How the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Affirmative Action is Impacting Race-Conscious Scholarships

Scholarships awarded based on racial criteria support historically marginalized students by recognizing their unique backgrounds, alleviating financial stress, and fostering upward social mobility. However, despite these advantages, the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action in college admissions has resulted in a chilling effect, with state policymakers directing higher education institutions to pause or end their race-conscious scholarships.

For instance, hours after the ruling, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey instructed all public and private higher education institutions to cease the consideration of race in decisions, including but not limited to admissions, scholarships, and programs.ⁱ Consequently, the University of Missouri (Mizzou) was among the first institutions to end all race-conscious scholarships^.ii The university now only offers “diversity awards” to students who received them before the federal and state guidance.ⁱⁱⁱ These awards will continue for up to eight continuous semesters but will be discontinued by fall 2028. When asked by the Missouri Independent about the impact of the end of diversity awards, Mizzou student Piper Molins responded, “This is a life changing policy they’ve made,” as students from historically marginalized backgrounds attending the university often rely on the awards to pursue their education (Carter and Chou, 2023, para. 22)^.iv

Similarly, in January 2024, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost informed university leaders on a call that he views race as an unconstitutional criterion for scholarship awards considering the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action.^v As a result, over four schools in Ohio have moved to pause or discontinue their race-based scholarships, an increasing trend seen across the country.^vi

Since the ruling, nearly 50 colleges and universities, predominantly public institutions, have halted or terminated their race-conscious scholarships.^vii This move has amounted to at least $60 million in forgone aid.^viii

In addition, some states have introduced legislation to formally ban race-conscious scholarships. The Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill in late 2023 to outlaw race-conscious financial aid.^ix The Kentucky House of Representatives also passed a bill in early 2024, which included a ban on race-conscious scholarships.^x Despite neither of these bills passing in the state senate, some universities are curtailing race-conscious scholarships to prevent potential litigation.^xi The introduction of state legislation banning race-conscious financial aid yields further concern about the future of higher education access and affordability for historically marginalized students.

Understanding the SFFA v. Harvard and UNC Cases and Ruling

Since its inception, affirmative action has faced numerous court challenges that question the extent to which it creates opportunities for some and removes them for others. The lineage of Supreme Court cases, particularly regarding affirmative action in higher education admissions, demonstrates the constancy and complexity of this point of contention.^xii The cases that resulted in the most recent ban are Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) claimed the undergraduate admissions process is racially and ethnically discriminatory at Harvard, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, SFFA made similar allegations to the University of North Carolina and argued the institution violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, respectively. Though both higher education institutions contended that they adhered to the provisions for race-conscious admissions that the Supreme Court outlined in previous cases, the court ruled both admissions programs lacked measurable objectives warranting the use of race, employed race negatively, involved racial stereotyping, and had an absence of meaningful endpoints, violating the Equal Protection Clause.

The Supreme Court’s final ruling determined it unlawful for colleges and universities to consider race as a specific factor in admissions, yet permitted the consideration of how an applicant's race affected their life while discussing how they may contribute to the institution (e.g., admissions statement).^xiii However, some have since misinterpreted or manipulated the scope of the court’s decision. This misconception partially stems from the language in the ruling, which states, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” followed by a statement on the importance of the universal application of the Equal Protection Clause (Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2023, pg. 4).^xiv This increasing manipulation of the ruling contributed immensely to the chilling effect on the factoring of race into other aspects of admissions, such as race-conscious scholarships.

Understanding the Broader Policy Context

Historically marginalized students currently face numerous roadblocks concerning higher education access and affordability. While the chilling effect of the SFFA ruling on race-conscious scholarships serves as one example of how education policy can marginalize students of color, students are also encountering other barriers to accessing and paying for higher education. For example, in legal education specifically, historically marginalized students are less likely to get institutional grants and scholarships compared to their White peers. Data from the 2020 National Post Secondary Student Aid Study revealed that for Black law students, the average financial aid package consisted of 87% federal loans, 11% institutional grants, and 2% other.^xv Conversely, the average aid package for White law students consists of 55% federal loans, 36% institutional grants, and 9% other.^xvi This data emphasizes inequities in the distribution of financial aid in legal education, which places historically marginalized students at a greater disadvantage long-term.

Zooming out, undergraduate and graduate students have encountered issues and delays with the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) for over a year, significantly impeding their higher education access and affordability. A report from the Government Accountability Office found that the recent technical difficulties and delays in FAFSA implementation resulted in a significant decline in low-income applicants.^xvii As decreases in low-income applicants may result in less aid for those who need it most or even prevent them from enrolling altogether, efforts to promote financial equity in higher education are essential.

It is critical to the future of the diversity of higher education that we engage in advocacy to combat the rising cost of college and ensure that students have access to affordable loans, grants, and scholarships. It is also necessary to level the playing field so that higher education is not just an option for the wealthy and privileged. A critical element of this advocacy work is collaborating with our nation's policymakers to address intentional and unintentional consequences of education policy. Through this partnership, we can create and sustain policies that lead to equitable access and outcomes for students.

To learn more about our policy and advocacy work at AccessLex Institute^®, check out our #MakeTheCase advocacy campaign.

[i] Jaschik, S. (2023, July 5). Does the Supreme Court order apply to financial aid? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved on October 14, 2024, from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/2023/07/05/missouri-attorney-general-orders-colleges-drop-minority-scholarships

[ii] University of Missouri System. (2023, June 29). Statement regarding recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. Retrieved on October 14, 2024, from https://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/news_releases/202306292029248061_news

[iii] University of Missouri (n.d.). Diversity awards. Retrieved on October 14, 2024, from https://financialaid.missouri.edu/scholarships/diversity-awards/

[iv] Carter, N. and Chou, B. (2023, October 30). University of Missouri students reflect on end of race-based scholarships. Missouri Independent. Retrieved on October 14, 2024, from https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/30/university-of-missouri-students-reflect-on-end-of-race-based-scholarships/

[v] Donaldson, S. (2024, February 26). Race-based scholarships under review at Ohio public colleges after affirmative action reversal. Statehouse News Bureau. Retrieved on October 14, 2024, from https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2024-02-26/race-based-scholarships-under-review-at-ohio-public-colleges-after-affirmative-action-reversal

[vi] Donaldson, S. (2024, May 18). Ohio reviewing race-based scholarships after Supreme Court affirmative action ruling. NPR. Retrieved on October 14, 2024, from https://www.npr.org/2024/05/18/1252172578/ohio-affirmative-action-diversity-university-scholarships#:~:text=Ohio%20University%20is%20reviewing%20a%20%22small%22%20number%20of,reviewing%20race-based%20scholarships%20and%20programs%20for%20potential%20noncompliance

[vii] Douglas-Gabriel, D. (2024, July 9). Many universities are abandoning race-conscious scholarships worth millions. The Washington Post. Retrieved on October 2, 2024, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/07/09/college-scholarships-race-affirmative-action/

[viii] Kolodner, M. and Hou, J. (2024, August 28). Cuts to race-based scholarships block path to college, students say. The Washington Post. Retrieved on October 14, 2024, from >https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/08/28/affirmative-action-race-based-scholarships/

[ix] Bauer, S. (2023, November 7). Wisconsin Assembly passes Republican bill banning diversity factors in UW financial aid. PBS Wisconsin. Retrieved on October 2, 2024, from https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/wisconsin-assembly-passes-republican-bill-banning-diversity-factors-in-uw-financial-aid/

[x] Easley, T. (2024, March 18). Kentucky House votes to defund DEI offices at public universities. NBC News. Retrieved on October 2, 2024, from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/kentucky-house-votes-defund-dei-offices-public-universities-rcna143877

[xi]Quinn, Ryan. (2024, September 11). Anti-DEI bills failed in Kentucky. Universities are restricting it anyway. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved on September 26, 2024, from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/diversity/2024/09/11/universities-are-still-curtailing-dei-after-ky-bills-failed 

[xii] Oyez. (n.d.) Cases – Affirmative action.  Retrieved on September 26, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/issues/155

[xiii] Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. 600 U.S. __ (2023).

[xiv] Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. 600 U.S. __ (2023).

[xv] United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2020).2020 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). Retrieved on September 30, 2024, from https://nces.ed.gov/datalab 

[xvi] United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). 2020 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). Retrieved on September 30, 2024, from https://nces.ed.gov/datalab 

[xvii] Government Accountability Office. (2024). Education Needs to Improve Communications and Support Around the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.   https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-107407.pdf