UCLA Medical School faces a high-stakes class-action lawsuit for allegedly using race-based admissions despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling prohibiting such practices.
At a Glance
- UCLA’s Geffen School of Medicine is accused of racial discrimination in admissions, allegedly favoring Latino and Black applicants
- The lawsuit was filed by Students for Fair Admissions, the same group that won the Supreme Court case ending affirmative action in 2023
- Whistleblowers claim the school set lower admission standards for certain racial groups compared to White and Asian applicants
- The medical school’s acceptance rate is highly competitive at approximately 3.3%
- HHS Office for Civil Rights is also investigating the school for alleged racial discrimination
Lawsuit Challenges UCLA Medical School’s Admission Practices
UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine has been hit with a class-action lawsuit alleging the prestigious institution continues to use race as a factor in its admissions process, despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that deemed such practices unconstitutional. The legal action, filed by medical advocacy group Do No Harm and Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), claims the medical school has defied the high court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard by maintaining admissions policies that discriminate based on race.
“UCLA’s Geffen School of Medicine has continually treated the Students for Fair Admissions ruling as a recommendation, rather than a binding law handed down by the highest court in the land,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb of Do No Harm.
The lawsuit specifically alleges intentional racial balancing at the medical school, pointing to a decline in the percentage of white and Asian matriculants from 2020 to 2023. Plaintiffs claim the medical school, which boasts an extremely competitive acceptance rate of just 3.3%, has implemented an admissions system that asks questions designed to reveal applicants’ racial backgrounds, which are then reportedly confirmed through interviews.
Whistleblower Allegations and Federal Investigation
Beyond the lawsuit, UCLA’s medical school faces additional scrutiny from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights, which launched an investigation based on whistleblower complaints. These whistleblowers reportedly provided evidence that the school established different admission standards based on race, with lower thresholds for Black and Latino applicants compared to White and Asian applicants.
“This investigation reflects the Administration’s commitment to honor the hard work, excellence, and individual achievement of all students in the pipeline for the medical profession – not just those of particular racial backgrounds,” said Anthony Archeval, who is involved in the HHS investigation.
The lawsuit names multiple defendants, including the medical school itself and the University of California’s governing board. It represents a significant test case for how the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action will be enforced at institutions across the country, particularly in highly selective professional schools where admission is extremely competitive.
Broader Implications for Higher Education
The UCLA case is part of a larger effort by Students for Fair Admissions to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision. SFFA, led by president Edward Blum, was the organization behind the landmark Supreme Court case that ultimately resulted in the prohibition of race-conscious admissions practices in higher education. The group has made it clear that institutions attempting to circumvent the ruling will face legal challenges.
“This lawsuit sends an important message to every institution of higher education: Any school and administrator that uses race and racial proxies in admissions in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard will be sued,” stated SFFA president Edward Blum.
“Do No Harm is fighting for all the students who have been racially discriminated against by UCLA under the guise of political progress. All medical schools must abide by the law of the land and prioritize merit, not immutable characteristics, in admissions,” added Dr. Goldfarb, emphasizing the position that admissions should be based solely on qualifications rather than demographic factors.
The case highlights the ongoing national debate about fairness, merit, and diversity in education following the Supreme Court’s rejection of affirmative action policies that had been in place for decades. How the courts rule on this challenge could significantly impact how medical schools and other educational institutions approach admissions in the post-affirmative action era.
