By: Jaweed Kaleem

Published: May 6, 2026

UCLA’s medical school unlawfully used race in admissions decisions over the last three years, specifically discriminating against white and Asian American applicants, according to Department of Justice findings.

The practice violates a 2023 Supreme Court decision banning race-conscious admissions at colleges, the Justice Department said.

UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine intentionally used race for the last three years to discriminate against applicants during admissions — in particular white and Asian American candidates — according to U.S. Department of Justice allegations released Wednesday.

In a seven-page letter, the agency’s Civil Rights Division wrote that the medical school “continues to intentionally discriminate against applicants based on their race after the Supreme Court’s decision in Harvard by granting and denying admission on the basis of race.” That 2023 decision — Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard — barred race-conscious admissions at colleges and universities but allowed schools to consider how race affected students if they wrote about their experiences in essays.

A UCLA medical school spokesperson said that admissions are “based on merit” and that the school follows the law.

The admissions process is “grounded in a rigorous, comprehensive review of each applicant. We are confident in our practices and our mission to maintain access to a high-quality education for all qualified students,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “We are carefully reviewing the Department of Justice’s report. The David Geffen School of Medicine is committed to providing equal opportunity to all applicants and fully complying with federal and state laws.”

The Justice Department said its findings followed a nearly yearlong review it conducted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws race-based discrimination by recipients of federal funding.

The department alleged that UCLA leadership “intentionally selected applicants based on their race” and adhered to “the dubious contention that patients receive the best care when treated by a doctor of the same race.” It also said that admitted Black and Latino applicants had, on average, lower median Medical College Admission Test scores and grade-point averages than admitted white and Asian American applicants.

“UCLA’s admissions process has been focused on racial demographics at the expense of merit and excellence — allowing racial politics to distract the school from the vital work of training great doctors,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon, the department’s top civil rights lawyer, said in a statement. “Racism in admissions is both illegal and anti-American, and this department will not allow it to continue.”

The action against the medical school is the latest of several moves by Republican leadership and the Trump administration to probe alleged wrongdoing at the University of California and its academic health centers.

In March, the Justice Department said it was investigating UC San Diego, Stanford and Ohio State medical schools for potential racial discrimination in admissions, demanding seven years of data. The request included information about students’ race, MCAT scores, undergraduate grade-point averages, home ZIP Codes, citizenship status, admission essays, and whether they are legacy admits or have family who donated to the schools. The department also asked for information about diversity, equity and inclusion programming.

The schools maintained that each followed the law in admissions processes. A UC San Diego spokesperson has said the university is cooperating with the investigation and the request for information “in accordance with the requirements of federal law.”

Last August, the Justice Department demanded a $1.2-billion settlement from UCLA after suspending $584 million in research grants to the campus for alleged federal law violations for using race in admissions, recognizing transgender women by their gender identity and not responding adequately to complaints of anti-Jewish incidents during a 2024 pro-Palestinian encampment. In September, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin ordered the grants be restored.

Two months later, Lin blocked vast swaths of the settlement proposal. The order also chastised the Trump administration, saying it wrongly moved to rapidly suspend funding and impose a fine before going through less drastic measures that allowed the university to make its case against the findings.

Wednesday’s letter did not specify a fine against UCLA. Instead, the department is seeking a voluntary resolution with UCLA, but said it could pursue legal action if there is no agreement.

The letter to UCLA cited internal emails, training materials and a UCLA “guiding principles” memo that, according to the Justice Department, instructed committee chairs to ensure representation of applicants who “identify as BIPOC.” The acronym stands for “Black, Indigenous and people of color.” Investigators also alleged that Jennifer Lucero, the medical school’s associate dean of admissions, “used intimidation and shaming tactics to pressure the admissions committee to unlawfully consider race.”

Lucero did not respond to a request for comment.

The findings build on a federal action filed in January, when the Trump administration moved to join a private lawsuit accusing the medical school of a “systemically racist approach” favoring Black and Latino applicants.

That suit, brought by Do No Harm, Students for Fair Admissions and a rejected white applicant, is ongoing. UCLA, which is bound by Proposition 209 to not consider race as a factor in admissions, said at the time it does not comment on pending litigation.

––

In one example, Alisa Lopez (DGSOM's Executive Director of Admissions) sent adocument prepared by the American Association of Medical College (AAMC) to Jennifer Lucero (Associate Dean of Admissions). Lopez stated that the document "may be helpful for the Admissions Committee members as a resource" and suggested distributing it to them. This document outlines workarounds to achieve medical school "diversity goals," despite the prohibition on race preferences articulated in Harvard. Such workarounds include racial proxies and emphasizing "holistic review practices" as bases for admitting students. Discrimination on the basis of racial proxies is offensive to our nation's Constitution and laws, just as direct racial discrimination is. "[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows, and the prohibition against racial discrimination is levelled at the thing, not the name." The document also promotes a theory that increasing "diversity" of the healthcare workforce will improve healthcare outcomes for Black and Hispanic patients, with the implication that denying Black and Hispanic students admission to medical school now will injure and kill Black and Hispanic patients in the future.

The Executive Director of Admissions' promotion of this document demonstrates DGSOM's intent to racially discriminate under the guise of saving lives and conceal her true motive to treat certain applicants unfavorably based on their race. Her plan to distribute this document to admissions staff shows that these attitudes were systemically ingrained in DGSOM's admissions department and put into practice at every level.

==

Someone in class said affirmative action makes admissions “less meritocratic” and i swear the whole room did that thing where everyone gets quiet but in a fake casual way.

like suddenly everyone is VERY interested in their notes.

I hate this conversation because people say “merit” like it is this clean little thing floating in the air and not something built out of money, tutoring, legacy, unpaid internships, confidence, english, passports, parents who know how institutions work, and like 400 other things nobody wants to count.

I wanted to ask what merit means when some people inherit libraries and other people inherit debt.

I wanted to ask why sounding confident is treated as being smart.

I wanted to ask why “objective standards” always become objective after the room has already been arranged for certain people.

but obviously i did not say all of that because i do actually want to pass this class and not become the diversity debate girl in week 6.

So I just underlined “equal protection” like three times and pretended to be normal.

later in the bathroom this other girl from my section looked at me and went “yeah, i know.”

nothing else. just that.

and honestly that was enough.

things the room called neutral today:

legacy admissions

knowing what a clerkship is before october

unpaid internships

saying “my parents’ friend” and somehow meaning a federal judge

confidence

pretending history ended right before applications opened

Anyway, law school is fascinating because everything is made up but also the made up things have consequences which is rude.