Colleges end race-based scholarships after affirmative action ban

Prodded by conservative activists and politicians, several public universities are interpreting Supreme Court admissions ruling to include a ban on minority-focused aid

三月 26, 2024
A woman wearing a cap and gown poses for a photo in front of tulips at the campus of Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, USA on April 21, 2022 as graduation nears.
Source: iStock/Wendy Van

A growing number of US public universities are taking steps towards ending scholarships aimed at helping racial minorities, making what their advocates see as an erroneous, harmful and politically driven interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action.

In the latest major move in that direction, at least seven universities in Ohio began reviewing their scholarships after the state’s Republican attorney general, Dave Yost, warned them in recent weeks that such an assessment should be a part of complying with the US Supreme Court’s ruling.

Public institutions in Texas, Illinois, Missouri and Alabama, as well as the private Boston University, also appear to have responded to the court’s ruling by eliminating at least some scholarships meant to benefit racial minorities.

And that list is expected to expand further, as partisan activists keep up pressure, said James Murphy, director of career pathways and postsecondary policy at the advocacy group Education Reform Now. “I expect more to come,” he said.

The Supreme Court, after gaining a majority of conservative justices in the Trump administration, ruled in June 2023 – in cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina – to overturn decades of precedent that had allowed racial preferences in admissions decisions.

Some conservative activists and policymakers quickly suggested wider implications of the Supreme Court’s logic for higher education, including the question of scholarships that benefit members of specific racial minorities.

And the activist who organised the cases against Harvard and UNC, Edward Blum, said he planned to begin investigations of cases where US colleges and universities made race-based distinctions in their financial aid packages.

“Excluding individuals by race or ethnicity in awarding financial aid, scholarships, internships and fellowships is gravely unfair and illegal. All institutions of higher education should end these discriminatory practices immediately,” Mr Blum said.

The actual number of colleges and universities retreating on scholarships is difficult to track nationally, Dr Murphy said, “because most of them are not loudly advertising it”.

A spokeswoman for Ohio University acknowledged that her 28,000-student institution was acting on the state attorney general’s request.

“Ohio University is working to complete a review of a small but important subset of gift agreements to determine which can proceed without language changes and which gift agreements may require a conversation with the donors regarding the implementation of revisions,” the spokeswoman said.

The University of Missouri took similar action shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, ending its minority scholarships under prodding by its Republican state attorney general.

The Biden administration, meanwhile, has been telling US institutions that such premises are mistaken. The administration was correct, Dr Murphy said, because the Supreme Court’s ruling against Harvard and UNC “was very limited in scope”, applying only to the consideration of race in admissions as practised by those two institutions.

And the opinion “never once uses the phrase ‘affirmative action’ and it does not discuss financial aid, recruitment strategies, DEI or really anything else but the consideration of racial identity in the admissions process”, he said.

Yet, Dr Murphy said, “it took less than an hour for some bad actors to wilfully misinterpret the decision to extend to a range of legal practices never discussed by the court”.

In cases where institutions were voluntarily eliminating race-based scholarships, that appeared to be a decision made by their legal counsels, “based on fear, rather than by leadership, based on mission”, he said.

paul.basken@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (2)

Dear Mr. Basken: I appreciate your attempt to maintain neutrality in your article, but I must address a concern regarding the term "racial preferences." This term perpetuates biases against minorities and oversimplifies the serious and systemic issues of race-based education in America. Structural racism remains a significant barrier to equitable education, and using language that minimizes these complexities risks undermining efforts to address systemic injustices. Additionally, the anti-DEI movement is currently negatively impacting both faculty and staff, hindering diversity and inclusion efforts in academia in the USA. I urge for a more nuanced approach in reporting on these issues, one that acknowledges the complexities of structural inequality and supports inclusive practices in education. Thank you for considering my perspective. Sincerely, RJ.
Scholarships should be awarded based on a mixture of student talent and student need. No point giving a scholarship to someone however brilliant who can afford to pay their own way nor to someone however needy who doesn't have the smarts to benefit from it. Ethnicity doesn't come into it, or shouldn't. For those who feel that some students are inherently disadvantaged due to their ethnicity or any other factor, if they have the brains to succeed, by all means help them, by funding 'access' courses to bring them up to speed if their prior education is inadequate. If they are inadequately prepated, just handing out a scholarship only sets them up to fail.