Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Higher Education Admissions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves bill to bar race, ethnicity or national origin as sole basis for university admissions and scholarships
Summary
The committee passed HB 377 after debate. Sponsors described the bill as aligning state policy with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling; opponents raised concerns about donor-restricted scholarships and whether the bill addresses documented discrimination.
The House Education full committee advanced House Bill 377, a measure that would prohibit public institutions from considering an applicant’s race, color, ethnicity or national origin when determining admissions or scholarship eligibility. The committee voted 15–4 to move the bill to calendar and rules.
Sponsor Leader Zachary told the committee the language is a collaborative product of public higher education institutions and was drafted to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. “This simply says that a student should be judged on their merit,” Zachary said.
During the hearing, members raised multiple practical and legal questions. Representative Glenn asked whether there were documented cases of students being excluded on the basis of race; the sponsor cited anecdotal reports and said the bill codifies Supreme Court guidance. Representative Mckenzie and others pressed what would happen to donor-restricted funds earmarked for particular racial or ethnic groups. Sponsor Zachary pointed to bill language that bars awards “solely” based on race and said universities would work with donors on designated funds.
Legal counsel summarized the bill’s requirements: institutions could not consider race, color, ethnicity or national origin in admissions or in awarding scholarships; they could not use aggregated racial/ethnic data to set admissions quotas; and scholarships could still be awarded differently to students so long as the award was not solely based on those protected characteristics. The legal office also noted the bill creates a private cause of action allowing individuals to seek injunctive or declaratory relief under Tennessee Code.
Opponents said the complaint examples cited by backers were unsubstantiated and warned the bill could trigger disputes about long-standing donor intent. Representative McKenzie asked whether a multimillion-dollar endowment set aside for a specific racial group would need to be returned; the sponsor said such matters would be negotiated between donors and universities and that the bill focuses on admissions and scholarship criteria going forward.
After debate, the clerk recorded 15 ayes and 4 nays; HB 377 moves to calendar and rules.
