What they're not telling you: # UCLA Med School Illegally Using Race In Admissions: DOJ The Department of Justice has accused UCLA's supreme-cour.html" title="UCLA Medical School Accused Of Racial Discrimination In Defiance Of Supreme Court" style="color:#1a1a1a;text-decoration:underline;text-decoration-style:dotted;font-weight:500;">medical school of systematically discriminating against white and Asian applicants by using race as a factor in admissions decisions, according to a seven-page letter released Wednesday from the agency's Civil Rights Division. The DOJ's finding comes nearly two years after the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, which effectively prohibited race-conscious admissions policies at universities nationwide.
# THE TAKE The DOJ's UCLA findings expose what institutional gatekeepers won't admit: race-conscious admissions survived Affirmative Action bans through deliberate bureaucratic obfuscation. UCLA didn't slip up—they institutionalized preference structures into "holistic review" protocols specifically designed to withstand legal scrutiny. The mechanics: coded language transforms racial weighting into "diversity narratives." Admissions committees document nothing explicitly illegal, yet applicant datasets reveal the statistical fingerprint of systematic racial sorting. This is administrative sophistication, not accident. Here's the uncomfortable part: medical schools genuinely want demographic diversity. The illegality stems not from intent but from the explicit mechanism. Post-*Students for Fair Admissions*, institutions can't say the quiet part loud anymore. The investigation's real significance? It signals enforcement will scrutinize documentation trails and statistical patterns—making future institutional preference-laundering measurably riskier. UCLA got caught. Others are taking notes on better concealment.
What the Documents Show
That ruling explicitly stated schools could only consider how race affected individual applicants if those students wrote about their experiences in personal essays—but could not use race itself as a selection criterion. The DOJ contends UCLA's medical school has violated this ruling repeatedly across admissions cycles for 2023, 2024, and 2025. "Racism in admissions is both illegal and anti-American, and this Department will not allow it to continue," stated Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division in the letter issued May 6. UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine responded by defending its admissions process as "based on merit and grounded in a rigorous, comprehensive review of each applicant." A spokesperson told the Epoch Times the medical school was "committed to providing equal opportunity to all applicants and fully complying with federal and state laws," while noting the institution was still reviewing the DOJ's report.
Follow the Money
The school did not specifically address the allegations of race-based discrimination in its statement. The investigation represents the latest escalation in federal pressure on educational institutions following the Trump administration's broader campaign against DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives in higher education. What mainstream coverage has largely downplayed is the explicit nature of the DOJ's claim: not that race was merely considered, but that the school "continues to intentionally discriminate" based on race. The word "intentionally" distinguishes this from unconscious bias or indirect effects—suggesting deliberate policy choices made after the Supreme Court's decision. For ordinary people navigating an increasingly fraught system, this case illustrates how institutional admissions decisions remain opaque to public scrutiny. Medical school admissions directly affect which physicians enter the workforce and where they practice, shaping healthcare access for entire communities.
What Else We Know
If admissions decisions are made on grounds other than qualifications, downstream effects ripple through patient populations who may not even know how their doctors were selected. The DOJ's action signals potential accountability mechanisms exist, but the real question remains whether enforcement will extend beyond litigation to structural reform—or whether institutions will simply find more durable ways to achieve the same outcomes through language that technically complies with court orders while preserving their stated goals.
Primary Sources
- Source: ZeroHedge
- Category: Surveillance State
- Cross-reference independently — don't take our word for it.
Disclosure: NewsAnarchist aggregates from public records, API feeds (Federal Register, CourtListener, MuckRock, Hacker News), and independent media. AI-assisted synthesis. Always verify primary sources linked above.