Scholarships for incoming students admitted to JMC for Fall 2026 are now accepting applications. Contact Jahshua Smith (jmcadmin@msu.edu) with questions.
How to Apply: There are three separate scholarship applications open to incoming first-year students admitted to James Madison College for the Fall 2026 Semester. Students may submit applications to each form, if desired:
Scholarship awards will be based on the required application materials and the quality of writing in those materials. Students are asked to write their responses in a Word document or PDF file and upload it to the appropriate section in each eligible application form.
Students are required to list their MSU email address as part of their application.
Application Deadline: Applications are due by March 7, 2026, at 11:45 p.m. EST.
Application Review: Each scholarship application will be evaluated by a scholarship committee. Scholarship award recipients will be notified by mid-April through their official MSU email account.
Please Note: The following scholarships are contingent on remaining a student in James Madison College in good academic standing.
One $1,750 award for 2026-2027 (renewable for up to 4 years)
Open to every admitted student in the first-year class, this scholarship is designed to introduce students to the college’s focus on interdisciplinary study in the social sciences and public affairs. This award is supported through the JMC Alumni Association.
Apply to this scholarship via the Omnibus Application.
MSU programs and activities are not restricted based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin or other protected personal identity. This scholarship is open to all incoming JMC students without restriction or preference based on protected personal identity.
One $4,000 award for 2026-2027 (renewable for up to 4 years)
This gift honors A. Gordon Adams, Jr. a 1942 graduate of Michigan State University who spent most of his professional career with the First Michigan Corporation specializing in bond sales for government units, agencies and public service organizations. His own career has affirmed his belief in the benefits of a broad and liberal education and in the importance of students whose understandings of public affairs can forge public and private linkages that emphasize the value of service.
Apply to this scholarship via the Omnibus Application.
MSU programs and activities are not restricted based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin or other protected personal identity. This scholarship is open to all incoming JMC students without restriction or preference based on protected personal identity.
One $3,250 award for 2026-2027 (non-renewable)
This scholarship honors two accomplished and generous supporters of James Madison College, Michigan State University and public affairs education. Ms. Marilyn Darling is a graduate of the college as well as a very active leader of Madison’s Board of Visitors. It is the donor’s hope that recipients of this award will feel an ethical obligation at a future date to support the college and actively participate in assisting future generations of Madison students.
Apply to this scholarship via the Omnibus Application.
MSU programs and activities are not restricted based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin or other protected personal identity. This scholarship is open to all incoming JMC students without restriction or preference based on protected personal identity
One $3,000 award for 2026-2027 (renewable for up to 4 years)
Open for students admitted to James Madison College’s first-year class, with primary preference for graduates of high schools in Genesee County, Michigan. This award honors Daniel Oginsky, who grew up in the Flint, Michigan area before attending James Madison College and going on to law school. This award was created to support students from the Genesee County area who can in turn later help support their own communities.
Apply to this scholarship via the Omnibus Application.
MSU programs and activities are not restricted based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin or other protected personal identity. This scholarship is open to all incoming JMC students without restriction or preference based on protected personal identity.
One $2,000 for 2026-2027 (renewable for up to 4 years)
Open to every student admitted to the James Madison College first-year class, this scholarship honors the family members of John Habib, a Diplomat in Residence with the U.S. State Department who has previously taught at James Madison College as a visiting professor. The awards are in honor of his nine siblings: Eva Malcoun, Agnes Moffett, Bergita Nahas, Jemelia Thomas, Backus Habib, Margaret Pagano, Lilian Andary, Joseph Habib and Thomas Habib.
John’s financial support for student scholarships serves to advance understanding, knowledge, and determination to seek solutions to complicated contemporary world issues.
Apply to this scholarship via the Omnibus Application.
MSU programs and activities are not restricted based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin or other protected personal identity. This scholarship is open to all incoming JMC students without restriction or preference based on protected personal identity.
One $3,500 award for 2026-2027 (renewable for up to 4 years)
Open to every student admitted to the James Madison College first year class, with primary preference for graduates of high schools in St. Clair County, Michigan. This scholarship honors James Madison College graduates Tom Tanton and Sally Geib. Both Ms. Geib and Mr. Tanton feel that JMC provided them with excellent education and opportunities. Mr. Tanton was born and raised in Port Huron. Ms. Geib and Mr. Tanton would like to give back to that community, and they wish to encourage students from the Port Huron area to attend MSU and James Madison College.
Apply to this scholarship via the Omnibus Application.
MSU programs and activities are not restricted based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin or other protected personal identity. This scholarship is open to all incoming JMC students without restriction or preference based on protected personal identity.
One $1,500 Award for 2026-2027 (renewable for up to 3 years)
James Madison College is pleased to announce The Blaney Scholarship for Technology and International Affairs. This scholarship is open to students interested in Technology and International Affairs. Recipients must be enrolled in James Madison College and pursuing a degree in the college. Preference shall be given to students pursuing interest in technology and international affairs. Applicants can be selected based on financial need as determined by the Federal Government according to its policies and practices. The scholarship can be renewed for up to an additional three years. Recipients will be selected during the Spring semester, with awards to be effective in the following Fall semester.
Apply to this scholarship via the Omnibus Application.
MSU programs and activities are not restricted based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin or other protected personal identity. This scholarship is open to all incoming JMC students without restriction or preference based on protected personal identity.
One $7,000 award for 2026-2027 (renewable for up to 4 years)
The Nelson and Marlene Cummings Scholarship was founded by United States District Judge Jeffrey Cummings, a 1984 Madison graduate, to honor his parents and their life-long commitment to public affairs, civic activities, and education. The purpose of the scholarship is to assist James Madison College in its effort to recruit and retain students whose presence will further the College's compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a racially and ethnically diverse student body.
This essay competition is open to all incoming first year students who are planning to enroll in James Madison College at Michigan State University during the upcoming fall term. It is the donor's wish that all candidates answer the following essay question. Supplemental research is appropriate but not necessary and candidates should make sure to address all issues raised by the question. Preference shall be given to the student whose essay is stylistically well-written and best reflects creativity, personal experience and perspective, and analytic thought. Your essay must not exceed 1000 words.
Apply to the Cummings Scholarship via Google Forms.
Your essay must not exceed 1000 words. Please explain your view on these issues and discuss the potential implications on society if the courts were to adopt your position.
The Masterpiece Cakeshop Cases – A Collision of Rights: Protection from Discrimination versus Freedom of Speech and the Free Exercise of Religion
In 2012, Charlie Craig & David Mullins (the “Couple”) planned to marry in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages were legal, and to celebrate their marriage in their home state of Colorado, which at the time did not recognize same-sex marriages as lawful. (Same-sex marriage is now lawful throughout the nation by virtue of a 2015 ruling by the United States Supreme Court.) As part of their celebration, the Couple wanted to have a wedding cake and they went to Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. in Lakewood, Colorado to purchase one.
Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece, refused to design and create a wedding cake for the Couple because of his religious beliefs. Phillips, who is a Christian, believes that decorating cakes is a form of art and that he can honor God through his artistic talents. Phillips further believes that he would anger God by creating cakes for same-sex couples. Although Phillips refused to provide the Couple with a wedding cake, he did offer to make and sell the Couple any other baked goods that Masterpiece offers.
The Couple, who felt that they were singled out in public and humiliated because their sexual orientation, filed a lawsuit against Phillips and Masterpiece under Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (the “Act”). The Act prohibits places of public accommodation - - including businesses open to the public - - from discriminating against persons based on their sexual orientation.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of the Couple and held that Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeship (hereafter “Phillips”) had discriminated against them. The Commission ordered Phillips to create custom wedding cakes celebrating same-sex marriage if he creates similar cakes for marriages involving one man and one woman, change his company’s policies, and provide anti-discrimination training to his staff. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s ruling.
Rather than providing wedding cakes to same-sex couples, Phillips decided to stop providing wedding cakes to anyone even though he suffered a 40% decline in his business. Phillips also filed a petition to urge the United States Supreme Court to hear his appeal and the Supreme Court agreed to do so.
In his presentation to the Supreme Court, Phillips argued that applying the Act to compel him to design and make wedding cakes for same-sex couples violated his rights to free speech and to the free exercise of his religion as provided by the First Amendment to the Constitution. In particular, Phillips asserted that the Colorado decision forced him against his will to adopt a message supporting same-sex marriage because the act of creating a wedding cake is inherently an expression of support for the marriage. Phillips also asserted that the Colorado decision places him in the untenable position of either standing by his religious convictions (which do not approve of same-sex marriage) or abandoning his wedding cake business.
The Couple argued that Phillips’ right to free speech was not violated because the mere act of selling a wedding cake (which is all that the Couple asked him to do) is not “expressive conduct” that falls under the protection of the First Amendment. Consequently, the order requiring Phillips to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples does not - - standing alone - - compel him to communicate a message in violation of his sincerely held beliefs. The Couple further argued that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Law is a law of general application that is not targeted at a specific religion or population but instead requires all businesses that wish to operate in Colorado not refuse service to persons based on their sexual orientation. Given this, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment does not apply to provide Phillips with a justification for his non-compliance with the Colorado law based on his religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court decided Phillips’ appeal on June 4, 2018. See Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018). In its opinion, on page 1723, the Supreme Court highlighted the matters at stake:
The case presents the difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek good or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
The Justices of the Supreme Court had differing views regarding how the competing rights of the Couple and Phillips should be balanced under the facts of the case. However, the Supreme Court found that it was not necessary to resolve this difficult question to resolve Phillips’ appeal. Instead, the Court agreed that the decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals should be overturned because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of the case was not fair and impartial but instead reflected “a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated [Phillips’] objection” to providing the Couple with a wedding cake. Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S.Ct. at 1730.
Weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission filed a second complaint against Phillips on behalf of a trans woman named Autumn Scardina, who alleged that Phillips refused to provide her with service based on her transgender status. In particular, Scardina called Masterpiece to request a cake with a blue exterior, a pink interior, and without any words, symbols, or other details. After Phillips’ wife Debra confirmed that Masterpiece could make the cake, Scardina explained that she wanted the cake to celebrate her transition from male to female by displaying it at a party for the anniversary of her gender transition. Debra then replied that she did not think that Masterpiece could make the cake because of its message. In particular, Phillips believed that the cake would convey a message that conflicted with his religious beliefs that gender cannot be changed or chosen. Phillips offered to create a different custom cake for Scardina and to sell her any of the pre-made items available for purchase at Masterpiece but Scardina did not accept the alternatives.
In January 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court ruling in Scardina’s favor. Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 528 P.3d 926 (Ct.App. 2023); see https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/MasterpieceScardinaAppealsCourtDecision.pdf
The Court of Appeals held: (1) Phillips discriminated against Scardina because of her status as a trans woman; (2) the cake requested by Scardina did not have any inherent meaning or require Phillips to express a message such that making the cake would not compel Phillips to speak in violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech; (3) a proprietor may not refuse to sell a nonexpressive product to a protected person based on that person’s intent to use the product as part of a celebration that the proprietor considers offensive; and (4) enforcing the Act against Phillips did not violate his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion because it was a neutral law of general applicability.
The Colorado Supreme Court later decided to hear Phillips’ appeal to consider whether the decision by Phillips and Masterpiece not to create a pink cake with blue frosting that was to be used to celebrate a gender transition: (1) violated the Act’s prohibition on transgender status discrimination; and (2) was protected by the First Amendment. After considering Phillips’ appeal, a majority of the Colorado Supreme Court justices held that Scardina improperly filed his case, and it vacated the decision of the Colorado Appellate Court without resolving the merits of the two questions presented above. Masterpiece Cakeship, Inc. v. Scardina, 556 P.3d 1238 (Colo. 2024).
Assume that Scardina had properly filed his case and state how you believe that the Colorado Supreme Court should have ruled on the two questions stated above by considering: (a) how the rights of an individual to free speech and the free exercise of his/her religion should be balanced against the broader societal interest in eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; (b) whether Phillips should have the right to refuse to provide requested goods or services to gay and transgender individuals if doing so would conflict with his religious beliefs; and (c) whether Colorado should have the right to require that businesses comply with its anti-discrimination law as a condition of doing business within the state.
In addition, state your position as to whether claims concerning sexual orientation discrimination should be treated the same as claims of race discrimination or of sex discrimination. Keep in mind that courts have rejected the argument that a business owner’s religious beliefs can justify racial discrimination:
Undoubtedly defendant . . . has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This Court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishment upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.
See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.Supp. 941, 945 (D.S.C. 1966), affirmed in relevant part, 377 F.2d 433 (4th Cir. 1967), affirmed and modified on other grounds, 390 U.S. 400 (1968).
Finally, please discuss the potential implications for society if the courts were to adopt your position.