“The use of race as a thumb on the scale that helps or disadvantages any student is illegal.”
minute read
The Justice Department announced Thursday that its Civil Rights Division found the UCLA School of Law intentionally discriminated against white and Asian applicants in admissions, including after the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious college admissions in 2023.
The DOJ said its investigation concluded UCLA Law violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in selecting its incoming classes for 2023, 2024 and 2025. The department said the discrimination continued following the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned the use of race as a factor in admissions.
“Like many of its peer institutions, UCLA Law School runs a two-tiered admissions system whose academic bar for acceptance shifts up or down depending on the color of your skin,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division said. “The use of race as a thumb on the scale that helps or disadvantages any student is illegal,” Dhillon added. “The Department will continue to enforce equal treatment under the law everywhere — including in our nation’s law schools.”
The DOJ's eight-page findings letter alleges that UCLA officials continued pursuing racial diversity following the Supreme Court ruling while using what investigators described as racial proxies in the admissions process. The department cited internal communications, admissions presentations, application materials, and seven years of applicant-level data in reaching its conclusions.
According to the letter, shortly before the Supreme Court decision, UCLA Law's assistant dean of admissions told a prospective student that “any changes in the law announced by the Supreme Court will not change anything at UCLA Law.” The official also touted that 58 percent of the previous year's entering class were students of color. Months after the ruling, another admissions official reportedly told attendees at UCLA's Diversity Admissions Open House that the ruling's impact on the school's admissions practices was “none.”
The DOJ alleged that UCLA subsequently used its application process to give admissions officials information about applicants' race without directly asking them to identify it.
At the November 2023 Diversity Admissions Open House, according to the findings letter, prospective students were advised that they could reveal their race through responses to certain essay questions or through a diversity statement. DOJ investigators concluded from those statements that UCLA was encouraging applicants to disclose their racial backgrounds so admissions officials could consider race.
The department said its statistical analysis also found significant racial disparities. For UCLA Law's 2025 incoming class, the DOJ found that black applicants had approximately seven times the odds of admission as otherwise equivalent white applicants, while Hispanic applicants had approximately twice the odds of otherwise equivalent white applicants.
The LSAT data cited by investigators showed additional differences. In 2025, the median LSAT score for admitted white and Asian applicants was 172, compared with 168 for black applicants and 171 for Hispanic applicants.
Between 2019 and 2024, the DOJ said the median LSAT scores of admitted black applicants were between five and seven points below those of admitted white applicants. In 2024 and 2025 combined, half of admitted black applicants had LSAT scores at or below those of 90 percent of admitted white applicants. Investigators also pointed to applicants with identical scores.
“168 was the median LSAT score for those white and Asian applicants who were denied admission to UCLA Law,” the findings letter states. The DOJ concluded that white and Asian applicants were being rejected who “would likely have been admitted if they were of the ‘right’ race.”
The findings are the latest in a series of federal investigations into whether universities continued using race in admissions following the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling. Federal investigators announced in September that UC Berkeley Law discriminated against white and Asian applicants, finding that black applicants in 2025 had 5.8 times the odds of admission as comparable white applicants. Investigators also found that half of admitted black applicants in 2024 and 2025 had LSAT scores below 95 percent of admitted white applicants.
The Berkeley findings followed a similar investigation at Duke University School of Law, where the DOJ concluded in August that the school continued giving admissions preferences to black and Hispanic applicants after the Supreme Court ruling. Federal investigators found that in 2025, a black Duke Law applicant had roughly 3.5 times the probability of admission as an Asian applicant with similar LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs.
The Berkeley investigation also noted that federal scrutiny had extended beyond law schools. Previous investigations produced findings against UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, UC Davis School of Medicine and Yale School of Medicine, according to previous Post Millennial reporting.
In the latest case, the DOJ concluded UCLA Law “discriminated against Asian and white applicants in order to benefit applicants of preferred racial backgrounds,” specifically black and Hispanic applicants. The department said the discrimination remained ongoing based on its review of UCLA's documents and admissions data.
The DOJ is seeking a voluntary resolution agreement with UCLA to bring the law school's admissions practices into compliance. If voluntary efforts fail, the department said it may pursue enforcement through litigation.
The DOJ said its investigation concluded UCLA Law violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in selecting its incoming classes for 2023, 2024 and 2025. The department said the discrimination continued following the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned the use of race as a factor in admissions.
“Like many of its peer institutions, UCLA Law School runs a two-tiered admissions system whose academic bar for acceptance shifts up or down depending on the color of your skin,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division said. “The use of race as a thumb on the scale that helps or disadvantages any student is illegal,” Dhillon added. “The Department will continue to enforce equal treatment under the law everywhere — including in our nation’s law schools.”
The DOJ's eight-page findings letter alleges that UCLA officials continued pursuing racial diversity following the Supreme Court ruling while using what investigators described as racial proxies in the admissions process. The department cited internal communications, admissions presentations, application materials, and seven years of applicant-level data in reaching its conclusions.
According to the letter, shortly before the Supreme Court decision, UCLA Law's assistant dean of admissions told a prospective student that “any changes in the law announced by the Supreme Court will not change anything at UCLA Law.” The official also touted that 58 percent of the previous year's entering class were students of color. Months after the ruling, another admissions official reportedly told attendees at UCLA's Diversity Admissions Open House that the ruling's impact on the school's admissions practices was “none.”
The DOJ alleged that UCLA subsequently used its application process to give admissions officials information about applicants' race without directly asking them to identify it.
At the November 2023 Diversity Admissions Open House, according to the findings letter, prospective students were advised that they could reveal their race through responses to certain essay questions or through a diversity statement. DOJ investigators concluded from those statements that UCLA was encouraging applicants to disclose their racial backgrounds so admissions officials could consider race.
The department said its statistical analysis also found significant racial disparities. For UCLA Law's 2025 incoming class, the DOJ found that black applicants had approximately seven times the odds of admission as otherwise equivalent white applicants, while Hispanic applicants had approximately twice the odds of otherwise equivalent white applicants.
The LSAT data cited by investigators showed additional differences. In 2025, the median LSAT score for admitted white and Asian applicants was 172, compared with 168 for black applicants and 171 for Hispanic applicants.
Between 2019 and 2024, the DOJ said the median LSAT scores of admitted black applicants were between five and seven points below those of admitted white applicants. In 2024 and 2025 combined, half of admitted black applicants had LSAT scores at or below those of 90 percent of admitted white applicants. Investigators also pointed to applicants with identical scores.
“168 was the median LSAT score for those white and Asian applicants who were denied admission to UCLA Law,” the findings letter states. The DOJ concluded that white and Asian applicants were being rejected who “would likely have been admitted if they were of the ‘right’ race.”
The findings are the latest in a series of federal investigations into whether universities continued using race in admissions following the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling. Federal investigators announced in September that UC Berkeley Law discriminated against white and Asian applicants, finding that black applicants in 2025 had 5.8 times the odds of admission as comparable white applicants. Investigators also found that half of admitted black applicants in 2024 and 2025 had LSAT scores below 95 percent of admitted white applicants.
The Berkeley findings followed a similar investigation at Duke University School of Law, where the DOJ concluded in August that the school continued giving admissions preferences to black and Hispanic applicants after the Supreme Court ruling. Federal investigators found that in 2025, a black Duke Law applicant had roughly 3.5 times the probability of admission as an Asian applicant with similar LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs.
The Berkeley investigation also noted that federal scrutiny had extended beyond law schools. Previous investigations produced findings against UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, UC Davis School of Medicine and Yale School of Medicine, according to previous Post Millennial reporting.
In the latest case, the DOJ concluded UCLA Law “discriminated against Asian and white applicants in order to benefit applicants of preferred racial backgrounds,” specifically black and Hispanic applicants. The department said the discrimination remained ongoing based on its review of UCLA's documents and admissions data.
The DOJ is seeking a voluntary resolution agreement with UCLA to bring the law school's admissions practices into compliance. If voluntary efforts fail, the department said it may pursue enforcement through litigation.
Sign in to comment
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments