Three years after the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited the use of racial preferences in college admissions, evidence suggests that the practice has not ceased but shifted to more concealed methods. Recent investigations by the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Education reveal continued intentional racial discrimination at several prominent law and medical schools.
In August, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division notified Duke University School of Law that it had violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon cited internal communications indicating a sustained focus on racial diversity in admissions, which amounted to deliberate discrimination. Data from Duke’s 2024-2025 admissions cycle showed that Asian and White applicants who were rejected had higher median LSAT scores than admitted Black applicants. The likelihood of admission for Black applicants was reportedly 3.5 times greater than for similarly qualified Asian candidates. Duke’s spokesperson emphasized the university’s commitment to legal compliance aligned with its academic mission.
A joint DOJ and Education Department review at UC Berkeley’s law school revealed an even larger disparity. Black applicants were nearly six times more likely to be admitted than White applicants with comparable qualifications, with half of admitted Black students scoring below the 95th percentile of admitted White students on the LSAT. The investigation referenced comments by Berkeley’s law dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, made shortly before the Supreme Court’s ruling, in which he stated that institutions would seek race-neutral ways to maintain diversity, a remark cited as evidence of attempts to circumvent the ruling. Chemerinsky responded to the DOJ’s findings by asserting that race is not considered in admissions decisions at Berkeley.
Similar patterns have been observed at other institutions, including UC San Francisco’s medical school, UCLA’s law and medical schools, and George Washington University’s medical school. Schools appear to be adopting indirect methods to achieve racial outcomes, such as race-targeted recruitment efforts and essay prompts emphasizing applicants’ racial or identity reflections. Prior to the Supreme Court decision, Yale, Princeton, and Duke maintained in court filings that racial preferences were essential to maintaining their diverse student bodies. Nonetheless, following the ruling, Black and Hispanic enrollments increased at Yale, attributed by administrators to the use of "Landscape," a College Board tool that evaluates applicants based on neighborhood and high school socioeconomic factors. The College Board discontinued Landscape in 2025 amid concerns it functioned as a racial proxy. Concurrently, Asian enrollment declined at Yale, Princeton, and Duke, despite rising numbers at other elite institutions.
Efforts by advocacy groups such as Students for Fair Admissions to obtain admissions data from these universities have been met with silence, highlighting the reluctance of schools to voluntarily disclose detailed admissions statistics. Experts argue that mandatory, transparent public reporting is necessary to detect and prevent racial discrimination. They propose that institutions receiving federal funds should be required to publish comprehensive applicant and admissions data broken down by race and ethnicity, including standardized test scores, grade-point averages, family income, Pell Grant eligibility, and Advanced Placement coursework.
The federal agencies involved have also suggested that admissions practices using racial proxies, including identity-based essays, should be considered violations under civil rights laws. Expanding admissions data reporting has faced opposition, prompting lawsuits from at least 17 states, led by Massachusetts, which could delay implementation for an extended period.
The current enforcement addresses direct discrimination, or “disparate treatment,” where race is used explicitly in admissions decisions, which is prohibited by civil rights statutes. Observers note that while federal enforcement has intensified, relying solely on executive branch priorities may not ensure lasting change. Advocates urge Congress to enact legislation mandating disclosure to secure transparency and accountability across administrations and judicial challenges.