DOJ Probe Exposes Racial Preferences in UCLA Medical School Admissions

The U.S. Department of Justice recently concluded a comprehensive investigation into the University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, commonly known as UCLA Medical School, revealing practices that allegedly favored certain racial groups over others in the admissions process. This development has ignited widespread debate in higher education circles, particularly regarding how elite medical programs balance diversity goals with merit-based selection following landmark legal changes.

UCLA Medical School, one of the nation's top-ranked institutions for training physicians, receives thousands of applications each year for a limited number of spots. The probe highlights concerns that despite long-standing prohibitions on race-based decisions in California and recent Supreme Court rulings, the school's holistic review system incorporated racial considerations, disadvantaging white and Asian American applicants who possessed stronger academic credentials.

This case underscores ongoing tensions in American higher education, where institutions strive to build diverse classes to address healthcare disparities while adhering to federal civil rights laws. As medical schools nationwide adapt to new legal standards, the UCLA situation serves as a pivotal example of the challenges involved.

Key Findings from the Year-Long Investigation

The Department of Justice launched its review after receiving complaints and data suggesting non-merit factors influenced decisions. Over the course of a year, investigators examined internal documents, emails, training materials, and admissions committee memos from the incoming classes of 2023, 2024, and 2025.

Central to the findings was evidence that school leadership promoted the idea that patients benefit from treatment by physicians of the same race or ethnicity. This belief reportedly guided selections, leading to the admission of Black and Hispanic applicants with median grade-point averages around 3.55 to 3.72 and Medical College Admission Test scores in the 66th to 72nd percentile. In contrast, admitted white and Asian applicants typically had GPAs near 3.75 to 3.84 and MCAT scores in the 86th to 90th percentile.

These disparities, spanning about one standard deviation in test scores, indicated a pattern where academic excellence took a backseat to demographic targets. The process involved secondary applications probing applicants' experiences as members of marginalized groups, professional readiness exams like the AAMC PREview that emphasized subjective traits for underrepresented candidates, and committee discussions explicitly referencing racial representation goals.

Dissecting the Admissions Disparities

Delving deeper into the numbers paints a stark picture. For the 2023 class, the lowest medians were for Hispanic applicants at a GPA of 3.55 and MCAT at the 68th percentile, compared to Asians at 3.81 GPA and 88th percentile MCAT. Similar gaps persisted in 2024, with Hispanic medians at 3.56 GPA and 66th percentile MCAT versus Asians' 3.84 and 90th.

These trends align with enrollment shifts since 2019, when Asian representation stood higher, dropping significantly by 2022—nearly a third in some reports—while other groups increased. Nationally, medical school acceptance rates hover around 40-50% for whites and Asians, but UCLA's hyper-competitive 1.3% overall rate amplifies scrutiny on any non-academic preferences.

Admissions officials reportedly used proxies like zip codes, cultural experiences, and self-identified challenges to infer race, circumventing direct bans. Committee chairs received memos like the "Guiding Principles for Student Representation," urging reviews to boost BIPOC—Black, Indigenous, and People of Color—presence, even as public statements affirmed race-neutral policies. The full DOJ findings letter details these mechanisms, emphasizing intentional design to achieve diversity outcomes.

Whistleblower Revelations from Within the Admissions Office

Former Associate Dean of Admissions Jennifer Lucero emerged as a key figure in whistleblower accounts. Hired in 2020 with a dual role in equity, diversity, and inclusion, she allegedly pressured committees using shaming tactics, labeling dissenters as privileged or biased. Examples include defending low-scoring Black applicants by citing maternal mortality rates among African American women and advocating race over merit in resident promotions.

Multiple insiders described a culture where verbal instructions during holistic reviews referenced race, despite scrubbed documents. One leaked memo highlighted implicit bias training with diversity graphics, reinforcing demographic priorities. These testimonies, corroborated by emails promoting AAMC workarounds post-Supreme Court, formed the backbone of the DOJ's intent determination.

Lucero's tenure coincided with rising shelf exam failures—standardized tests at rotation ends—where over 50% of students in subjects like family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, and emergency medicine failed, far above the national 5% average. Nearly 25% of the class of 2025 failed three or more, linking lower entry standards to academic struggles.

Photo by Laura Rivera on Unsplash

UCLA's Response and Commitment to Change

UCLA officials have acknowledged the DOJ report, stating that admissions rely on rigorous, merit-based holistic review compliant with federal and state laws. A spokesperson emphasized equal opportunity and ongoing evaluation of practices to ensure fairness. The university, bound by California's Proposition 209 since 1996 banning racial preferences, claims no explicit race use and welcomes dialogue for resolution.

In response, UCLA is reportedly negotiating a voluntary agreement to align processes fully with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as interpreted by recent rulings. This includes potential monitors or audits to verify race-neutrality, focusing on socioeconomic factors, life experiences, and academic trajectories instead.

Legal Context: Supreme Court Ruling and California's Ban

The probe follows the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, ruling race-conscious admissions unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that eliminating racial discrimination means no racial discrimination, even for diversity. Medical schools, previously relying on such policies, now face strict scrutiny.

California's Prop 209 predates this, prohibiting public institutions from considering race, yet allegations suggest workarounds persisted. Students for Fair Admissions filed suit in 2025, with DOJ intervening in January 2026, marking escalated enforcement. The SFFA ruling explicitly applies to higher education, including graduate and professional programs like medicine.

Academic Performance Concerns Post-Diversity Push

Beyond admissions, the case raises questions about educational outcomes. Shelf exam failures surged tenfold in some areas from 2020-2023, with 20% of seniors delaying USMLE Step exams—a red flag for residency readiness. Whistleblowers tied this to admitting students below traditional thresholds, like MCATs under the 85th percentile cutoff once announced.

Experts note that while diversity enhances patient care through cultural competence, mismatched preparation risks competence gaps. Nationally, post-SFFA data shows slight upticks in white/Asian acceptances (45-50%), but elite programs like UCLA lag in adjustment.

Stakeholder Perspectives: From Advocacy to Outrage

Students for Fair Admissions hailed the findings as validation, arguing racial balancing harms meritocracy. Asian American groups decry reverse discrimination, citing higher applicant pools yet lower admits. Diversity advocates counter that race-neutral proxies fail to address systemic barriers, potentially exacerbating physician shortages in underserved communities.

Medical associations like AAMC defend holistic review for capturing resilience and service, but critics like Do No Harm warn of patient safety. Faculty voices split, with some praising equity efforts, others fearing politicization erodes trust. NYT analysis notes UCLA's prior research linking same-race doctors to better outcomes, fueling the school's rationale.

Photo by Arno Senoner on Unsplash

• Pro-merit advocates: Prioritize MCAT/GPA for quality doctors.
• Diversity proponents: Holistic metrics reveal untapped talent.
• Legal experts: Expect more suits, settlements reshaping policies.

Broader Implications for U.S. Medical Schools

UCLA isn't isolated; DOJ probes target Stanford, UC San Diego, and Ohio State med schools since March 2026, demanding admissions data. Post-SFFA, applications dipped slightly, but elite programs face lawsuits alleging proxies like essays on adversity mask race.

With 11,000+ U.S. med students from underrepresented groups needed yearly, schools pivot to geography, first-gen status, and rural ties. Yet, MCAT gaps persist: nationally, Black applicants average 504 (27th percentile), Asians 514 (88th), per AAMC.

This could reshape higher education, pushing transparent, defensible criteria amid enrollment cliffs and doctor shortages projected at 86,000 by 2036.

Charting a Path Forward: Merit, Equity, and Innovation

Solutions emerge in race-neutral alternatives: expanded pipeline programs, socioeconomic considerations, and AI-assisted blind reviews. Institutions like NYU Grossman test geography-based admits, boosting rural docs without race.

For applicants, focus on standout extracurriculars, research, and compelling narratives transcends demographics. Higher ed leaders advocate training in bias mitigation, robust oversight, and longitudinal diversity tracking via outcomes, not inputs.

Ultimately, fostering excellence ensures competent physicians serving all patients equitably. As UCLA negotiates compliance, its reforms may model nationwide shifts toward inclusive meritocracy. Explore opportunities in higher education jobs or academic career advice amid evolving standards.