Scott’s giving reverses nearly every assumption embedded in that earlier tradition. Her team does not direct how funds should be used or impose layers of oversight. Instead, they defer to institutional leaders and trust their judgment. She seeks out people who “have experience with inequities,” and her model reflects partnership rather than control. Although Scott does not publish a formula for selecting campuses, the institutions chosen for her HBCU gifts share several characteristics that reflect the values outlined in her Medium blog. Her team seeks campuses with steady leadership, a proven track record of serving students well, and the ability to leverage substantial investments into sustained long-term stability. These qualities do not always appear in headline metrics alone, but they tend to manifest consistently across funded institutions. Most of the HBCUs receiving her support have stable executive leadership, often with presidents who have strengthened governance structures, expanded fundraising, or improved campus culture. Scott’s giving emphasizes trust, and stable leadership signals the ability to manage a significant unrestricted gift with a clear sense of institutional priorities.
Many of the selected campuses also show steady or improving retention and graduation trends, even when working with students who arrive with uneven preparation due to systemic inequities in K–12 schooling. Scott has noted that she looks for organizations with “a track record of impact,” and for HBCUs, this often includes campuses that have closed equity gaps, increased retention for first-generation students, or strengthened wraparound supports. Accreditation matters as well. The HBCUs receiving her gifts are fully accredited institutions that have maintained strong accreditation reviews, including progress on financial management and academic quality. In an environment where many HBCUs face pressure from state politics, tightening budgets, or shifts in enrollment, solid accreditation signals institutional resilience. Finally, Scott’s team often favors campuses that are tied to local needs and regional economies. These institutions are renowned for producing teachers, nurses, public servants, and leaders who remain committed to their communities. In that sense, Scott’s giving acknowledges both present stability and long-term impact.
This cluster of characteristics does not function as a checklist. Still, together they reflect Scott’s broader philosophy: investing in HBCUs that have demonstrated strength, even amid underfunding, and that have the leadership and infrastructure to scale their impact without donor-imposed direction. Large, unrestricted gifts of this scale offer immediate relief to campuses that have spent decades stretching limited budgets. They also challenge long-standing assumptions about which institutions deserve transformative investment. Scott’s approach frames HBCUs as competent stewards of primary philanthropic resources. Her model also sets a different tone for donor participation. She rarely seeks public recognition beyond the initial announcement and does not attach naming rights, ceremonies, or donor- designed programs to her contributions. The focus stays on institutional priorities rather than donor visibility. Scott's billion-dollar commitment underscores the central role of HBCUs in expanding opportunity and offers a new guide for philanthropic partnerships. It demonstrates that deep investment in HBCUs can occur without strings, surveillance, or donor- driven agendas.
2 2 | HBCU TIMES WINTER ISSUE 2026
Powered by FlippingBook