The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has accused Yale University’s medical school of illegally considering race in its admissions process, while a federal judge has temporarily blocked a separate Trump administration initiative to collect race-based admissions data from public universities in 17 states.
Yale School of Medicine Allegations
The DOJ sent a letter to Yale University alleging that its School of Medicine violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by considering race in admissions. [The DOJ investigation reportedly found that Black and Hispanic applicants had higher odds of admission compared to white and Asian applicants with similar academic credentials.]
According to the DOJ, for the most recent class:
- Black admitted students had a median GPA of 3.88 and a median MCAT score in the 95th percentile.
- Asian admitted students had a median GPA of 3.98, and white admitted students had a median GPA of 3.97, both with MCAT scores in the 100th percentile.
The DOJ also claimed that a Black applicant was as much as 29 times more likely to receive an interview than an equally strong Asian applicant.
Responses
DOJ Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon stated: "Yale has continued its race-based admissions program despite the Supreme Court and the public’s clear mandate for reform."
Yale School of Medicine responded that its admitted students "demonstrate exceptional academic achievement and personal commitment" and that it is "confident in the rigorous admissions process we follow." The school stated it would review the DOJ letter.
Next Steps
The DOJ is seeking a voluntary resolution agreement. If compliance is not achieved, the DOJ has the authority to file a lawsuit to enforce Title VI.
Broader Investigations Into Medical Schools
Separately, the Justice Department launched investigations into the medical schools of Stanford University, Ohio State University, and the University of California, San Diego. In letters to these institutions, the DOJ requested documents related to the "use or lack of use of race" in evaluating applicants, including applicant-level admissions data, standardized test scores, and information on race and ethnicity, dating back to the incoming class of 2019.
Institutional Responses
- Ohio State University spokesperson Benjamin Johnson stated the school complies with regulations and will respond appropriately.
- UC San Diego acknowledged receipt of the notice and affirmed its commitment to fair processes consistent with anti-discrimination laws.
- Stanford School of Medicine spokesperson Cecilia Arradaza confirmed the school prohibits unlawful discrimination based on race or other protected characteristics.
Legal and Political Context
These actions follow the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC, which prohibited the use of affirmative action in college admissions. [The ruling permitted colleges, however, to consider how race has shaped a student’s life if the applicant voluntarily includes such information in personal essays.] The Trump administration has stated it is concerned that some institutions may be using personal statements or other proxies to illegally consider race.
Federal Judge Blocks Data Collection Initiative
Federal Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction blocking a Trump administration policy that required universities to submit extensive data on applicants and admitted students. The data requested included grade-point averages, standardized test scores, race, grant aid amounts, and family income, retroactively for seven years. The directive mandated submission by a March 18 deadline.
Ruling Details
- The injunction applies to public universities in 17 states that filed the lawsuit: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
- [The judge acknowledged the federal government likely has the authority to collect such data, but found the implementation "rushed and chaotic" due to a 120-day deadline imposed by President Trump.] He noted the timeframe prevented the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) from adequately engaging with institutions.
Arguments from Plaintiff States
The states argued the data request:
- Posed risks to student privacy.
- Could lead to unfounded investigations into colleges.
- Was unduly burdensome, requiring significant administrative effort to compile data that was not consistently logged across campuses.
Administration's Position
The Education Department argued that taxpayers are entitled to transparency regarding federal funds at institutions. Government lawyers stated that 1,700 colleges had either completed submissions or qualified for extensions by March 23. Non-submission could lead to actions under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which outlines requirements for institutions receiving federal student financial aid.
Related Actions
- The Trump administration has separately sued Harvard University, alleging the institution refused to provide admissions records to the Justice Department. Harvard has stated it is responding to government requests and adheres to the Supreme Court's ruling. The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has directed Harvard to comply within 20 days or face referral to the Justice Department.
- The administration's policy mirrors earlier settlement agreements with Brown University and Columbia University, which restored their federal research funding in exchange for providing data on race, GPA, and standardized test scores of applicants and enrolled students, along with government audits.
Ongoing Legal Challenges
A coalition of 17 Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging the data collection policy. A federal judge in Massachusetts is currently reviewing the request to block the demand.