Fed investigates the admissions office on Stanford University, University of California campus
The Justice Department investigated the admission practices of four California universities Thursday night, accusing them of violating Supreme Court rulings prohibiting affirmative action among students to campaign for fair admissions v. Harvard University and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
The department calls it a “compliance review” and will target three campuses at Stanford and the University of California: Berkeley, Los Angeles and Irving.
The Justice Department wrote in a statement announcing the investigation that the investigation was just the “start” of their efforts to “eliminate DEI” in college admissions.
“President Trump is committed to ending illegal discrimination across the country and restoring performance-based opportunities,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in a statement.
It is unclear what prompted the investigation or the department must support its suspicion of illegal racial preferences in the admissions of target institutions. Some opponents of affirmative action suggested that institutions that recruit minority students last fall were the first lessons after the Supreme Court’s ruling, which may have been illegal.
Berkeley, UCLA and Irving all reported that the number of black and Hispanic students taking classes in 2028 last fall: 45% of students recruited on UC system campuses this fall were under-numbered and under-colored, up 1.2% from 2023 and up from 2023.
Hours after the Justice Department announced the investigation, the Department of Health and Human Services conducted its own investigation into UCLA medical school’s admission practice, accusing it of illegally considering the applicant’s race.
Since 1996, the state has made this public practice illegal in public institutions through referendums, thus prohibiting the use of the UC system to consider race in admissions. This did not stop the opposition’s watchdog from secretly blaming the system.
Last month, the newly formed public interest group against racial discrimination filed a lawsuit alleging that the system has implemented affirmative action behind closed doors, citing increased Black and Hispanic enrollment rates on its most selective campus, namely UCLA and Berkeley and Berkeley, and more recently decisions in the 2020 propensity test for standard tests to demonstrate the affirmative decision.
“UC has implemented admission practices to comply with admissions since Prop. 209 prohibits California public institutions from considering admissions competitions,” a UC spokesperson wrote in an email. Internal Advanced ED. “UC undergraduate admissions applications collect students’ race and race only for statistical purposes. This information is not shared with the app reviewers and is not used for admission.”
According to the public data set released by the university last month, Stanford University is different from the UC schools, reporting last year that the decline in first-year students fell significantly. The university’s black enrollment rate fell by nearly 50%, while Hispanic enrollment fell by 14.4%, while white and Asian enrollment rates rose by 14.5% and 10% respectively.
Luisa Rapport, director of media relations at Stanford University, said the university has not violated the affirmative action ban and, following the SFFA ruling, “has been conducted comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny immediately to ensure compliance in our enrollment process.”
“We continue to work on fulfilling the obligations under the law and we will answer questions from the department as we perform this process,” she wrote in an email. Internal Advanced ED.
“Just the beginning”
Angel Pérez, president of the National Association for College Admissions Consulting, said he has heard “extraordinary concern” from admissions staff and deans in recent weeks, and the investigation may be spread to his institution. They don’t know how to prepare because “we don’t know what these compliance comments even require.”
What they know, he said, is that surveys can put their offices in chaos at a height during the enrollment season.
“Comments like this are extremely destructive. They are also very expensive,” Perez said. “Some agencies may not survive compliance reviews given the legal costs.”
In an interview Internal Advanced ED Last month, SFFA president Edward Blum, architect of the nationwide affirmative action ban, said he expects schools to report higher admissions to minorities in the fall to conduct legal reviews of the court and the Trump administration. He said he believes many institutions could “cheat” the SFFA ruling, including some not included in the first round of investigations: Yale, Duke University and Princeton.
“Many of us are confused and worried that in the first admission cycle after SFFA, schools saying they get rid of affirmative action will cause their minority enrollment to plummet,” he said.
Some universities are fully detaining population information about their entry into the course. Hours after the Justice Department investigation was launched, Harvard University acknowledged its 2029 grade, but did not release any information for the first time in more than 70 years, including demographics, acceptance and yields, and geographic data.
Answer from Internal Advanced ED Regarding what the compliance review will require, or how the department plans to investigate the admissions office, a spokesperson for the Justice Department mentioned the initial statement to announce the investigation.
“No other comments,” he wrote via email.
However, there are some hints about the possible measures taken by the federal admissions investigation. In the December column Washington Reviewer Max Eden of the American Corporate Academy outlines a plan that reflects the Trump administration’s higher education agenda so far with incredible accuracy, suggesting Bondi initiate a “endless compliance review” to enforce the SFFA ruling with Harvard and others.
“She should assign the Office of Civil Rights Employees to the Harvard Admissions Office and direct the university to not implement any admissions meetings,” Eden wrote. “The Office of Civil Rights should be copied in every email letter and Harvard should be forced to provide written grounds for each admissions decision to ensure non-discrimination.”
It may be particularly noticeable now for the four universities in the survey center, as universities start sending out admission letters and entering the busiest season to build their temporary classes.
“It’s not a worse time. It’s April; it’s the admission management season,” Perez said. “Let the institution spend time, energy and resources on it.” [respond to compliance reviews] This means they will be difficult to attend during class. ”
“Rich” accusations
The Justice Department claims that since the SFFA ruling, universities have continued to consider race in the enrollment process to bypass the law. These reasons make its goals particularly confusing, given that the University of California system has not taken affirmative action in nearly three decades.
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, banning the practice of public universities. Black and Hispanic enrollment fell sharply after the application cycle. Perez said years of experimentation on racially neutral enrollment, financial aid, and recruitment policies on UC campuses have brought back previous expenses for Black and Hispanic enrollment.
In the months after the SFFA decision, Perez said college admissions professionals turned to California for courses on how to maintain diversity without complying with the new laws.
Officials and admissions professionals [at UC] He has been helping other U.S. agencies comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling,” he said. They have actually served as leaders in the field. It is ridiculous to accuse them of violating any law.”
