In a bold and controversial move, former President Donald Trump has proposed a new compact aimed at radically transforming college admissions policies. Dubbed the "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education," it targets nine prestigious U.S. colleges, urging them to overhaul their admissions criteria by removing considerations of gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

The compact not only demands adherence to specific administrative viewpoints, including a ban on institutional units that critique conservative ideas but also threatens to withhold federal funds from institutions that choose not to comply. Trump's administration asserts that such a shift will prioritize academic merit, potentially reshaping the demographic landscape of American higher education.

The proposal has received a mixed reception. The University of Texas expressed enthusiasm about reviewing the compact, while MIT has outright refused to comply, highlighting the divisions within the academic community over the issue. Critics, including some conservative figures, argue that the proposal is less about fostering excellence and more about imposing a political agenda on educational institutions.

The benefits for colleges that agree to Trump’s terms include priority access to federal funds and a fast-track presumption of compliance with civil rights laws. Interestingly, the proposal also includes measures like a five-year tuition freeze, which has garnered bipartisan support due to the soaring costs of higher education.

However, the aspect of the proposal that has sparked the most debate is the elimination of gender from admissions considerations. This move, according to admissions consultant Anna Ivey, could inadvertently lead to an increase in female students across universities, as historical data shows women outperforming men academically at various educational levels.

The potential increase in female enrollment raises questions about the future demographic balance in higher education and professional fields. Some speculate that without gender considerations, women could dominate not only student bodies across the nation but also, eventually, professional sectors traditionally led by men.

Despite these bold predictions, skeptics argue that such outcomes are unlikely to materialize. They point out the absence of any measures to eliminate legacy admissions and donations from influential families as evidence that the proposal might not be as meritocratic as it claims. This selective approach to admissions reform suggests that traditional forms of privilege will likely remain intact, contradicting the merit-based ethos the compact promotes.

As the debate continues, the academic world waits to see how many more institutions will either align with or reject Trump’s controversial vision for America’s educational future. The implications of this policy, if widely adopted, could lead to significant shifts in both the demographic makeup of student bodies and the ideological battles fought on campuses across the country.