Drooid Logo
Back to story perspectives

Full Breakdown

DOJ Accuses Yale School of Medicine of Racial Preference Violations

5/16/2026, 5:19:49 AM

Background & Context

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in *Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard* barred the use of race as a factor in college admissions. After that ruling, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division opened investigations into medical-school admissions to determine whether institutions continued to employ race-based preferences.

Findings of Racial Preference in Admissions

The DOJ’s year-long review concluded that Yale School of Medicine “intentionally selected applicants based on their race,” giving Black and Hispanic candidates a substantially higher probability of admission than White or Asian applicants with comparable test scores. Admissions data show Black and Hispanic admits averaging MCAT scores in the 66th-72nd percentile, while White and Asian admits averaged in the mid-to-high 80th percentile. The department also reported that Black and Hispanic students were admitted with lower academic qualifications overall.

Official Statements & Responses

The Justice Department released a statement asserting that Yale’s documents demonstrate a deliberate effort to use “racial proxies” to bypass the Supreme Court prohibition. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon emphasized that Yale has persisted in a race-based admissions program despite the Court’s mandate and pledged continued scrutiny, stating the department will “shed light on these illegal practices” and enforce compliance with federal law.

Criticism & Opposition

Critics argue that the schools’ reliance on essays, interviews, and other subjective criteria effectively substitutes explicit racial preferences with covert mechanisms. They contend that such practices undermine merit-based selection and violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DOJ’s findings label these approaches as discriminatory, challenging the schools’ justification of the policies as efforts toward “equity and diversity.”

Conflicting Reports & Gaps

The sources provide DOJ data and statements but contain no direct responses from Yale, UCLA, or Stanford. Independent verification of the admissions statistics is absent, leaving a gap in the public record regarding the schools’ internal rationales and any corrective measures they may be considering.

Verbatim Quotes

  • “Yale’s documents reveal that they studied how to use racial proxies to circumvent the Supreme Court’s prohibition on using race to select students…admissions data demonstrate that Black and Hispanic students have a much higher chance of admission to Yale than White or Asian students with the same test scores.” — U.S. Department of Justice, news release
  • “a black applicant is 29 times more likely to be invited to interview than an Asian with equally strong academics.” — Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, X post
  • “Yale has continued its race-based admissions program despite the Supreme Court and the public’s clear mandate for reform,” — Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, statement
  • “This Department will continue to shed light on these illegal practices, and demand that institutions of higher education comply with federal law,” — Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, statement
  • “In the DOJ’s “Findings” letter, black and Hispanic admits in some years averaged MCAT scores in the 66th to 72nd percentile, while Asian and white students averaged scores in the mid-to-high 80th percentiles.” — DOJ findings

Why It Matters

Violations of Title VI expose the institutions to potential federal enforcement actions, including the loss of federal funding. The allegations also raise broader questions about the future of affirmative-action policies in professional schools and could influence admission strategies nationwide.

What’s Next

The DOJ has indicated that investigations will extend to other medical schools, including the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and Stanford School of Medicine, which recently altered its DEI branding. Further compliance reviews and possible legal actions are anticipated as the department seeks to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling across higher education.