Back in the days when the Republican Party was actually conservative, Republicans believed in small government. They said repeatedly that the federal government should not interfere with decisions made by local governments and private institutions.
The Trump administration is not conservative. It believes that it should impose its ideology on every kind of institution and every level of government.
Trump’s personal hatred of immigrants, of affirmative action, of any kind of program to help members of historically disadvantaged groups knows no bounds. His administration is on the hunt to stamp out anything that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion. In addition to satisfying his (and Stephen Miller’s) personal hatreds, the war on DEI appeals to unsuccessful white men who think that underrepresented groups got advantages unavailable to them.
Here is the latest intrusion: Trump officials want to stamp out any reference to DEI in college admission essays. Students who have prevailed over adversity should be careful not to mention it, especially if they are Black or immigrants. Colleges are wondering how they will pay for this new federal demand.
This student was warned not to write about her life!
Mo Marie Lauyanne Kouame, 18, dreams of being an aerospace engineer and building spacecraft. This fall, she applied to MIT, Princeton, and Columbia.
For one college essay, she wrote about being homeless at 8 years old, when she came to the United States from France.
She recalled watching her parents fight for help from the Department of Transitional Assistance and sleeping in hospital beds at Boston Medical Center when they didn’t know where else to go. That early experience changed her, she said.
“Homelessness,” she wrote, “taught me resilience.”
Kouame’s essay, which recounts how she learned to thrive as a low-income student of color “surrounded by classmates whose lives felt worlds apart from mine,” is about overcoming adversity.
That’s a theme the White House has identified as a problem in its campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion. Over the past year, the federal government has flagged “cues” such as personal essays, along with narratives about “overcoming obstacles” and “diversity statements,” as being potentially unlawful: a stand-in for talking about race.
More than two years have passed since the Supreme Court ended race-conscious affirmative action, and the Trump administration has since demanded colleges submit data proving they don’t consider race in admissions. It has also expanded what it sees as “discriminatory admissions processes” to include considering a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, nationality, political views, and religious associations.
For Kouame, not writing about her identity felt “impossible,” she said in a Zoom interview, “because the things that I’ve gone through in life make me who I am now.”
Other students are weighing the pros and cons, said Ethan Sawyer, founder of College Essay Guy, which offers one-on-one coaching and free online resources through the admissions process. He added the key is “to step back and take stock” of what colleges are actually looking for. Essentially: “How will you be a valuable, contributing member of the community?”
Navigating the college admissions landscape has never been easy, but for the class of 2030 it’s particularly fraught. Plenty of advisers can be hired for a fee: Private consulting is a $3 billion industry, with parents paying tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars to give their kids an edge. Community organizations, college-prep programs, and high schools are also on hand to assist students.
There’s no question it’s an uneven playing field, though this year there is one equalizer in the college admissions game: No one really knows what’s coming next.

Seriously was the Party of Joe McCarthy , Richard Nixon and Paul Weyrich ever concerned with personal liberty other then their own. About as concerned as the Moral Majority is for life . Their concern ends after the babies first breath.
LikeLike
we were obviously thinking along similar terms, except that my thoughts ran into agrarian society.
LikeLike
I have always felt that the Republican Party dislike of big government was very much related to my farmer friend’s disparaging of big government: it was always a dodge.
I grew up on a dairy farm, in a land of small dairy farms. It was not just Wisconsin where dairy was a large source of farm revenue. Any farm gathering you went to turned to hating the government. I came to be on these circles when Johnson’s Great Society was being brought to bear to solve poverty problems. Farmers were all about declarations like “I’ll solve poverty! I’ll teach them ______ to work” (feel free to insert any group you choose, ethnic or otherwise). But when it came to removal of government price supports on milk, rationalization kicked in with a vengeance. That was different.
This has always been the Republican view of government. If t supports me and people like me, it is good. If it helps someone else, not so much. Small government is for them not me.
So when the Trump Republicans get behind the disparaging of DEI or some other cultural issue, I see continuity not divergence. There has been great divergence with regard to foreign policies, most notably the Trump rejection of internationalism, but republicans have never really sought to shrink government unless the part that is shrunk puts money into their pockets.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These anti-DEI folks are a bunch of hypocrites that want the green light to discriminate. Florida has introduced a bill to limit the number of foreign students to 10%. These are the same people that claim anti-DEI policies are to promote a meritocracy. Setting a quota on a particular group is not a meritocracy. It is about being able to legally discriminate.
LikeLike