Why Mackenzie Scott (Bezos Ex) Focused on HBCUs and Skipped UVI Exploring Her Philanthropic Criteria
M.A. Dworkin
USVI - Amazon Centi-Billionaire Jeff Bezos ex-wife, Mackenzie Scott’s gifts to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have been some of the most watched donations in higher education. They were large, unrestricted, and often bigger than anything those institutions had received before.
That is why one question keeps coming up: if Scott made HBCUs a major part of her giving, why did the University of the Virgin Islands (UVI ) not appear among the recipients?
The short answer is that Scott has not publicly explained why UVI did not receive a gift. Her giving process is intentionally quiet, with no open application, no public scoring sheet, and very few institution-by-institution details. Still, her public essays and the pattern of her donations give us useful clues.
The better question is not whether UVI deserved a gift. UVI is a vital public HBCU serving the U.S. Virgin Islands and the wider Caribbean. The better question is how Scott’s giving model works, what kinds of institutions it has favored, and why even strong HBCUs can fall outside a particular funding round.
Scott’s giving is built around trust and unrestricted support
Scott’s philanthropy stands apart because of the way she gives. Many major donors attach money to a building, a program, a research center, or a narrow set of outcomes. Scott has done the opposite in many cases.
Her gifts are usually unrestricted, meaning institutions can decide how to use the money. That matters for colleges and nonprofits that know their urgent needs better than an outside donor does.
For an HBCU, unrestricted money can support:
Student scholarships and emergency grants
Faculty hiring and retention
Mental health services
Academic advising
Technology upgrades
Campus repairs
Endowment growth
Debt relief or financial aid gaps
This approach signals trust. It says the institution does not need a donor to micromanage its priorities. It also gives college leaders room to address problems that do not always look exciting in a press release but have a huge effect on student success.
Scott has described her giving as a response to systems that have left some communities underfunded for generations. That framing helps explain why HBCUs became a natural focus. These schools have produced a large share of Black professionals, leaders, educators, scientists, and public servants while often receiving far less philanthropic and public investment than wealthier peer institutions.
For HBCUs, the gift was not just money. It was recognition.
The criteria appear to favor high impact, equity, and proven service
Scott has not released a neat checklist for how every recipient is chosen. Still, her public comments and giving patterns point to several likely factors.
Institutions serving communities with fewer resources
Scott’s donations often go to organizations that serve people and places facing structural barriers. In higher education, that includes institutions educating large numbers of first-generation students, low-income students, Black students, Latino students, Indigenous students, and students from other historically excluded groups.
HBCUs fit this mission clearly. Many enroll students who have talent and ambition but fewer financial resources. Many also operate with smaller endowments than predominantly white institutions with similar or larger public impact.
Strong leadership and community trust
Large unrestricted gifts require confidence in leadership. A donor giving tens of millions of dollars without restrictions likely wants to know that the institution has a credible plan, steady governance, and the trust of its community.
This does not mean every school that did not receive money lacks leadership. It means leadership is one factor among many, and outside observers rarely see the full review process.
A record of producing public good
Scott’s giving often seems to reward organizations that have already shown results. For HBCUs, that record includes educating teachers, nurses, judges, engineers, entrepreneurs, clergy, artists, scientists, and public officials.
The value of an HBCU is not limited to the campus. Graduates often return to their communities as leaders and caregivers. That makes the social return of a gift broader than a single institution.
The ability to absorb a major gift
A large unrestricted donation can transform a college, but it also requires planning. Institutions must manage the money, communicate clearly, and make choices that support both immediate needs and long-term stability.
A smaller school may benefit greatly from a major gift, but the scale and timing must make sense. Donors may consider whether an institution can deploy funds responsibly without creating pressure, confusion, or internal conflict.
Why UVI may not have been included in Scott’s HBCU giving
The University of the Virgin Islands is an HBCU, a public university, and an anchor institution for the U.S. Virgin Islands. It serves a region with distinctive needs, including island infrastructure, climate vulnerability, health care workforce demands, and economic development challenges.
That makes UVI a strong candidate for philanthropic attention. Yet it does not automatically answer why it was not included in a specific donor’s giving round.
There are several reasonable explanations, but they should be treated as possibilities rather than confirmed facts.
Scott did not fund every HBCU
This is the simplest explanation. Scott gave to many HBCUs, but not all of them. The absence of UVI does not, by itself, signal a judgment against the university.
Large philanthropic rounds are selective. Even donors with enormous resources make choices based on timing, research capacity, strategic focus, and portfolio balance. A school can be important and still not appear on one donor’s list.
Her process may have used filters UVI did not match at that time
Scott has worked with advisers to identify organizations with high impact and strong equity missions. Those advisers may have used data points such as student outcomes, financial position, leadership stability, community need, and institutional readiness.
UVI might not have matched a specific filter used in that round. Or it may not have surfaced in the research process with the same visibility as larger mainland HBCUs. That does not mean UVI lacked merit. It may mean the process had limits.
Geography may have affected visibility
UVI occupies a unique place. It is part of the HBCU community, but it is also a Caribbean institution serving a U.S. territory, not a mainland state. Philanthropic networks often pay less attention to territories than to states, even when the need is severe.
That broader pattern raises an important point for discussion. If funders want to support racial equity and educational access nationwide, they must remember that the United States includes territories. Students in the Virgin Islands are part of the American higher education story.
UVI may have had different funding signals
Some donors look for schools with a certain mix of need, momentum, and opportunity. UVI has its own public funding structure, local role, alumni base, and institutional priorities. A donor’s research team might have seen other schools as better aligned with a particular giving goal at that moment.
Again, this says more about the donor’s selection method than about UVI’s worth.
Scott may still give to UVI in the future
Scott’s giving has happened in waves. Recipients have changed over time. The fact that UVI did not receive a gift in one wave does not rule out future support from Scott or from other major donors influenced by her model.
A useful public conversation should avoid treating omission as permanent rejection.
Her gifts changed the conversation around HBCU philanthropy
Scott’s donations to HBCUs did more than help individual campuses. They changed the way people talk about giving to these institutions.
For decades, HBCUs have often been expected to do more with less. Many serve students with high financial need. Many keep tuition relatively low. Many lack the large endowments built by elite institutions over generations of wealth accumulation and donor access.
Scott’s gifts challenged the idea that HBCUs are risky philanthropic bets. They showed that a donor could give large sums, with few restrictions, and trust HBCU leaders to make wise decisions.
That matters because philanthropy can follow signals. When one major donor gives boldly, others may take a second look.
The impact of these gifts can be seen in several ways.
They strengthened institutional confidence.
A large unrestricted gift allows a college to plan from a position of possibility rather than scarcity. Leaders can address old needs and invest in new ideas.
They helped students directly.
Several HBCUs used major gifts to expand scholarships, reduce financial strain, or support students facing emergencies. That kind of aid can keep a student enrolled when a small unpaid balance might otherwise force them out.
They raised public visibility.
When an HBCU receives a major national gift, it draws media attention, alumni pride, and fresh interest from partners. Visibility can lead to more applications, more donors, and stronger community support.
They reframed HBCUs as high-return institutions.
Scott’s gifts pushed a simple truth into the open: HBCUs already produce enormous value. The issue has never been a lack of impact. The issue has been a lack of investment matching that impact.
UVI’s absence should spark a bigger conversation
The question of UVI points to a larger issue in American philanthropy. Which institutions get seen? Which students count in national equity efforts? Which communities remain just outside the frame?
UVI serves a place often overlooked in mainland policy conversations. The U.S. Virgin Islands faces challenges that differ from those in Atlanta, Washington, D.C., or the rural South, but those differences make the university more important, not less.
As the territory’s public university, UVI helps train local professionals, supports research tied to island life, and creates pathways for students who may not want, or be able, to leave home for college. Its role stretches beyond degrees. It contributes to resilience, culture, health, public service, and economic mobility.
That is the kind of mission philanthropy often says it wants to support.
So, when people ask why Scott skipped UVI, the most responsible answer is layered:
Scott has not given a public reason.
Her giving process is selective and private.
UVI may not have matched the criteria or timing of a specific funding round.
Territory-based institutions may receive less philanthropic visibility.
The omission does not mean UVI lacks value or impact.
This is where the discussion should move from curiosity to accountability. Major donors, foundations, alumni, and public leaders can all ask whether territory-serving institutions receive fair attention in national funding conversations.
What Scott’s model can teach future donors
Mackenzie Scott’s HBCU giving offers a clear lesson: trust-based philanthropy can be powerful when it meets institutions with deep community roots.
Future donors do not need to copy her exact process, and few can match her scale. But they can learn from the core ideas.
Give without excessive restrictions when leadership has earned trust. Look beyond wealthy institutions with large fundraising teams. Fund schools that already serve students facing real barriers. Treat HBCUs as engines of public good, not as symbolic causes.
They can also improve on the model by making sure the full HBCU community is visible, including smaller schools, rural schools, church-affiliated schools, public institutions, and territory-based institutions like UVI.
Scott’s choices have already shifted the national conversation. They proved that large gifts to HBCUs are not charity in the narrow sense. They are investments in institutions that have been building opportunity for generations.
UVI’s absence from her HBCU giving is not a final verdict. It is an opening for better questions. Who gets included when donors talk about equity? How do selection systems account for geography and visibility? What would happen if more funders looked toward the Virgin Islands with the same seriousness they bring to better-known campuses?
The most useful takeaway is simple: Scott’s philanthropy has helped many HBCUs, but the work is bigger than one donor. If her giving pushes more people to recognize the full range of HBCU impact, including the role of UVI, then the conversation can lead somewhere meaningful.
