DOJ Says UC San Diego Med Used 62-Applicant Plan to Favor Black, Hispanic Admissions
Updated
Updated · Fox News · Jul 21
DOJ Says UC San Diego Med Used 62-Applicant Plan to Favor Black, Hispanic Admissions
3 articles · Updated · Fox News · Jul 21
Summary
Nearly $1 billion in federal funding is at risk after the Justice Department told lawmakers UC San Diego Med illegally disadvantaged White and Asian applicants in admissions.
A months-long probe found the school used hardship essays as a proxy for race and, after the 2023 Supreme Court ban on race-conscious admissions, created a "bump up Group C" plan to move up to 62 lower-credentialed applicants into interviews.
From 2019 to 2025, Black applicants were admitted at more than twice the rate of White applicants; in 2023 the rates were 6.18% versus 2.45%, despite higher average GPAs and MCAT scores for White applicants.
The department said admitted Black and Hispanic students also posted lower median MCAT scores than admitted White and Asian students in the 2023-2025 classes, citing internal messages as evidence of intentional discrimination.
The findings were aired during a House debate over DEI in medical schools, as the Trump administration presses universities to scrap admissions practices that could evade the Harvard affirmative-action ruling.
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.