Source: Bigstock

At the college level, Trump could undertake a variety of clever low-cost initiatives to undermine the current regime. For example, Trump could use the power of his bully pulpit to promote critics of political correctness such as Jonathan Haidt. The federal government could encourage colleges it subsidizes to endorse and implement the University of Chicago’s new standards encouraging freedom of expression.

The plague of hate hoaxes on campus could be combated by legislation defining fake hate crimes as actual hate crimes. After all, bogus hate hoaxes are intended to stir up hatred against whites and/or men, who are rapidly becoming minorities on campus.

Racial quotas? Although Trump is constantly smeared as a racist, he actually appears to be biased in favor of American blacks, saying “€œI”€™m fine“€ with affirmative action at present, while pointing out that at some point it may no longer be necessary.

A small-scale reform that would be in line with Trump’s patriotic citizenism would be to have the federal government enforce a rule requiring universities to report what percentage of their affirmative-action beneficiaries are American citizens.

Back in 2004, black scholars Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Lani Guinier pointed out that up to two-thirds of blacks at Harvard were elite immigrants from Africa or the West Indies or their children or the offspring of biracial couples. In other words, Ivy League colleges were padding their diversity statistics with exotics like Barack Obama, the son of a white woman and a visiting Kenyan student, rather than authentic black Americans like Michelle Obama, who is descended from American slaves on all sides of her family.

Trump could also staff an office to track down examples of educational bigotry against whites, males, straights, non-transgenders, conservatives, Christians, 4-H members, Eagle Scouts, and the like.

Federal legislation could ensure that state colleges stop treating illegal aliens better in terms of tuition than American citizens from out of state.

Finally, the tax code on college endowments could be reformed to encourage the richest colleges to be slightly less inegalitarian by expanding their class sizes.

In typical industries, the most successful brand names expand their market share. When Trump, for instance, hit it big with Trump Tower in the early 1980s, he went on to put his name on a lot of buildings. But the richest, most prestigious colleges have shrunk their market share over the last generation, setting off a frantic struggle among high school students for admission.

At present, the four universities with the highest per-student endowments are Princeton, Yale, Harvard, and Stanford. (Trump, a graduate of the Ivy League’s U. of Pennsylvania, will be the first president since Reagan not to hold a Harvard or Yale degree.)

But the shiniest brand names in college education have been extremely reluctant to let in more freshmen, even as their number of applicants has surged. For example, the Harvard class of 1986 numbered 1,722, while the class of 2011 amounted to 1,726, despite a near tripling in the number of applicants.

At present, all nonprofits are required by the IRS to spend 5 percent of their endowments annually. But new tax legislation could incentivize ultrarich universities like the Big Four to expand their enrollments of American citizens by, say, 30 percent per decade (giving them time to build additional facilities), while merely rich colleges such as Trump’s Penn would have to increase by 10 percent.

If they fail to meet these goals, colleges would have to pay back taxes on their investment income. (Any satellite campuses they construct would have to prove they are equal in prestige to the famous main campuses.)

A steady increase in the class sizes of brand-name colleges would make middle-class life in the U.S. a little less anxious.

Similarly, ultrahigh-paying employers such as Goldman Sachs could be given the word that they are expected to recruit at a wider variety of colleges across America than they bother to at present.

The key point is to send the message that the most fortunate American institutions owe a debt to their fellow American citizens that may have been forgotten during the era of globalist elitism but now needs to be remembered.