White House Asks Colleges to Sign Sweeping Agreement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

The only problem with your point is that it isn’t helping the people in theory it is supposed to help.

There is an economist Roland Fryer who is a conservative AA who does believe in things like affirmative action but he noted at Harvard that most of the URMs are actually wealthier than the overall student body because many are children of international dignitaries and/or wealthy people in foreign countries.

He actually would be fine if it was used to identify high potential American kids who need the boost…but that’s not what the colleges are doing.

That may be the case with Harvard, but it is not the general case across America.

Fryer’s research did not say that. It said that the Black families had income levels higher than the typical Black family, but that does not at all mean that they had income levels higher than than whites. This is a manipulated stat used to support a common MAGA talking point.

PP was spot on with their breakdown of why we need DEI policies. The people against it are the same ones who don’t want to teach the history of slavery because it is no longer relevant in their mind — even though millions are still feeling the long term consequences.

He wrote an editorial in the Washington Post.

Here is the key paragraph regarding the above:

But affirmative action is very often not targeted at individuals who, because of disadvantage, are achieving below their potential. Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds. A tiny fraction attended underperforming public high schools. First- and second-generation African immigrants, despite constituting only about 10 percent of the U.S. Black population, make up about 41 percent of all Black students in the Ivy League, and Black immigrants are wealthier and better educated than many native-born Black Americans.

I guess there is not a definition of wealthy here to know if that means richer than the overall population, but I assumed it meant they don't receive any financial aid and 55% of Harvard receives FA...so, wouldn't that mean they are wealthier than the overall student body?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U penn announced they are not signing. I will be surprised if anyone does. It’s ridiculous.

UPenn has not released any official announcement saying they are not signing it. There was an announcement from a faculty committee telling the President not to sign, but the only official correspondence from yesterday is as follows:

To the Penn Community:

As extensively reported in the media, Penn is one of nine universities that recently received a proposal from the Secretary of Education and other senior leaders in the U.S. administration titled, “Compact for Excellence in Higher Education.” We have been asked to provide feedback by October 20, 2025.

The review and response to this proposal will rely on a set of principles drawn from Penn’s values and mission: freedom of inquiry and thought, free expression, non-discrimination, adherence to American laws and the Constitution of the United States, and our own governance.

The long-standing partnership with the federal government in both education and research has yielded tremendous benefits for our nation. Penn seeks no special consideration. We strive to be supported based on the excellence of our work, our scholars and students, and the programs and services we provide to our neighbors and to the world.

In the coming days, I will continue to seek the input of our Penn community, including our Deans, the Faculty Senate, University leaders, and the Board of Trustees, and I will communicate further as we continue to manage this process.



Sincerely,

J. Larry Jameson, MD, PhD
President
University of Pennsylvania

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

The only problem with your point is that it isn’t helping the people in theory it is supposed to help.

There is an economist Roland Fryer who is a conservative AA who does believe in things like affirmative action but he noted at Harvard that most of the URMs are actually wealthier than the overall student body because many are children of international dignitaries and/or wealthy people in foreign countries.

He actually would be fine if it was used to identify high potential American kids who need the boost…but that’s not what the colleges are doing.

That may be the case with Harvard, but it is not the general case across America.

Fryer’s research did not say that. It said that the Black families had income levels higher than the typical Black family, but that does not at all mean that they had income levels higher than than whites. This is a manipulated stat used to support a common MAGA talking point.

PP was spot on with their breakdown of why we need DEI policies. The people against it are the same ones who don’t want to teach the history of slavery because it is no longer relevant in their mind — even though millions are still feeling the long term consequences.

DEI only pits one minority groups against all the others. White people benefit the most. Their percentage remains steady. The highest performing students are regularly, unfairly, disproportionately excluded from the process compared to the proportion who exceed the standard. Each new scheme is meant to hold them, and only them, back. For example, admissions went from a focus on grades to test scores to sports to music to activities and finally to some amorphous thing called "holistic," which is just a code word for, "we couldn't find anything else to try and block you."

[Anonymous]

A few days ago Dartmouth's president said she's not signing the agreement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

The only problem with your point is that it isn’t helping the people in theory it is supposed to help.

There is an economist Roland Fryer who is a conservative AA who does believe in things like affirmative action but he noted at Harvard that most of the URMs are actually wealthier than the overall student body because many are children of international dignitaries and/or wealthy people in foreign countries.

He actually would be fine if it was used to identify high potential American kids who need the boost…but that’s not what the colleges are doing.

That may be the case with Harvard, but it is not the general case across America.

Fryer’s research did not say that. It said that the Black families had income levels higher than the typical Black family, but that does not at all mean that they had income levels higher than than whites. This is a manipulated stat used to support a common MAGA talking point.

PP was spot on with their breakdown of why we need DEI policies. The people against it are the same ones who don’t want to teach the history of slavery because it is no longer relevant in their mind — even though millions are still feeling the long term consequences.

He wrote an editorial in the Washington Post.

Here is the key paragraph regarding the above:

But affirmative action is very often not targeted at individuals who, because of disadvantage, are achieving below their potential. Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds. A tiny fraction attended underperforming public high schools. First- and second-generation African immigrants, despite constituting only about 10 percent of the U.S. Black population, make up about 41 percent of all Black students in the Ivy League, and Black immigrants are wealthier and better educated than many native-born Black Americans.

I guess there is not a definition of wealthy here to know if that means richer than the overall population, but I assumed it meant they don't receive any financial aid and 55% of Harvard receives FA...so, wouldn't that mean they are wealthier than the overall student body?

I think it was taken out of context, and there is no definition of “wealthy” as you noted. Wealthy African American and Hispanic income is not the same as Wealthy white income levels. This survey is a bit dated, but here is a link from the Harvard Crimson on the class of 2022: https://features.thecrimson.com/2018/freshman-survey/makeup-narrative/

White students were more likely than were students belonging to any other demographic to report an annual income above $250,000. About 33.5 percent of white freshmen did so. A much smaller percentage of admits of color — 21.6 percent of black students, 18.9 percent of Hispanic/Latinx students, and 19.7 percent of Asian students — reported a combined family income above that level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

The only problem with your point is that it isn’t helping the people in theory it is supposed to help.

There is an economist Roland Fryer who is a conservative AA who does believe in things like affirmative action but he noted at Harvard that most of the URMs are actually wealthier than the overall student body because many are children of international dignitaries and/or wealthy people in foreign countries.

He actually would be fine if it was used to identify high potential American kids who need the boost…but that’s not what the colleges are doing.

That may be the case with Harvard, but it is not the general case across America.

Fryer’s research did not say that. It said that the Black families had income levels higher than the typical Black family, but that does not at all mean that they had income levels higher than than whites. This is a manipulated stat used to support a common MAGA talking point.

PP was spot on with their breakdown of why we need DEI policies. The people against it are the same ones who don’t want to teach the history of slavery because it is no longer relevant in their mind — even though millions are still feeling the long term consequences.

DEI only pits one minority groups against all the others. White people benefit the most. Their percentage remains steady. The highest performing students are regularly, unfairly, disproportionately excluded from the process compared to the proportion who exceed the standard. Each new scheme is meant to hold them, and only them, back. For example, admissions went from a focus on grades to test scores to sports to music to activities and finally to some amorphous thing called "holistic," which is just a code word for, "we couldn't find anything else to try and block you."

Not really tracking your logic to be honest, but I also don’t want to further contribute to going off topic, so I will keep this short. The point is that many colleges (i.e. - the ones worth considering) want to do a better job of reflecting the general population. White are always going to make up the largest group as they do in real life, but they shouldn’t over index, as it otherwise shows that we as a society or doing something wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A few days ago Dartmouth's president said she's not signing the agreement

no, she said something very similar to what Penn's president said. She never addressed signing/not signing directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone excited about a tuition freeze should think again. These schools will add or greatly increase “fees” and boarding. Get ready for $10k fees and $30k room and board.

They will also increase out of state admissions and decrease merit. This really stinks for middle class families and those hoping to stay in state. It’s great for rich people who can save a little extra and who won’t see seats go to those who need merit aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

The only problem with your point is that it isn’t helping the people in theory it is supposed to help.

There is an economist Roland Fryer who is a conservative AA who does believe in things like affirmative action but he noted at Harvard that most of the URMs are actually wealthier than the overall student body because many are children of international dignitaries and/or wealthy people in foreign countries.

He actually would be fine if it was used to identify high potential American kids who need the boost…but that’s not what the colleges are doing.

That may be the case with Harvard, but it is not the general case across America.

Fryer’s research did not say that. It said that the Black families had income levels higher than the typical Black family, but that does not at all mean that they had income levels higher than than whites. This is a manipulated stat used to support a common MAGA talking point.

PP was spot on with their breakdown of why we need DEI policies. The people against it are the same ones who don’t want to teach the history of slavery because it is no longer relevant in their mind — even though millions are still feeling the long term consequences.

He wrote an editorial in the Washington Post.

Here is the key paragraph regarding the above:

But affirmative action is very often not targeted at individuals who, because of disadvantage, are achieving below their potential. Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds. A tiny fraction attended underperforming public high schools. First- and second-generation African immigrants, despite constituting only about 10 percent of the U.S. Black population, make up about 41 percent of all Black students in the Ivy League, and Black immigrants are wealthier and better educated than many native-born Black Americans.

I guess there is not a definition of wealthy here to know if that means richer than the overall population, but I assumed it meant they don't receive any financial aid and 55% of Harvard receives FA...so, wouldn't that mean they are wealthier than the overall student body?

Obama’s dad was an African immigrant but you don’t think his rise to the presidency was inspiring for the Black Americans whose families have been in this country for centuries? I think it’s helpful for Black Americans to see Black people in the positions of power in this country, even if those people did come from less disadvantaged backgrounds. I also think focusing the conversation on the Ivy League sort of misses the point. What about all the schools in the 50-100 ranking that have used DEI? I bet the results would be different if you looked at them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Trump worried about using gender in admissions? Doesn’t he realize that the number of boys will go way down if colleges aren’t allowed to balance the class for gender?

Hilarious. If this is followed, elite math, physics, and engineering programs will be 90% male.

Yes but there’s other majors- also not really. The top 10% of elite college stem majors would be men but there’s plenty of women at the top in these fields. Even if there weren’t, you’re neglecting biology, chemistry, neuroscience,…there are a lot less qualified men than women. Our admissions process isn’t just SAT scores- you have to actually be able to engage with community and write well.

This is just more lower IQ thinking. Those lesser sciences could easily be (and commonly are) done by men. CEOs and politicians tend to be mostly men and they seem to speak just fine. Most doctors acclaimed for their skill or innovation are men. And which brilliant mathematicians and scientists "have to actually be able to engage with community and write well?" Yours is absurd thinking.

You think biology and chemistry are lesser sciences?

I’m sorry. Physics is a wonderful subject and deeply intricate but current research involves smashing particles together, looking outside of our planet and essentially being a software engineer for space, being a trainee engineer (looking at you optics), and….being unemployable (theoretical).

Biologist and chemists are studying diseases that can kill you. I’ll take the cancer researcher as more important than some guy trying to find the next fundamental particle any day. Maybe the latter’s more intelligent, but it’s almost entirely useless for most of mankind- they frankly might be more useful doing something else entirely.

Very off topic but the physicist in my family studies climate change which is essentially a heat transfer (physics) problem. That’s pretty useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the vitriol about DEI.

Overwhelmingly, DEI has led to race/ethnic admissions in proportion to the general population. It’s not like Harvard is admitting a class 100% of black and Hispanics.

And while some/most DEI admits may not have the highest test scores or accomplishments of the entire application pool, they are the elite of their demographic.

If our country is ever to put race/ethnic problems “behind us,” there needs to be opportunity and future role models for these groups. It is progressive - in a good way - for our society to think about inclusivity because that eventually creates a more shared basis for democracy and civility. On the other hand, allowing one portion of the population to hoard all the opportunities is not a recipe for shared prosperity.

To make an analogy, the more people who participate in the stock market, the more people who support capitalism. But when only some people grow rich through the market, the have nots grow resentful. And, MAGA shows us what happens when people become resentful.

The only problem with your point is that it isn’t helping the people in theory it is supposed to help.

There is an economist Roland Fryer who is a conservative AA who does believe in things like affirmative action but he noted at Harvard that most of the URMs are actually wealthier than the overall student body because many are children of international dignitaries and/or wealthy people in foreign countries.

He actually would be fine if it was used to identify high potential American kids who need the boost…but that’s not what the colleges are doing.

That may be the case with Harvard, but it is not the general case across America.

Fryer’s research did not say that. It said that the Black families had income levels higher than the typical Black family, but that does not at all mean that they had income levels higher than than whites. This is a manipulated stat used to support a common MAGA talking point.

PP was spot on with their breakdown of why we need DEI policies. The people against it are the same ones who don’t want to teach the history of slavery because it is no longer relevant in their mind — even though millions are still feeling the long term consequences.

DEI only pits one minority groups against all the others. White people benefit the most. Their percentage remains steady. The highest performing students are regularly, unfairly, disproportionately excluded from the process compared to the proportion who exceed the standard. Each new scheme is meant to hold them, and only them, back. For example, admissions went from a focus on grades to test scores to sports to music to activities and finally to some amorphous thing called "holistic," which is just a code word for, "we couldn't find anything else to try and block you."

DP: You seem to be talking about Affirmative Action, which is not DEI.