According to a distressing report from Inside Higher Ed that was published on Thursday, June 12, donors to the University of Missouri feel dismayed and “betrayed” after the state’s Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, sent a letter that explained that because of the Supreme Court case on affirmative action in 2023, the state’s private and public universities can no longer keep white students from applying for minority-related scholarships.

In the letter, AG Bailey wrote, “I write to inform you that 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. In recent years, the Supreme Court has created confusion by acknowledging that racial classifications are presumptively unconstitutional while simultaneously upholding so-called “affirmative action” college admission programs that systemically disfavor applicants because of race.”

Continuing, he added, “Today’s Supreme Court decisions against Harvard and the University of North Carolina resolve this previous contradiction. These rulings make clear that disfavoring some applicants because of race is not only deeply unpopular; it is unconstitutional. As the Court put it today, ‘Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.’ ‘Many universities,’ the Court held, ‘have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.’”

He further provided, “Institutions in Missouri must implement the Supreme Court’s decisions immediately. In today’s rulings, the Court held that there are no legitimate reliance interests created by past rulings that seemed to bless affirmative action. There is thus no justification for Missouri institutions to “grandfather” in existing programs that disfavor applicants based on race. All Missouri programs that make admitting decisions by disfavoring individuals based on race—not just college admissions, but also scholarships, employment, law reviews, etc.—must immediately adopt race-blind standards. All Missouri programs must adhere to the promise of Brown that the Constitution guarantees that opportunities ‘be made available to all on equal terms.’ That is true not just for public institutions in Missouri, but also entities that are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act because they accept federal funds. Harvard is not a public institution, but today the Supreme Court declared Harvard’s racial discrimination unlawful because Title VI incorporates the constitutional standard.”

He then explained, “In light of today’s twin rulings by the Supreme Court, Missouri institutions must identify all policies that give preference to individuals on the basis of race and immediately halt the implementation of such policies. More than 300,000 individuals currently attend institutions of higher education in Missouri. In addition, countless Missourians are employed at or will seek employment at institutions that have adopted affirmative action employment policies. As the chief legal officer for the State of Missouri, I intend to ensure that the constitutional rights of all Missourians are protected, including those who would be harmed by race-based policies that are unlawful under the rulings issued today.”

Watch AG Bailey describe the matter here:

That meant that scholarships that prohibited white students from applying were largely illegal, at least in Missouri, which is something that has reportedly infuriated donors to Missouri schools who wanted the money to be used for race-based purposes, something which has been illegal in the state since the 2023 decision. Such is what Inside Higher Ed reported. It provided:

Several of the donors in question spoke with Inside Higher Ed, some on the record, some on background for fear of jeopardizing ongoing discussions with the university. They said the conversations have been fraught, coercive and disappointing. Several said they felt “betrayed” by their erstwhile institutional partners, though many conceded that the university system was in a difficult political and legal position.

One donor who wanted her donation to be used for non-white students told the outlet she was “pissed off,” saying, “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 and could tell you how hard it is to go it alone. There’s a part of me that really feels like this is an insult to his legacy, to all the years he gave there.”

Another interviewee noted that, whatever the feelings of those whose scholarships have to be changed are, the problem is that now there is no legal precedent for “diversity,” which means there’s little basis for challenging the AG’s letter and the changes dictated by it, as what exactly the SCOTUS decision means “remains to be litigated.”

He said, “Schools still have to show a compelling interest to consider race as a factor in any policy or program that considers a student’s racial status; that’s a longstanding rule the Court didn’t change.” He continued, “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. As a consequence, we can’t point to clear authority right now that will guide forward-looking interests like diversity. That remains to be litigated.”

Featured image credit: By Lectrician2 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=108630743