Pages

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

DOJ on UCSD Med School

Press release 

Justice Department Finds University of California San Diego Medical School Discriminates Based on Race in Admissions


The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced today a finding that the University of California San Diego School of Medicine (San Diego Med) used race in its admissions process in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), which banned race discrimination in higher education.

"Rather than rely on MCAT scores or GPA, San Diego Med’s shadow application process unlawfully judged applicants for admission based on their race,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “San Diego Med’s blatant efforts to prioritize race are illegal, and we will end these practices.”

The Department’s investigation found that San Diego Med manipulated applicant data to achieve greater racial diversity in student admissions. San Diego Med’s documents show that admissions staff used purportedly “race-neutral” subjective criteria to deliberately increase admission of so-called “underrepresented minorities in medicine” (URM), which includes black and Hispanic applicants. In fact, San Diego Med used racial proxies, which, under SFFA, are banned by Title VI.

One example includes San Diego Med’s admissions staff using answers to “hardship” application questions — which allow applicants to address how they “overcame” certain disadvantages — to help determine which students were URM applicants. Thereafter, the admissions staff sorted applicants into six categories: Groups A-C — from highest to lowest MCAT scores and GPA, with “hardship” subgroups for each group. Each group and its subgroup were combined (e.g., “Group A” plus “Group A with hardship”), further sorted into “batches” of 30, and then rated for the interview stage. By giving reviewers access to the applicant’s race during this stage for certain admissions cycles post-SFFA, San Diego Med ensured that more URM applicants would be invited to interview. Thus, San Diego Med deliberately used the “hardship” categorization to skirt SFFA, by putting more URMs into the subgroups, which ensured that more URMs received interviews.

The result of San Diego Med’s manipulation: white and Asian applicants were denied admission in favor of lower-credentialed black and Hispanic applicants.

Medical schools receive substantial federal financial assistance and are subject to federal non-discrimination laws. The Department will continue to monitor and ensure their compliance with Title VI and SFFA’s prohibition on race-conscious admissions. Where a violation has been found, the Department is engaging in settlement negotiations to ensure the school’s admissions practices are brought into compliance. If those efforts fail, the Department will file suit.

===

Reporting

Reporting Options

If you have witnessed, experienced, or been informed of sexual harassment, sexual violence, or other discrimination or harassment based on any protected category at UCLA or within the UCLA Health system, please report it to CRO [Civil Rights Office] as soon as possible.

===

In Person: Murphy Hall, Suite 2255

Office Hours: Monday-Friday (except campus closure days) 9 a.m. – 5 p.m.

On The Web: Report an Incident form: https://ucla-ocr.caseiq.app/portal/reportonline

By Email: civilrights@ucla.edu

By Phone: (310) 825-7102

Monday-Friday (except campus closure days) 9 a.m. – 5 p.m.

After Hours Reporting: CALL 800-403-4744 (toll-free) This number is staffed by live operators at the UC Whistleblower Hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Your report will be forwarded to CRO on the next business day. Reports may be made anonymously (unless made by a Responsible Employee who must use the Report an Incident Form: https://ucla-ocr.caseiq.app/portal/reportonline).

Making a report is not the same as making a formal complaint and does not necessarily lead to an investigation. Anyone who makes a report may choose to only access supportive measures and not participate in a Resolution Process (such as a formal investigation). CRO strives to honor a person’s preferred course of action whenever possible.

===

Timely Reporting

Reports should be made as soon as possible. Making a timely report ensures that all impacted individuals have equal access to supportive measures and information about reporting options. It also allows the University to take prompt action to stop discriminatory or harassing conduct, prevent it from recurring, and address its effects. Timely reporting also helps ensure that the University fulfills its obligations under federal and state civil rights and campus safety laws and reinforces our institutional mission and values.

===

Whistleblower Reporting Form: https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/23531/index.html

===

Source: https://civilrights.ucla.edu/report-concern

===

See also Reporting Requirements at:

https://civilrights.ucla.edu/report-concern/faculty-staff-reporting-responsibilities.

===

In the event of an emergency or crisis call 911 or contact UCLAPD at (310) 825-1491.

Straws in the Wind - Part 409

From the State News: Michigan State University faculty overwhelmingly voted that they lack confidence in the Board of Trustees, while a separate vote showed a majority support President Kevin Guskiewicz. Of the 1,394 who voted, 86%, or 1,199, indicated that they didn't have confidence in the board. Just 8.6%, or 120 faculty members, voted that they have trust or confidence in the board, with 5.4%, or 132, abstaining.

Faculty Senate Chair John Aerni-Flessner said that the purely advisory action organized by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee was "not a campaign against anyone" but "to have the president and the board see where faculty stand, so that they can take that into consideration." More than 53% of voters said they have confidence and trust in the president. Of those, 37% said they don’t have that trust in him, and 9.5% abstained...

All 4,103 faculty members were eligible to cast a ballot. The participation rate for the vote was 34%... In a statement sent to The State News, Board Chair Brianna Scott wrote that she didn't believe the "hard work, dedication and reliable support of the majority of the Board is reflected in the results of the vote by the Academic Congress...

In Guskiewicz’s initial departure announcement for Clemson University,* he said working with the MSU board was an "unsustainable situation." Nearly six weeks later when Guskiewicz decided to stay at MSU, he wrote in another community letter that he was "sincerely sorry" for any uncertainty that he caused. He also acknowledged a need to rebuild trust...

Full story at https://statenews.com/article/2026/07/the-board-needs-to-see-where-faculty-stand-msu-faculty-overwhelmingly-back-no-confidence-vote.

===

 *President Guskiewicz had said he was going to Clemson, but changed his mind.

Don't Respond

It looks innocent enough: an electronic invitation to an event, seemingly sent by someone you know. But when you start to respond, it begins to ask you for things such as the password to your email account. That's a big no-no. Do not supply such information. It likely means that your contact has been hacked. And you will be, too, if you supply information.

What you can do is to contact the person supposedly sending the invitation, indicate you think a hacking has occurred, and advise them to let all their contacts know.  

Yale Deal - Part 8

From the Yale Daily News: A group of Connecticut lawmakers sent a letter to University President Maurie McInnis and trustees threatening to revisit Yale’s tax-exempt status and reform the process of selecting the Yale Corporation if the University settles with the federal government. The state legislators, most of whom are Yale alumni, urged the University to bring the Trump administration to court over Department of Justice investigations into its admissions practices. That probe, which began at the Yale School of Medicine and expanded to the Law School and Yale College, represents the University’s first major confrontation with the second Trump administration... 

In their letter, the lawmakers threatened to review Yale’s special exemption from state property taxes and reassess the composition of the Yale Corporation if the University cuts a deal with the Trump administration. They cited the favorable ruling Harvard received after it sued the government over $2 billion in federal grant freezes, promising to support Yale — which has not received targeted cuts — if it chose to go to court.

...The lawmakers wrote that a settlement of the kind “reportedly under discussion” could “fundamentally unsettle” the centuries-old bargain between Connecticut and Yale. Since the Connecticut Colony granted Yale’s original trustees license in 1701 to start a college, the school’s founding charter has been amended to include various agreements between the University and the state. These have concerned the composition of the Yale board of trustees and, under an 1834 provision of the charter, the tax-exempt status of University property that serves some commercial use, provided it does not bring in an income of over $6,000. Due to the University’s nonprofit status, none of the educational buildings on its campus are taxed... The feasibility of the letter’s threats regarding Yale’s taxation status and the Corporation’s composition is unclear...

While the lawmakers’ tactics in some ways mirror policy changes under the Trump administration — including an endowment tax increase that took effect this month and is expected to cost Yale around $300 million per year — the signatories who spoke to the News differentiated their letter from federal attacks on higher education...

Full story at https://yaledailynews.com/articles/objecting-to-trump-talks-ct-lawmakers-threaten-yale-s-tax-exempt-status.

Monday, July 20, 2026

Lost Track

Sad to say, this blog lost track of a case from a California community college involving such issues as free speech, academic freedom, etc. It involved a faculty member at Bakersfield College who objected to DEI statements and related matters. We had previously covered it at an earlier stage.*

The case was initially dismissed, appealed, largely won by the plaintiff through a temporary injunction, and finally and recently made permanent. From Inside Higher Ed:

...In a 2023 lawsuit, [history professor Daymon] Johnson accused administrators of penalizing him and other professors for expressing conservative political and social views based on the system’s DEIA principles, including that faculty “employ teaching, learning, and professional practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles” and demonstrate “proficiency in DEIA-related performance to teach, work, or lead within California community colleges.” He claimed the mandate would force him to express views he didn’t believe...

The settlement turns a preliminary injunction granted by a federal court in February into a five-year permanent injunction that prevents administrators from investigating, disciplining or terminating Johnson for political speech.** But he’s still required to attend mandatory DEIA training to serve on a faculty screening committee. Johnson also won $150,000 toward his attorneys’ fees, according to the Institute for Free Speech, which represented him in the lawsuit...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/07/13/bakersfield-settles-professor-suing-over-dei-principles.

Note that although the case involved DEI issues at a community college, a similar case arising from UC would likely produce the same effect, regardless of the particular topic. Forced speech in an academic setting maintained by a state entity would likely be found illegal,

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/02/more-on-community-college-dei-statements.html

**The court decision is at:

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_temp.pl?file=14621022-0--95548.pdf&type=application/pdf.

Straws in the Wind - Part 408

From Inside Higher Ed: Democrats’ confidence in higher education has hit a record low, with just 50 percent expressing confidence, according to the latest Lumina Foundation–Gallup Confidence in Higher Education survey... That’s down from 61 percent last year who said they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher ed, and 68 percent who said the same in 2015, when Gallup first began collecting such data. For Courtney Brown, Lumina’s vice president of impact and planning, Democrats’ declining confidence in higher ed is driven by their concern over college affordability and outcomes. Democrats are asking themselves, “Is somebody going to get a good job?” she said. “If they’re going to invest this amount of money and time, we want to make sure there’s a good job on the other side.”

Still, Republicans have expressed a steeper long-term decline in confidence in higher education, down 33 percentage points since 2015, from 56 percent then to 23 percent in the latest survey. The data was collected during phone interviews with 1,001 adults in the first 15 days of June. All told, 38 percent of American adults said they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher ed, down from 42 percent last year. The survey also revealed that 37 percent of Americans have “some” confidence in higher ed, while 25 percent expressed “very little” or “none.” Last year, 23 percent had very little or no confidence...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/institutions/2026/07/14/democrats-confidence-higher-ed-hits-record-low.