Missouri
Missouri attorney general orders colleges to drop minority scholarships
Office of the Attorney General
In the wake of Thursday’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional, many colleges issued statements. Most said that they disagreed with the ruling, but they would follow the law. Most said they would need to study the decision a bit before announcing policy changes.
Missouri is not letting them take long.
Andrew Bailey, the state’s Republican attorney general, sent a letter Thursday (the same day the decision came down) to colleges in the state, public and private, telling them they had no more time.
“In recent years, the Supreme Court has created confusion by acknowledging that racial classifications are presumptively unconstitutional while simultaneously upholding so-called ‘affirmative action’ college admission programs that systemically disfavor applicants because of race,” he said. “Today’s Supreme Court decisions against Harvard and the University of North Carolina resolve this previous contradiction.”
Specifically, Bailey said, “institutions in Missouri must implement the Supreme Court’s decisions immediately. In today’s rulings, the court held that there are no legitimate reliance interests created by past rulings that seemed to bless affirmative action. There is thus no justification for Missouri institutions to ‘grandfather’ in existing programs that disfavor applicants based on race. All Missouri programs that make admitting decisions by disfavoring individuals based on race—not just college admissions, but also scholarships, employment, law reviews, etc.—must immediately adopt race-blind standards.”
While the decision does not mention race-based financial aid specifically, the man who led the effort to sue over affirmative action said it is certain to apply.
Edward Blum of Students for Fair Admissions said, “Virtually all race-exclusive scholarships were already illegal as I understand the law. But whatever confusion there may have been before the SFFA ruling, it is correct that race-exclusive fellowships, scholarships, and general educational programs must end.” (As will be explained later in the story, not everyone agrees with that statement.)
The University of Missouri system also on Thursday released a statement:
“As allowed by prior law, a small number of our programs and scholarships have used race/ethnicity as a factor for admissions and scholarships,” the statement said. “Those practices will be discontinued, and we will abide by the new Supreme Court ruling concerning legal standards that applies to race-based admissions and race-based scholarships. UM universities will honor our financial aid commitments that have already been awarded to our returning and incoming students. These awards were lawfully issued under previous Supreme Court and U.S. Department of Education interpretations.”
The university operates campuses in Columbia, Kansas City, Rolla and St. Louis.
Christian Basi, a spokesman for the system, said the university spent $16.12 million in the past academic year on scholarships for which race or ethnicity was a factor. That represents 5.3 percent of total spending on student aid.
He said the university system was discussing what to do with the funds and that one idea was “investing more in scholarships that are focused on socioeconomic status.”
Basi added, “We know that it’s critical to have a diverse community on our campus as contributions from individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives promote the intellectual pluralism that ensures us of reaching our goal of excellence in learning, research and engagement.”
Missouri State University does not have any scholarships that are restricted by race or ethnicity.
A spokeswoman for Washington University in St. Louis said she couldn’t comment at this time. WashU chancellor Andrew D. Martin issued a statement last week when the Supreme Court ruled that said, “At Washington University, we are firmly committed to cultivating a diverse student body that includes individuals from a broad range of backgrounds and perspectives percent Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court does not change this commitment. We are reviewing the ruling to understand how it will impact our admissions processes, and we will make necessary adjustments to ensure that we are following the law. We will not waver in our commitment to creating a community where all are welcome, included and supported on their path to success.”
Another Perspective
The issue of minority scholarships is likely to come up in many places beyond Missouri. And Missouri’s is an example of a university system that doesn’t practice affirmative action in admissions but has done so in financial aid.
Justin Draeger, president and CEO of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said his association did not advise Missouri on the changes it made.
He urged colleges to act carefully and after they have had time to study the decision. Draeger spoke as his association was having its annual meeting.
“We first and foremost pointed out that the SCOTUS opinion was squarely focused on institutions’ admissions policies,” he said. “We also pointed out to schools that the highest court in the country took months to deliberate on this issue, and schools should similarly consider any implications on financial aid. This ruling came from a long and deliberate process, and we urged schools to be careful about overreacting and encouraged them to consult with their attorneys and await forthcoming guidance from the Department of Education before significantly altering their student aid programs.”
Draeger added, “It’s also worth noting, any injunctions relating to scholarships will create logistical challenges that could negatively impact students, because scholarship requirements will need to be rewritten, which could in turn create funding delays and gaps. Overhauling scholarship programs cannot happen overnight.”
Missouri
Trailblazing KCTV5 anchor Anne Peterson to be inducted into Missouri Broadcasters Hall of Fame
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (KCTV) – A KCTV5 news anchor who came into your living room every night for decades is being inducted into the Missouri Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame.
It’s an honor given to those who make a significant contribution to the fields of radio and television broadcasting, an honor that Anne Peterson certainly deserves.
The youngest main female anchor in the nation in 1979, Peterson came to KCTV (then KCMO) at the age of 22 and joined veteran anchor Wendall Anschutz on the desk. Proving herself time and again, Peterson and Anschutz made history as the longest-running anchor duo in the country, working together for 22 years.
“This was the golden age of broadcasting,” Peterson reflected. “I am forever blessed that I was part of it.”
The Hyatt Regency walkway collapse, previewing the royal wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles and reporting from the 1981 presidential inauguration of Ronald Reagan are just some of the highlights from her illustrious career.
Her tenure with KCTV ended in 2003, but she left behind a legacy that will be memorialized forever in Missouri broadcasters’ elite club. Her name will reside alongside legendary broadcasters like Walter Cronkite, Bob Costas, Rush Limbaugh, and, of course, her late co-anchor Wendall Anschutz.
“I just want to say thank you Kansas City,” she said. “Thank you so much for all your love, your support, your encouragement and embracing me throughout the years, since 1979 until today.”
Copyright 2024 KCTV. All rights reserved.
Missouri
Missouri football announces start times for two more home games
The Tigers will open the season hosting Murray State at 7 p.m. Aug. 29 (SEC Network), then will host Buffalo at 6 p.m. Sept. 7 (ESPN+). In Week 3, Missouri will host Boston College at 11:45 a.m. Sept. 14 (SEC Network).
Missouri
Reactions to Trump conviction fall along party lines in Missouri • Missouri Independent
Reactions by Missouri politicians to the felony conviction Thursday of former President Donald Trump fell predictably along partisan lines, with Republicans condemning the verdict and Democrats expressing satisfaction or trolling their partisan foes.
Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a candidate for the GOP nomination for governor, blamed President Joe Biden for the state of New York’s prosecution of Trump for hush money payments to a porn star to keep the story of their sexual liaison private.
“Joe Biden has weaponized the justice system to go after one of the greatest Presidents in our history,” Ashcroft wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “The democrats are trying to steal another election.”
Ashcrof’s statement echoed Trump’s false claim that he won the 2020 election over Biden.
New York state prosecutors charged 34 felonies against the former president for each of the 11 invoices, 11 checks, and 12 ledger entries tied to reimbursing his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.
Cohen, often referred to as Trump’s former “fixer,” said during trial testimony that he wired $130,000 to adult film star and director Stormy Daniels days before the 2016 election to silence her about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump.
The two other Republicans running for governor who are registering in primary polls also used social media to proclaim their loyalty to Trump.
“This entire trial was a political stunt and a complete weaponization of our judicial system,” Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe wrote on his X account.
State Sen. Bill Eigel posted a video on his X account accompanied by text saying: “RIGGED! This is a disgraceful sham. I stand 100%” with Trump.
Missouri solidly backed Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, giving him almost 57% of the vote in both years. His endorsement was aggressively sought by candidates in the 2022 Republican U.S. Senate primary, but he withheld any preference until the day before the election and then put out a vague statement that did not specify a single candidate.
Trump has all the votes in Missouri’s delegation to the Republican National Convention, set for July in Milwaukee, which is expected to nominate him for a third run for the White House.
On the Democratic side, glee was suppressed by those who were moved to comment.
U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Kansas City Democrat, said in a statement from his office that the conviction was not something to celebrate. It shows the strength of the American justice system, he said.
“Today is a victory for justice and the rule of law,” Cleaver said. “Just as every American is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, we are equally guaranteed that no individual, including a former president, is above accountability.”
State Rep. Doug Mann of Columbia noted the historic nature of the event – Trump is the first former president to be convicted of a felony after leaving office – and then considered the political impact:
“Will this affect the campaign?,” he wrote on X. “Likely not, but it is good to see the judicial system work and see powerful people held accountable for their misdeeds”
Democratic state Rep. Keri Ingle, a Lee’s Summit Democrat, didn’t directly comment on the verdict, instead relying on snark to express her feelings.
“So, anything interesting happen today?” Ingle wrote on X.
From Washington, U.S. Sens. Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, both Republicans, expressed their support for Trump.
In one post, Hawley joined Ashcroft in blaming the prosecution on Biden. In a separate post, Hawley attacked the proceedings in New York City.
“This ‘trial’ has been from beginning to end a complete and total sham, a mockery of the criminal justice system, and one of the most dangerous abuses of our political process in American history,” Hawley wrote.
Schmitt compared the trial to the staged proceedings in the Soviet Union used by Communist dictator Josef Stalin to cement his power in the 1930s.
“The American people will reject this unprecedented lawfare in November,” Schmitt wrote.
State Rep. Sarah Unsicker, a Shrewsbury Democrat, shot back at Schmitt that he was just making things up.
“That’s a conclusion with no supporting evidence,” Unsicker wrote. “Too many Missourians know what a Soviet-style show trial is like, from their own experiences. And you’ve done nothing to correct that.”
Other Republicans weighing in reflected the comments of the party leaders.
State Sen. Holly Rehder, a candidate for lieutenant governor, said in a statement that the case was brought in a “biased system manipulated by those who fear the power and influence of the MAGA movement.”
Attorney General Andrew Bailey called the outcome an “illegal conviction” and predicted “Americans will overwhelmingly reelect President Trump in November.
Annelise Hanshaw contributed to this report. This article has been updated since it was initially published.
-
News1 week ago
The states where abortion is on the ballot in November : Consider This from NPR
-
News1 week ago
Read Prosecutors’ Filing on Mar-a-Lago Evidence in Trump Documents Case
-
Politics1 week ago
Michael Cohen swore he had nothing derogatory on Trump, his ex-lawyer says – another lie – as testimony ends
-
World1 week ago
Serbian parliamentary minnow pushes for 'Russian law' equivalent
-
Technology1 week ago
Microsoft’s new Windows Copilot Runtime aims to win over AI developers
-
World1 week ago
Who is Ali Bagheri Kani, Iran’s acting foreign minister?
-
Politics1 week ago
Anti-Israel agitators interrupt Blinken Senate testimony, hauled out by Capitol police
-
News1 week ago
Buy-now, pay-later returns and disputes are about to get federal oversight