DOJ Accuses UC San Diego Med of Race Bias in 10,400-Applicant Admissions Process
Updated
Updated · The San Diego Union-Tribune · Jul 20
DOJ Accuses UC San Diego Med of Race Bias in 10,400-Applicant Admissions Process
3 articles · Updated · The San Diego Union-Tribune · Jul 20
Summary
An eight-page DOJ letter said UC San Diego School of Medicine intentionally used race in admissions and is seeking a voluntary resolution agreement to bring the program into compliance.
A four-month review found the school used a "shadow" process that elevated applicants citing hardships—described by DOJ as a proxy for boosting Black and Hispanic interviewees—even in lower score tiers.
DOJ said screeners in some years could see applicants' race and that more qualified white and Asian applicants were denied admission; the school produced 75 documents covering 2020-2025 cycles.
UC San Diego said all Doctor of Medicine applicants must meet uniform academic thresholds and that it is reviewing the findings while remaining committed to federal law.
The case extends the Trump administration's crackdown on race-conscious admissions after California's long-standing affirmative-action ban and the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling against such practices nationwide.
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.