This Comment examines the legal vulnerability of race-conscious university scholarship programs following the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard (SFFA), which effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions. Although the SFFA ruling did not explicitly address financial aid, its framework has already created a climate of uncertainty, leading dozens of universities to preemptively discontinue programs worth tens of millions of dollars. Lower courts and political actors have largely ignored the substantive differences between admissions and financial aid, often importing the SFFA strict scrutiny analysis to invalidate scholarship programs without considering their unique historical role in redressing systemic inequalities in higher education.
Universities should resist the hasty abandonment of these programs, positing that race-conscious scholarships may remain legally viable through two primary avenues. First, private universities can assert a First Amendment speech interest, arguing that the provision of financial aid is a protected expression of institutional values—such as promoting racial justice—that should outweigh statutory constraints under Title VI. Second, the Article contends that scholarships can satisfy strict scrutiny by advancing specific, measurable, and compelling interests that are unavailable in the admissions context, such as improving patient health outcomes through physician-patient racial congruence. Because financial aid can be narrowly tailored through conditional awards, it may survive judicial review even under the Court’s currently restrictive framework.