What they're not telling you: # UCLA Medical School Accused Of Racial Discrimination In Defiance Of supreme-court-to-intervene-in-e-jean-carrolls-lawsuit-against-trump.html" title="DOJ To Ask Supreme Court To Intervene In E. Jean Carroll's Lawsuit Against Trump" style="color:#1a1a1a;text-decoration:underline;text-decoration-style:dotted;font-weight:500;">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;">Supreme Court The Justice Department has found that UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine systematically violated federal civil rights law by maintaining race-based admissions practices months after the Supreme Court explicitly banned them. The DOJ's Civil Rights Division announced its findings in a formal letter documenting what the mainstream press has largely ignored: UCLA medical school leadership actively strategized how to preserve "diversity goals" and implement race-conscious admissions even after the June 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard made such practices illegal.
# THE TAKE UCLA's medical school didn't defy the Supreme Court—it *translated* it. Post-*Students for Fair Admissions*, institutions discovered the loophole: abandon explicit racial categories, resurrect them through "holistic review" metrics conveniently correlated with race. UCLA's playbook is textbook regulatory capture dressed as compliance. The accusation contains technical merit. Internal documents (always the tell) likely reveal admissions committees optimizing for demographic outcomes while maintaining plausible deniability. It's not illegal obfuscation—it's sophisticated obstruction. The Supreme Court banned the mechanism, not the result. What's genuinely interesting: UCLA didn't miscalculate. They calculated precisely. The enforcement apparatus is toothless. SCOTUS handed down doctrine; it didn't provide enforcement teeth. Civil rights complaints require standing, proof, discovery—resources most complainants lack. UCLA's gamble: compliance theater will persist until litigation costs exceed institutional tolerance. That threshold hasn't been reached.
What the Documents Show
According to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, administrators and academics—who had long denied race played a significant role—suddenly admitted the truth once the ruling forced their hand. The evidence is stark. Black and Hispanic admits averaged MCAT scores in the 66th to 72nd percentile in some years, while Asian and white students admitted in the same cohorts averaged scores in the mid-to-high 80th percentiles. This disparity cannot be explained by factors other than racial preference. The institutional response to the Supreme Court decision reveals how deeply embedded race-based selection remains in academic medical centers.
Follow the Money
Rather than genuinely reform admissions processes, UCLA and other University of California schools eliminated standardized testing requirements—precisely the mechanism that provides objective, measurable criteria against which racial discrimination becomes visible. Without MCAT scores, admissions offices gained cover to continue achieving identical racial outcomes through subjective essay evaluations and undefined "holistic review" metrics. The strategy amounts to sophisticated concealment: remove the transparent measure, then use opaque criteria to replicate the same discriminatory results the Supreme Court had just prohibited. The broader context matters. This investigation follows a separate incident where UCLA medical students were subjected to classroom sessions featuring anti-Semitic postings and racist rhetoric from the university's "activists-in-residence"—suggesting a pattern of institutional tolerance for discriminatory conduct. The medical school's approach to admissions appears consistent with this permissive environment rather than an aberration.
What Else We Know
For ordinary people, this has direct consequences. When medical school admissions prioritize demographic characteristics over academic preparation, measured by standardized testing that correlates with clinical knowledge, patient outcomes hang in the balance. The mainstream framing presents this as a diversity issue; what gets downplayed is that the Supreme Court ruling existed precisely to ensure equal treatment under law—a principle the DOJ's investigation confirms UCLA violated deliberately and systematically. The question now is whether UCLA will face consequences sufficient to deter other institutions from similar defiance, or whether prestigious universities will continue operating as though laws apply selectively.
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.