The US Department of Justice has found that the University of California San Diego School of Medicine used race unlawfully in admissions despite the US Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against the admissions programmes operated by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina.
The Civil Rights Division announced its finding on 20 July, concluding that the medical school’s practices violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and were contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard College.
According to the department, UC San Diego School of Medicine used ostensibly race-neutral criteria to increase the number of applicants classed as underrepresented minorities who were invited to interview. Admissions staff divided candidates into groups based on Medical College Admission Test scores and grade-point averages, with separate subgroups for those reporting hardship.
The department said reviewers had access to applicants’ race during parts of the assessment process in certain admissions cycles after the Supreme Court’s decision. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon described the process as an unlawful attempt to prioritise race over academic measures.
University counsel and lawyers advising other federally funded institutions will need to examine whether subjective admissions criteria operate as proxies for protected characteristics. Personal statements, hardship questions and contextual assessments may still be considered, but any advantage must be tied to an applicant’s individual experiences, qualities or achievements rather than race itself.
Institutions should be able to explain why each criterion is relevant and demonstrate how it is applied consistently across candidates.
Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, colour or national origin by programmes receiving federal financial assistance. The Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment concerned admissions policies operated by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, but its reasoning applies more broadly to federally funded institutions.
The action against UC San Diego shows that federal scrutiny extends beyond written admissions policies to the way internal scoring, grouping and interview-selection procedures operate in practice.
This remains an administrative determination rather than a court judgment. The Justice Department is seeking an agreed change to the medical school’s admissions practices and has said it will file suit if no settlement is reached.
In-house teams should preserve admissions records, reviewer guidance, scoring data and internal discussions explaining how contextual criteria were designed and applied. Any proceedings involving UC San Diego could clarify how Title VI and Students for Fair Admissions apply to medical-school admissions methods presented as race-neutral.
