## Facts

- The University of Maryland at College Park (UMCP) created the Benjamin Banneker Scholarship Program, a merit scholarship available only to African-American students and providing substantial financial support.
- UMCP asserted the program was remedial, intended to address the present effects of UMCP’s past discrimination against African Americans and to improve African-American recruitment, enrollment, retention, and graduation.
- UMCP also offered a race-neutral merit scholarship (Francis Scott Key) with more demanding academic criteria than Banneker.
- Daniel J. Podberesky, a Hispanic/white applicant, met the Banneker program’s nonracial requirements but was categorically ineligible because he was not African American.
- Podberesky narrowly missed the criteria for the Key scholarship and received no comparable award.
- Podberesky sued UMCP officials, alleging that the race restriction violated Title VI and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.
- After an earlier remand requiring specific findings on “present effects” of past discrimination, the district court again upheld the program on summary judgment; Podberesky appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether UMCP showed sufficient, specific present effects of its past discrimination to justify a race-exclusive remedial scholarship under strict scrutiny and Title VI.
2. Whether the Banneker Scholarship Program was narrowly tailored to remedy any identified present effects of UMCP’s past discrimination.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for UMCP.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of Podberesky’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Podberesky.
- The court held UMCP lacked sufficient evidence of present effects of past discrimination to justify the race-exclusive scholarship.
- The court held the program was not narrowly tailored to its stated remedial objectives and therefore violated equal protection standards applied through Title VI.

## Legal Principles

- Title VI intentional discrimination claims in federally funded programs are analyzed under standards coextensive with the Equal Protection Clause.
- Explicit racial classifications by a public university are subject to strict scrutiny: the measure must serve a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored.
- A remedial interest requires evidence of specific, current harms that are traceable to the institution’s prior discrimination; a generalized history of discrimination is insufficient.
- Narrow tailoring requires a close fit between identified present effects and the remedy, and may consider whether less restrictive alternatives, meaningful limits, and review mechanisms exist.
- A race-exclusive benefit may fail narrow tailoring when it is overinclusive or underinclusive relative to the asserted remedial objective and lacks demonstrated necessity.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit invalidated UMCP’s race-exclusive Banneker scholarship, concluding that UMCP did not establish sufficiently specific present effects of past discrimination and that the program’s categorical racial restriction was not narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny as applied through Title VI.


Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 1994)