DOJ Accuses UC San Diego Med of Race Bias After 4-Month Admissions Probe
Updated
Updated · NBC San Diego · Jul 22
DOJ Accuses UC San Diego Med of Race Bias After 4-Month Admissions Probe
3 articles · Updated · NBC San Diego · Jul 22
Summary
An eight-page Justice Department letter says UC San Diego School of Medicine illegally considered race in admissions from 2019 to 2025, disadvantaging White and Asian applicants while favoring Black and Brown students.
The department says the school used “hardship” as a proxy for race after dropping the label “Underrepresented Minority in Medicine,” arguing that shift was meant to preserve race-conscious decisions after the 2023 Harvard ruling.
DOJ also cites admissions data showing Black applicants were admitted at more than twice the rate of White applicants for incoming classes from 2023 to 2025, though a law professor said those figures need applicant-pool context.
UC San Diego said it is reviewing the findings, maintains all applicants had to meet uniform academic thresholds, and said it will work with the federal government while remaining committed to federal law.
The case extends a wider federal push against alleged race-based admissions at Stanford, UCLA, Yale and Harvard, with Yale reportedly moving toward settlement and Harvard still in litigation.
How can medical schools legally build a diverse class of doctors without using racial proxies?
As elite school diversity declines, what will be the ultimate cost to patient health in underserved communities?
Federal Investigation Reveals UCSD School of Medicine’s Unlawful Use of Race in Admissions (2023–2025)
Overview
In July 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice found that UCSD School of Medicine unlawfully used race in its admissions process, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and going against the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on race in admissions. The DOJ’s investigation uncovered a 'shadow application process' where admissions staff used seemingly neutral criteria, like MCAT scores and GPA, to create subgroups that favored underrepresented minorities. This approach allowed race to influence interview selections, even after the Supreme Court’s decision, highlighting how internal practices can conflict with federal law despite appearing neutral on the surface.