On July 20, 2026 the United States Department of Justice sent a letter to the University of California San Diego regarding the UCSD School of Medicine, stating that “[b]ased on its review of San Diego Med’s documents and data” the School of Medicine “has intentionally discriminated against applicants by granting and denying admission based on their race after the Supreme Court’s decision in” , 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (“SFFA”).
Read more Books at Home
In addition to stating on page 3 of the letter that “[t]he evidence shows that San Diego Med deliberately discriminated against applicants because of their race both before and after SFFA,” the DOJ states in footnote 7:
‘Underrepresented Minorities’ is a term used by San Diego Med to describe racial groups that make up a smaller proportion of degree recipients and the workforce compared to their population share in the United States. This primarily includes Hispanics and blacks and excludes whites and Asians.
On page 5 the DOJ states:
To racially diversify its classes, San Diego Med created an evaluation process that uses ‘hardship’ as a racial proxy, specifically to achieve its diversity agenda. San Diego Med’s director of admissions uses ‘hardship’ questions on the medical school’s application as a proxy for race, which he makes clear in emails to employees. The ‘hardship’ questions encourage applicants to address how they overcame certain disadvantages. After sorting applicants into Groups A-C—from highest to lowest MCAT [Medical College Admission Test] and GPA [grade point average] scores—San Diego Med purposefully uses ‘hardship’ subgroups and invites more applicants from Group C to get more URM applicants to interview and bolster URM admissions.
This new system allowed San Diego Med to sort applicants by race by labeling URMs as ‘hardship’ applicants. San Diego Med’s internal December 2025 Admissions Procedure Overview confirms that the school added this designation to purposely increase lower credentialed ‘hardship’ applicants in admissions by de-emphasizing MCAT scores and GPAs and prioritizing non-objective criteria, such as ‘applicants who exemplify the personal and professional attributes … in alignment with the school’s mission, vision, and values.’
The DOJ explains in detail on pages 5–7 that based on grade point average and MCAT score, San Diego Med gave blacks and Hispanics a significant advantage over whites and Asians.
I suspect that further investigation will reveal that among the errors committed by San Diego Med regarding the admissions factor of “overcoming disadvantage,” the DOJ will find that San Diego Med, 1) puts undue weight on this factor generally, and 2) puts undue weight on this factor as applied to blacks and Hispanics.
As an example of the first error, suppose a medical school applicant was raised from age 3 by a drug-addicted single parent who constantly told the applicant that he or she would never achieve his or her dreams and the applicant went to K–12 schools where he or she was often subjected to racial discrimination in various forms. It is certainly an achievement for such a person to be able to graduate college with a B average and earn a 74th percentile MCAT score. Perseverance and dedication are valuable personal qualities.
Read more Washington state Democrat Rep. Adam Smith changed his vote, caving to left-wing terrorism
However, the fact remains that this applicant did not achieve an A average and a 96th percentile MCAT score. The intellectual qualities necessary for becoming an excellent medical student and doctor have not been demonstrated by the B applicant with the 74th percentile MCAT score. But they have been demonstrated by the A applicant with the 96th percentile score, who was rejected in favor of the lower-performing applicant. The higher-achieving applicant has reached a level of intellectual achievement significantly higher than the lower-achieving applicant. Whether or not the lower-achieving applicant would have matched the higher-achieving applicant absent the bad circumstances is not as important as the fact that he or she did not do so.
Also, who is to say that the higher-achieving applicant lacks the same or higher level of perseverance and dedication as the lower-achieving applicant? San Diego Med is speculating that the lower-achieving applicant is the intellectual equivalent of the higher achieving applicant but has not had a sufficient opportunity to develop and demonstrate that ability. But San Diego Med will not speculate in favor of the higher-achieving applicant that he or she has sufficient perseverance and determination to endure the same bad circumstances as the lower-achieving applicant and earn at least a B average and 74th percentile MCAT score.
We need the best doctors we can get. Perseverance and determination are good qualities in every profession. However, intellectual achievement is much more important for a doctor. If somebody’s circumstances reduced their opportunity to reach their full potential and demonstrate their academic excellence then they should continue to try to develop that potential and apply to medical school when they are able to demonstrate a level of intellectual achievement that effectively matches that of the higher-achieving applicant.
Regarding the second error, what about the whites and Asians who were raised in awful circumstances but who achieved a B average and a 74th percentile MCAT score? Is San Diego Med treating their hardship the same way they are treating the hardship of the black and Hispanic applicants? I suspect not. There are plenty of whites and Asians who grew up poor in broken families, but I suspect that their story of “overcoming disadvantage” does not get them the same admissions result as is given to the black and Hispanic applicants with a hardship story. I suspect that a story of “overcoming disadvantage” that does not include allegations of having been a victim of racism carries very little weight with the admissions officers at San Diego Med.
The UC medical schools, as well as the UC law schools, have been racially discriminating in admissions for decades because they have an ideology that requires their student bodies to have the same racial composition as the general population. For example, you can read about the origins of UCLA School of Law’s racial admissions policy in my 1996 law review entitled “From Bakke, To The UC Regents’ Vote, To The California Civil Rights Initiative And Hopwood.” The UC law and medical schools will say and do anything to achieve their desired racial composition in their student bodies. To the extent that they apply the factor of “overcoming disadvantage,” they will apply it in an unfair manner to achieve their racial goals.
Allan J. Favish is an attorney in Los Angeles. His website is allanfavish.com. In 2010 James Fernald and Mr. Favish co-authored a book about what might happen if the government ran Disneyland, entitled “Fireworks! If the Government Ran the Fairest Kingdom of Them All (A Very Unauthorized Fantasy)”.
Read more Advanced Iran Negotiation Theory
Image generated by ChatGPT.