Story
August 18, 2026

DOJ Targets William & Mary Scholarships in New Test of Race-Conscious Programs

The Justice Department is investigating whether scholarships and student-support programs at William & Mary improperly use race-based criteria, while the university says it remains committed to nondiscrimination and federal law.

The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the College of William & Mary, placing the university’s race-conscious scholarships and student-support programs at the center of a broader national fight over equal opportunity and affirmative action.

The inquiry will examine whether programs including the W&M Scholars scholarship, the Martha L. Muguira Fellowship, Holmes Scholars and law-school awards violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law bars race, color or national-origin discrimination in programs receiving federal funding. The DOJ says it is seeking documents and has not yet reached a conclusion.

The department’s case rests on language describing racial or diversity considerations. The Muguira Fellowship reportedly gives preference to Hispanic or Latino women, while the Holmes program offers benefits to “future education leaders of color.” The Lemon Legal Scholars Program provides full scholarships to graduates of historically Black colleges and universities, and the Reaching Back Scholarship favors HBCU graduates or applicants who contribute to the law school’s diversity.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon framed those policies as a constitutional problem, saying, “Awarding scholarships or offering coveted opportunities to students based on the color of their skin is illegal and offends the guarantees of our color-blind Constitution.” The department’s notice similarly warned that educational benefits based on race could violate “the civil rights of all Americans.”

William & Mary offered a narrower response, saying it is “committed to nondiscriminatory learning environments across our campus and complying with all state and federal laws.” That position contrasts with the DOJ’s enforcement-first approach, but the legal question remains unresolved: investigators may close the case if they find no violation, or pursue formal action that could threaten federal financial assistance.