In a bold move that has sent shockwaves through the University of Missouri’s donor community, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced that state universities can no longer restrict white students from applying for minority-specific scholarships. This decision follows the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on affirmative action, which has fundamentally altered the landscape of race-based policies in education.
Attorney General Bailey’s letter, dated June 12, provides a clear directive: “The United States Supreme Court has finally provided clarity about the practice—common among universities and some employers—of disfavoring certain applicants because of race. The Court’s recent decisions against Harvard and the University of North Carolina make clear that such practices are not only deeply unpopular but also unconstitutional.”
Bailey’s directive emphasizes that all Missouri institutions must immediately adopt race-blind standards in their admissions and scholarship programs. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Bailey asserted, quoting the Supreme Court’s decision. He stressed that opportunities must be available to all on equal terms, in line with the constitutional guarantees upheld in Brown v. Board of Education.
This landmark decision has not been without controversy. Many donors, who had earmarked their contributions specifically for minority scholarships, feel betrayed and dismayed. According to Inside Higher Ed, some donors are voicing their frustrations both publicly and privately, fearing that ongoing discussions with the university might be jeopardized.
One particularly vocal donor expressed her anger, stating, “It’s hard to find ways to help people. This was an exciting way to do that and to honor my father, who faced a lot of discrimination as a Black doctor in Missouri. There’s a part of me that really feels like this is an insult to his legacy.”
The donor backlash highlights a deep divide over how best to support diversity in higher education. While some argue that race-based scholarships are crucial for redressing historical inequalities, others, like AG Bailey, contend that true equality means eliminating all forms of racial preference.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has also left universities in a challenging position, as they navigate the new legal landscape. As one legal expert noted, “Schools still have to show a compelling interest to consider race as a factor in any policy. What the Supreme Court did in the SFFA case that was so consequential was wipe out 45 years of legal history on what a compelling interest may be.”
This legal uncertainty means that while universities may want to promote diversity, they must find new, legally sound ways to do so without relying on race-based criteria. The ruling has essentially reset the rules, leaving many institutions scrambling to comply while maintaining their commitments to diverse student bodies.
In the wake of these changes, Missouri’s universities must swiftly adapt to the new legal standards. As Bailey’s letter stipulates, all programs that previously considered race in their decisions must now transition to race-neutral policies immediately. This directive not only impacts scholarships but extends to admissions, employment, and other areas where race-based criteria were previously applied.
In conclusion, while AG Bailey’s enforcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling aims to uphold constitutional equality, it has sparked significant controversy and discontent among donors committed to supporting minority students. The University of Missouri and other institutions must now navigate these turbulent waters, balancing legal compliance with their missions to foster inclusive and diverse educational environments. This pivotal moment marks a significant shift in the approach to equality in education, one that will undoubtedly continue to unfold in the courts and campuses nationwide.
