Summers’ resignation as Harvard president in 2006.
<
That being said, the cases listed by the author are exceptional–there is tremendous academic deadwood, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. Here's a modest suggestion–review tenure every five years. For those who are no longer productive scholars, move them into teaching positions at the same university (so instead of 2-4 classes/year, they would teach 9). If they don't like this, then they can always move to another school (if anyone wants them). In other words, tenure doesn't protect academic freedom if you aren't doing any academic research. One of the big impetuses to the decline of tenure is with the removal of mandatory retirement age, we now have professors who are hanging on to tenured positions into their 80's and even 90's, having not produced anything remotely useful academically for 40-50 years!
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?!?
Are you on the hook for the medical cost of being female and perpetuating the species both physically and financially?
I didnt feel any female privilege when I was raped and when cops who were men didnt do anything about 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.
So what you’re saying is, unless they hire you who is a white man that they are automatically biased for wanting a diverse workforce so unless they hire 100% all abled white guys who got all the Because they aren’t disabled and they are male and they cannot have babies Which then makes it legitimate to discriminate against women because women have babies (and are physically capable usually weaker) and that’s a difference and then you have to allow them time off work and well you don’t want to do that do you because that’s just expensive so you’re just gonna hire men and you’re not gonna hire anybody disabled and you’re not gonna hire anybody who’s elderly because they will be disabled with health issues soon if they dont already. That’s MERIT!
It’s why the cause of disability and elderly are linked but if you are like me and born disabled and were segregated in school you have basically zero opportunity without “sheltered work”. And it took a while for me to get an autism diagnosis because they were only tracking male symptoms and not those more common in females because they didnt want to deal with the hormone differences in research.
Anyway welcome to the disabled club. Or soon to be disabled club. You’re only going to get hired through a diversity action. You don’t have merits and mess with the pro social “work culture” many places want to build.
Like if you’re just against diversity equity and inclusion like I mean look up the definition of diversity then look up the definition of equity and then look up the definition of inclusion. Dictionary definition. I’m tired of people trying to do backflips.
There is no reason why unless you’re a jerk that there shouldn’t be proportional hiring of all groups to make stuff more fair and we should include elders which should mean there should be more people over 50 than under to represent the demographics of this country. And if we did that? Then you would actually have an edge when it comes to hiring. And I still wouldnt cause Im a 34 year old autistic woman who never got hired. And there is reasons why autistic women are way less likely than autistic men to get a job of any sort. And it’s reasons I laid out in the opener.
Life isnt fair. And I think we could be making it more fair.
“taking “into consideration a person’s unique circumstances, adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal.”
This is what I basically had all through school as a disabled person in k-12. Why was it ok to make me equal in k-12 but not after I grew up? Suddenly I was denied participation and help to participate at all just because I graduated. I still needed help. I tried college and it doest do IEPs. So yeah i have been denied equal rights ever since I became an adult. Don’t worry you will get used to being like me. It will encompass significantly less of your life and you are still being invited to write mean things which is more than I get.
Despite women significantly performing better in school They are not getting significantly better jobs than men. And they are not getting significantly better pay than men. Despite the fact that women have clearly more merit than men do. Because they’re discriminated against because they are women. Because they have babies. Or because they perceived as potentially weaker than men. And it’s seen as legitimate to hire men over women every single time. Women should rightfully have the same opportunities as men but because they care for the next generation so much and the previous generation so much, they are passed over for promotions because they are women and they perform the woman gender role.
And you know you made excuses to Not consider peoples circumstances for why they had to take family leave. Just that they took it and so therefore they should be passed over for promotion on the basis of having children They actually take care of. Or having health issues. I mean that’s been your entire argument when your arguing against diversity equity and inclusion. So why should you get any special treatment? Literally arguing the very thing that would help you.
Yeah like why would anyone hire somebody who is autistic over somebody who isn’t autistic because “merit” alone, the person who isn’t autistic is going to be able to do more. And so they automatically have more merit and so they automatically will get hired over me. I never got the opportunity to work anywhere so I don’t have experience and so I don’t have any merit, I couldn’t go to school because I’m autistic and so I couldn’t gain any merit. And so I continue to lack and merit as I continue through my existence because people refuse to hire me because I’m autistic because autistic people inherently have less merit than people who aren’t.
By virtue of being autistic And having very visible autistic behavior I am less than other people On the merits. And you know they don’t want to be seen as pity hiring so I never will get hired. Just because I’m autistic.
And that’s why I hiring autistic people on purpose. And specifically to diversify your workforce and to add the merits of an autistic person on the workforce and not on disability and to improve the mental health of autistic people by giving Them purpose and meaning in the community and the right to participate With dignity like everybody else.
But you’re sitting here arguing against that. And of course I am against you. Because it would be my best interest! Since I’m 34 years old with no work experience going through the developmental disabilities administration trying to get sheltered work. Which you are against Because you think people should only be hired on the basis of me and Not on the basis of what they can bring to the team That’s different than other people.
One clear merit that a lot of people seem to value in the workforce is names that are very easy to pronounce. And the other thing that they value is people who lie a lot on the little entrance exam that they give you. And since I’m not going to lie I’m never going to get hired. I’m also being declared completely unable to work by SSI you know. I’m going through the developmental disabilities and ministration get some rehabilitation going or you know probably one of the 90% of autistic drop out of the rehabilitation. But at least I can say I tried that too.