FundSvcs Community

Hi all! I'm hoping to get a sense of whether this is coming up at other institutions, and if so, how you're handling it.

Our General Counsel has directed Advancement to review existing scholarships, fellowships, and similar programs that include any preference language tied to protected characteristics or language that could be construed as a proxy for such characteristics. This guidance is based on a recent U.S. Department of Education memo, which GC has circulated internally and is using as the basis for these directives.

At a high level, we've been instructed to do the following:

• Decline any new scholarship that expressly requires an award or preference based on protected characteristics (e.g., race, gender, religion or proxy DEI)

• Identify existing scholarships with such preference language and, with or without donor agreement, amend the terms to remove it-even where the agreement provides institutional discretion or language about awarding "in a manner consistent with the donor's wishes."

• Extend this review beyond explicit references to protected classes to include potential proxy language, such as references to:

  • specific school systems (e.g., Chicago Public Schools),

  • terms like "underrepresented,"

  • Pell eligibility, low-income status, or similar indicators that could be interpreted as indirect proxies for protected characteristics.
    To assist with this, we were directed to use an externally available list of flagged or "banned" terms as part of our review.

• Reach out to donors to amend terms in most cases, unless the agreement explicitly grants the institution unilateral authority to change eligibility criteria without notice or consultation.

• For scholarships based on geography, income, or first-generation status, ensure there is a clearly documented rationale that is unrelated to protected characteristics; if not, donor engagement and amendments would again be required.

• Ensure that all future donor agreements include language allowing the institution to amend or disregard eligibility criteria if deemed contrary to law, without notice to the donor. Any scholarship where a donor is unwilling to accept this must be declined.

The attached Department of Education memo is what GC is relying on in framing this work.

I'm mainly trying to understand:

• Is anyone else being asked to retroactively review and amend existing funds on this basis, including proxy language?

• How are you managing donor outreach and institutional risk, particularly for long-standing or endowed scholarships?

• Are you centralizing this work in Advancement, Legal, or elsewhere?

• Any lessons learned so far?

Thanks in advance for any insight you're willing to share.

Hi all! I'm hoping to get a sense of whether this is coming up at other institutions, and if so, how you're handling it.

Our General Counsel has directed Advancement to review existing scholarships, fellowships, and similar programs that include any preference language tied to protected characteristics or language that could be construed as a proxy for such characteristics. This guidance is based on a recent U.S. Department of Education memo, which GC has circulated internally and is using as the basis for these directives.

At a high level, we've been instructed to do the following:

• Decline any new scholarship that expressly requires an award or preference based on protected characteristics (e.g., race, gender, religion or proxy DEI)

• Identify existing scholarships with such preference language and, with or without donor agreement, amend the terms to remove it-even where the agreement provides institutional discretion or language about awarding "in a manner consistent with the donor's wishes."

• Extend this review beyond explicit references to protected classes to include potential proxy language, such as references to:

  • specific school systems (e.g., Chicago Public Schools),

  • terms like "underrepresented,"

  • Pell eligibility, low-income status, or similar indicators that could be interpreted as indirect proxies for protected characteristics.
    To assist with this, we were directed to use an externally available list of flagged or "banned" terms as part of our review.

• Reach out to donors to amend terms in most cases, unless the agreement explicitly grants the institution unilateral authority to change eligibility criteria without notice or consultation.

• For scholarships based on geography, income, or first-generation status, ensure there is a clearly documented rationale that is unrelated to protected characteristics; if not, donor engagement and amendments would again be required.

• Ensure that all future donor agreements include language allowing the institution to amend or disregard eligibility criteria if deemed contrary to law, without notice to the donor. Any scholarship where a donor is unwilling to accept this must be declined.

The attached Department of Education memo is what GC is relying on in framing this work.

I'm mainly trying to understand:

• Is anyone else being asked to retroactively review and amend existing funds on this basis, including proxy language?

• How are you managing donor outreach and institutional risk, particularly for long-standing or endowed scholarships?

• Are you centralizing this work in Advancement, Legal, or elsewhere?

• Any lessons learned so far?

Thanks in advance for any insight you're willing to share.