[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-201769-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-201769-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","united-states-title-vi-inquiry-findings-findings","United States - Title VI Inquiry Findings - Findings","","The U.S. Department of Justice issues Title VI compliance inquiry findings regarding the University of California San Diego School of Medicine. Following a compliance review initiated pursuant to an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, the Department concludes that post-Students for Fair Admissions developments show race-based admission decisions. The findings rest on reviewed documents and applicant-level admissions data for 2020 through 2025, as well as the Department’s assessment of nonproduction of requested explanations.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/united-states-title-vi-inquiry-findings-findings/201769/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/united-states-title-vi-inquiry-findings-findings/201769.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Finn","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",16,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What prompted the DOJ compliance review of UC San Diego School of Medicine under Title VI?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The DOJ initiated a compliance review on March 25, 2026, to determine whether the admissions practices of UC San Diego School of Medicine comply with Title VI, pursuant to an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What did the DOJ find regarding UC San Diego School of Medicine’s admissions practices after SFFA?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The DOJ found that the School of Medicine intentionally discriminated against applicants by granting and denying admission based on race after the Students for Fair Admissions decision.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What evidence did the DOJ rely on for its findings?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The DOJ reviewed and analyzed documents and applicant-level admissions data for incoming classes from 2020 through 2025, including the absence of responses to requests concerning deviations in test scores and GPAs between racial groups.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},201769,1788538337,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":112,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":118,"preview_page_count":4},34359740700684,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/1f400023980c374ae676?_k=1777273430885731487","U.S.Department of Justice  \nOffice ofthe Assistant Attorney GeneralWashington,D.C.20530  \nJuly 20,2026  \nVIA E-mail to:dpark@ucsd.edu;tania.faransso@wilmerhale.com  \nDaniel W.ParkChief Campus Counsel  \nUniversity of California San Diego9500 Gilman Dr.La Jolla,CA 92093  \nc/o Tania FaranssoWilmerHale  \n2100 Pennsylvania Avenue,NWWashington,DC 20037  \nRe:  United States'Title VI Inquiry Findings  \nDear Mr.Park:  \nOn March 25,2026,the U.S.Department of Justice(“Department”),pursuant to anagreement with the U.S.Department of Education(“DOE”),initiated a compliance review todetermine whether the admissions practices of the University of California San Diego School ofMedicine(“San Diego Med”)comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C.§2000d et seq.(\"Title VI”),as interpreted by the Supreme Court's decision in Students for FairAdmissions,Inc.v.President &Fellows of Harvard College,600 U.S.181(2023)(“SFFA”).Based on its review of San Diego Med's documents and data,the Department finds that SanDiego Med has intentionally discriminated against applicants by granting and denyingadmission based on their race after the Supreme Court's decision in SFFA.  \n# I.   Legal Standard\n\nTitle VI prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating based on race,color,ornational origin.In SFFA,the Supreme Court held that racially discriminatory practices in highereducation can rarely be squared with federal civil rights laws,no matter what a university'sjustification for the practices may be.²Applying strict scrutiny,the Court held that universities“may never use race as a stereotype.….”The Court rejected the notion that considering race inadmissions could survive strict scrutiny because of an interest in “producing new knowledge  \n1  \nstemming from diverse outlooks.”4 The Court made clear that proxies for race also may not beused to discriminate,noting that “universities may not simply establish through application essaysor other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”5  \n# II.   Procedural Background\n\nTitle VI authorizes the Department and DOE to conduct periodic compliance reviews andinvestigations of the recipients of federal funding.28 C.F.R.§42.107;34 C.F.R.§100.7.Enforcement under Title VI requires funding agencies to advise recipients of their failure tocomply and to determine whether compliance can be obtained by voluntary means.42 U.S.C.§2000d-1.If the Department or DOE determines that the noncompliance with Title VI cannot becorrected by voluntary means,they may seek to compel compliance through an enforcementaction.28 C.F.R.§42.108;34 C.F.R.§100.8.  \nThe Department and DOE currently provide federal financial assistance to the Universityof California San Diego(“UC San Diego”).⁶After the Department opened its investigation onMarch 25,2026,it provided a deadline of June 12,2026,for San Diego Med to complete itsproduction.In that time,San Diego Med produced only 75 documents,including correspondence.It also produced applicant-level data for admissions cycles for the incoming classes of 2020through 2025.Among its requests,the Department asked San Diego Med to produce anexplanation for any deviation in test scores and GPAs between racial groups.San Diego Med failedto produce anything in response to those requests.The Department has carefully reviewed andanalyzed the evidence San Diego Med produced,as well as other publicly available information,all of which forms the basis of the Department's findings.  \n# III.   Intent to Discriminate\n\n## A.Background:San Diego Med's Sorting and Interviews,Before and After SFFA\n\nBefore SFFA,San Diego Med sorted applicants into three groups:  \n·Group A:MCAT≥93rd percentile and cumulative GPA≥3.73  \n·Group B:  \no MCAT≥83rd percentile and cumulative GPA≥3.50 or  \no MCAT≥50th percentile and cumulative GPA≥3.10 only if URM[underrepresented minority in medicine]⁷or“disadvantaged background”  \n·Group C:Only residents of California with MCAT≥50th percentile and cumulativeGPA≥3.10,if not in Gro","cbCaippelzPYtJci","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaippelzPYtJci","pdf",3996072,"English","# I. Legal Standard\n## Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA)\n# II. Procedural Background\n## Compliance review and enforcement\n# III. Intent to Discriminate\n## A. Background: Sorting and interviews before and after SFFA\n## B. Evidence of intent to discriminate based on race","[{\"question\":\"What prompted the DOJ compliance review of UC San Diego School of Medicine under Title VI?\",\"answer\":\"The DOJ initiated a compliance review on March 25, 2026, to determine whether the admissions practices of UC San Diego School of Medicine comply with Title VI, pursuant to an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the DOJ find regarding UC San Diego School of Medicine’s admissions practices after SFFA?\",\"answer\":\"The DOJ found that the School of Medicine intentionally discriminated against applicants by granting and denying admission based on race after the Students for Fair Admissions decision.\"},{\"question\":\"What evidence did the DOJ rely on for its findings?\",\"answer\":\"The DOJ reviewed and analyzed documents and applicant-level admissions data for incoming classes from 2020 through 2025, including the absence of responses to requests concerning deviations in test scores and GPAs between racial groups.\"}]","United States - Title VI Inquiry Findings - Findings | PDF"]