Case Particulars

Tribunal

Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights

Date Filed

November 17, 2025

Docket No.

N/A

Case Status

OCR Complaint Filed

Case Overview

On November 17, 2025, the Equal Protection Project (EPP) filed a Civil Rights Complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against Radford University (“Radford”), “…for offering, administering, and promoting two (2) scholarships that discriminate on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin in violation of Title VI.”

EPP’s Complaint continues:

The scholarships listed below are currently offered to Radford students and applicants for
admission, according to the Radford website, and violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(“Title VI”) and its implementing regulations4 by discriminating against students based on their
race and skin color. Because Radford is a public university, these discriminatory scholarships
also violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Complaint uses Radford’s own websites to demonstrate the discriminatory nature of the programs.

Next, the Complaint further explains why the initiative challenged violates federal law:

Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any “program or activity” that receives federal financial assistance. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The term “program or activity” encompasses “all of the operations … of a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-4a(2)(A). As noted in Rowles v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 983 F.3d 345, 355 (8th Cir. 2020), “Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in federally funded programs,” and therefore applies to universities receiving federal financial assistance….

 

Regardless of Radford’s reasons for offering, promoting, and administering such discriminatory scholarships, they are violating Title VI by doing so. It does not matter if the recipient of federal funding discriminates in order to advance a benign “intention” or “motivation.” Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 590 U.S. 644, 661 (2020) (“Intentionally burning down a neighbor’s house is arson, even if the perpetrator’s ultimate intention (or motivation) is only to improve the view.”); accord Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 199 (1991) (“the absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect” or “alter [its] intentionally discriminatory character”). “Nor does it matter if the recipient discriminates against an individual member of a protected class with the idea that doing so might favor the interests of that class as a whole or otherwise promote equality at the group level.” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181, 289 (2023) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).

 

As Radford is a public university, its offering, promoting, and administering these discriminatory scholarships also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Students for Fair Admissions, the Supreme Court declared that “[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it …. The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.” Id. at 206 (cleaned up). “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry [including race] are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Id. at 208. Consequently, “[a]ny exception to the Constitution’s demand for equal protection must survive a daunting two-step examination known … as strict scrutiny.” Id. at 208 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The scholarships at issue here cannot withstand that exacting standard.

Finally, the Complaint then requests that OCR take action:

The Office for Civil Rights has the power and obligation to investigate Radford’s role in
creating, funding, promoting and administering these scholarships – and, given how many there
are, to discern whether Radford is engaging in such discrimination in its other activities – and to
impose whatever remedial relief is necessary to hold it accountable for that unlawful conduct.
This includes, if necessary, imposing fines, initiating administrative proceedings to suspend or
terminate federal financial assistance and referring the case to the Department of Justice for
judicial proceedings to enforce the rights of the United States under federal law. After all, “[t]he
way to stop discrimination … is to stop discriminating[.]” Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch., 551
U.S. at 748.

Accordingly, we respectfully ask that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil
Rights promptly open a formal investigation, impose such remedial relief as the law permits for
the benefit of those who have been illegally excluded from Radford’s various scholarships based
on discriminatory criteria, and ensure that all ongoing and future scholarships and programming
at Radford comports with the Constitution and federal civil rights laws.

OCR is evaluating EPP’s Complaint for further action.