Why Does Mackenzie Scott's $1.7 billion Donation to HBCUs Feel a Bit Off?
After pledging to give most of her fortune back to society last year, Mackenzie Scott, ex-wife of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, just announced that she will donate $160 million to to six different HBCU’s this week. Her wave of generosity is part of a $1.7 billion pledge to organizations doing “transformative” work in areas like racial equality, LGBTQ rights, and climate change.
Of the 106 HBCUs in existence, Howard University, Hampton University, Spelman College, Tuskegee University, Xavier University of Louisiana, and Morehouse College each were allotted an eight figure donation. Scott further explained the ethos behind her charity in a medium post announcing the donation.
MacKenzie Scott Bezos via Wiki4All
“There’s no question in my mind that anyone’s personal wealth is the product of a collective effort, and of social structures which present opportunities to some people, and obstacles to countless others.” Scott wrote.
Scott’s donation is undoubtedly the largest that any of these schools have received from a single donor. It’s all very well meaning, but, there is perhaps a less satisfying read on the situation. It just so happens that the six HBCUs allotted a portion of the $1.7 billion donation happen to charge more in tuition than the other 100 schools.
For example, Cheyney University of Pennsylvania has been struggling financially for years, and per the the Department of Education, happens to also be the oldest institution designated as an HBCU. Why not protect this highly accessible state school that serves the marginalized population you want to help, and also happens to be a hallmark of HBCU history? That could have something to do with the fact that Cheyney charges most of their students about half what HBCUs like Howard and Spelman do. It is well known that the most expensive schools get the most monetary support, so it’s important that a donation of this size begs questions about equity as well as equality.
Equality means everyone gets the same thing no matter what they had before, but equity gives extra to those who need it more and less to those who don’t. Two people can be struggling at the same time due to the same system, but that doesn’t mean their struggles are equal. Bigger schools with higher tuition often do more research, get more grants, and tend to produce more famous alumni. This puts them in a far more strategic position from which to thrive compared to their more cash strapped contemporaries.
Interaction Institute for Social Change | Artist: Angus Maguire
That said, the most entrepreneuring spirit might find that a donation to these schools could net the greatest return on their investment. If as a benefactor, return on investment represents a more equitable world, not individual profit, then one could argue that Scott used her money in the most equitable way by spending it on schools with the most reach.
On the other hand, one study by the Center for Minority Serving Institutions at Rutgers University in New Jersey found that attending any HBCU results in greater economic mobility for all students and graduates. HBCUs made up 8 of the top 10 universities producing Black undergraduates who go on to acquire PhDs in STEM fields. Of course big name HBCUs create a lot of opportunities for Black people from every walk of life. But, when you scale up the equity question, there is a very sound argument for spreading the love a bit more than Scott did with her donation.
Maybe the six most expensive HBCUs didn’t need gifts that size at the expense of the other good schools that could have been served as well. I suspect Scott’s team had some partially objective criteria that they used to select which schools were the ‘most deserving’. Things like the reach and notoriety of a school’s alumni circle, diversity of majors to choose from, etc. But, I’m also sure that need could not have been a supremely (or even partially) meaningful criteria. Why? Because not one of the less famous and more accessible HBCUs seemed to have met even one of Scott’s criteria. It’s worth noting that Scott broke the norm when she went beyond the usual big three of Howard, Morehouse and Spelman. But, for real, you can’t say you want equality and only give a historically sized donation to big name HBCUs.
Most people still see the value in acquiring a college degree. The wage disparity between high school and college graduates speaks for itself. But a lot of brilliant people don’t take a stab at college and it’s misguided to think cost isn’t playing a huge role. It’s misguided to think that the cost of an undergraduate degree isn’t regularly affected by the amount of money that schools have to start with already. The student debt crisis is also hurting black students disproportionately — the ones HBCUs primarily serve, and the ones Mackenzie Scott wants this money to help.
Sending some of that $1.7 billion to HBCUs that aren’t as well off could have made a huge difference if equality is what Scott wanted. If giving money to big name HBCUs is inevitable, then let it at least be under the strict condition that a sizable portion go towards tuition relief for the most vulnerable students. Plenty of wealthy individuals donate money to schools and charities and relief funds and everything else under the sun. But, if equality is the game, then Scott should treat it like the elusive and nuanced goal that it is by putting equity first.
*Article by Raz Robinson, journalist and freelance writer, based in New York City. Connect with him on LinkedIn, follow him on Twitter @razrobinson or send an email to Rrob0904 (at) gmail (dot) com.