Details of the DOJ Investigations

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated civil rights investigations into the medical schools at Stanford University, Ohio State University, and the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) on March 25, 2026. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon announced the probes via social media, signaling a focus on potential race discrimination in admissions processes. The letters demand comprehensive data spanning seven years, including applicants' Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores, Grade Point Averages (GPAs), ZIP codes, family connections to alumni or donors, internal communications regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, and any correspondence with pharmaceutical companies about admissions policies.

Schools have until April 24, 2026, to comply, with noncompliance potentially leading to the withholding of federal funding essential for research and operations. This move escalates federal oversight following the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, which prohibited race-conscious admissions under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Applicant demographics and performance metrics (MCAT, GPA)
• Geographic data via ZIP codes to assess regional biases
• Legacy and donor-related admissions advantages
• DEI-related internal emails and policy documents
• External partnerships influencing admissions

Background on the Schools Involved

Stanford School of Medicine, renowned for its cutting-edge research in biotechnology and personalized medicine, admits around 90 students annually from over 6,000 applicants. Ohio State University College of Medicine, one of the largest in the U.S., enrolls about 215 students each year and emphasizes primary care and rural health. UCSD School of Medicine, part of the University of California system, focuses on innovative programs in neuroscience and global health, selecting roughly 120 students per cycle.

These institutions were selected possibly due to their high profiles, significant federal funding reliance—Stanford receives over $700 million annually from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—and prior complaints alleging post-SCOTUS non-compliance. California, home to Stanford and UCSD, has its own affirmative action ban since Proposition 209 in 1996, yet faces renewed scrutiny.

Legal Context: From Supreme Court Ruling to Federal Probes

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in June 2023 ended decades of race-based affirmative action, mandating that admissions be "race-neutral." Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it," striking down Harvard's and UNC's practices as unconstitutional. Medical schools, while not directly parties, adapted by emphasizing holistic review, personal essays, and socioeconomic factors.

However, conservative groups like Students for Fair Admissions and America First Legal filed complaints alleging continued discrimination against white and Asian American applicants. The DOJ's Civil Rights Division, empowered under Executive Order 14151 issued in early 2025, shifted priorities to investigate reverse discrimination claims. This probe mirrors earlier actions, such as the 2019 Education Department settlement with Tri-State College of Acupuncture, where race considerations ceased.

For deeper analysis on the ruling's nationwide impact, see the Supreme Court opinion.

Diversity Trends in U.S. Medical Schools Post-Affirmative Action

Enrollment data reveals challenges. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) reported that in the 2024-2025 cycle, underrepresented in medicine (URiM) matriculants—Black, Hispanic, Native American/Pacific Islander—dropped. Black enrollment fell 11.6%, Hispanic by 10.8%, per AAMC preliminary figures. Overall URiM share among new MD students was 19.4% in 2023, but declined further.

These shifts threaten physician workforce diversity, crucial as URiM patients comprise 40% of the U.S. population but only 20% of physicians. Research in JAMA Network Open links affirmative action repeal to diversity declines.

Photo by ALEJANDRO POHLENZ on Unsplash

Reactions from Universities, Experts, and Stakeholders

Stanford affirmed its policy "prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race." UCSD stressed commitment to "fair processes consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws." Ohio State declared full compliance with regulations. No admissions data was released publicly.

Higher education leaders worry about chilling effects. AAMC President Philip Pizzo noted, "Diversity strengthens medicine; race-neutral strategies are key." Critics like Gail Heriot of America First Legal applaud, arguing "legacy preferences persist while URiM tips end." Faculty unions decry political interference amid research funding pressures.

Implications for Medical Education and Research Funding

Federal grants fund 60% of biomedical research; cuts could halt trials and training. Medical schools generate $100 billion annually in economic impact. Probes may spur self-audits, policy tweaks like expanded socioeconomic proxies (e.g., first-gen status, Pell Grants).

Broader higher ed faces ripple effects: 45+ universities under similar review. States like California sued over data demands, calling them "fishing expeditions."

Previous Cases and Enforcement History

In 2019, the Education Department probed Arizona Summit Osteopathic Medical School, leading to race-neutral admissions. Recent Harvard lawsuit alleges ongoing violations. DOJ's pivot aligns with Trump directives prioritizing merit-based access.

Strategies for Race-Neutral Diversity Enhancement

Schools pivot to outreach: pipeline programs in URiM communities, fee waivers, holistic rubrics emphasizing lived experiences without race checkboxes. Examples include UC's 1.7% URiM rise via essays post-Prop 209. Partnerships with HBCUs and community colleges boost applicant pools.

Photo by Olivia Anne Snyder on Unsplash

• Targeted recruitment at underrepresented high schools
• Expanded interview processes assessing adversity
• Geographic preferences for underserved areas
• Mentorship for premed URiM students

Future Outlook and Recommendations

Expect more probes, lawsuits, and data transparency mandates. Medical schools must document race-neutrality rigorously. Policymakers advocate NIH-funded diversity research. For aspiring physicians, focus on strong MCATs, research, and compelling narratives.AAMC enrollment report offers benchmarks.

This scrutiny underscores tensions between equity goals and legal constraints, pushing innovation in admissions for a diverse, merit-driven physician pipeline.