Are race-conscious scholarships on the decline?

The fate of One hundred million dollars Scholarship funding is in limbo in Ohio after seven state universities put race-conscious programs on hold to review their legality. The review got here after Dave Yost, the state's attorney general, advised administrators in a call to make use of race as an element when allocating money possibly unconstitutional.

Yost's guidance was based on the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2023 decision Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvardwhich prohibited the consideration of a student's ethnicity in college admissions, except under restricted conditions.

Yost's interpretation of the court's opinion shouldn’t have been a surprise. The day after the Supreme Court decision, he had signaled that schools should take motion against race-conscious programs. He warned that “hidden” race-conscious admissions policies Race-conscious admissions policies still exist.

Target racial criteria

Although Ohio didn’t consider race-conscious scholarships immediately following the Supreme Court's decision, other states hurried to place such scholarships on the chopping block. Missouri Attorney General banned immediately the usage of race in financial aid decisions. officials on Universities of Kentucky and Missouri The consideration of race in scholarships and grants was abolished.

This raises a matter that goes beyond Ohio: Are scholarships that use race as a part of their criteria a thing of the past? The short answer is “no”. But based on a review of the Supreme Court's 2023 decision and other precedents, such programs must pass tough judicial scrutiny. Even then, race can’t be the one factor.

Campus leaders have some guidance on what to do. In August 2023, for instance the Federal Ministries of Justice and Education gave advice on how schools can maintain a various student body without considering race in admissions decisions. Factors comparable to socioeconomic status, zip codes, high schools attended, academic performance and demonstrated contributions to society could turn out to be more vital in admissions decisions.

But federal authorities remained silent about what impact the court ruling would have on scholarships and financial aid. To discover, administrators could have to return to the source: the 2023 Supreme Court decision.

Diversity and the “rigorous audit test.”

When the Supreme Court reviewed the admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, it used a strict testing standardthe best level of legal review under the The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. To pass the test, rules or laws that affect fundamental rights must serve a “compelling state interest” and be written in such a way that their impact on these rights is as minimal as possible.

In 2003 and back in 2016The court ruled that a various student body was a compelling interest. But in 2023, Harvard and UNC didn’t pass the rigorous audit test. Both schools said their programs promoted diversity.

The court ruled that universities' race-conscious admissions programs incorporated racial stereotypes, “lacked sufficiently focused and measurable goals to justify the use of race,” and “necessarily used race in negative ways.”

The programs violated each the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal assistance, comparable to student loans and Pell Grants.

Some legal scholars, not unreasonable, said the court's decision to ban the usage of race in awarding scholarships and admissions. But this overlooks two vital facts: The Supreme Court has not ruled that diversity can never be a compelling government interest or that race can never be taken into consideration.

While the usage of “race” is now restricted in lots of programs that receive federal support, that is the case not completely banned. Even race-conscious admissions aren't completely off the table — if programs can pass the rigorous vetting test. Taking a student's race into consideration could possibly be permissible if there’s “extremely compelling justification that is measurable and specific enough to permit judicial review,” the court said.

For example, the Supreme Court has approved race-based policies US military academies on the idea that strong national defense – a compelling state interest – requires a various officer corps. But after Harvard and UNC's decision, these programs also should be explored other ways to attain diversity.

Diversity admissions policies that don’t take race into consideration, comparable to those proposed by the Departments of Education and Justice, can function a guide for varsity leaders. WITH And Stanford Law are among the many programs that already use criteria comparable to income, zip code and civic engagement to keep up diversity.

More challenges lie ahead

The use of race in scholarships and admissions is only one legal challenge facing race-conscious programs. As of July 2023, 13 attorneys general – from Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia – sent a letter Calls on the CEOs of Fortune 100 corporations to eliminate all such programs of their corporations.

Critics of those programs also asked questions the usage of the term “race” in scholarship and financial aid programs funded from outside a university, including Scholarships that take race into consideration when helping disadvantaged students.

In contrast, argue some campus leaders and lawyers that the court's decision must be limited to race-conscious admissions. They argue that other programs where race could possibly be used as an element shouldn’t be included.

Tips for prospective students and their parents

Students who wish to improve their possibilities of receiving a scholarship can first examine the list of acceptable criteria for admission decisions after which do their very own research. Students can even take the next steps:

• Stay informed: Follow the news to search out out if changes in state laws or policies impact scholarship opportunities.

• Speak to financial aid administrators: Contact the college's financial aid office advisors to learn the way they interpret the Harvard/UNC decision.

• Do not rely solely on financial support from the university: Find out about and apply for scholarships and financial aid that usually are not administered by a university. The Supreme Court's decision applies only to institutions that receive public funding.