WASHINGTON (Diya TV) — The U.S. Department of Justice has accused the University of California San Diego School of Medicine of violating federal civil rights law by using race in its admissions process. Federal officials said Monday that the medical school created a hidden review system that favored Black and Hispanic applicants while making it harder for White and Asian students to gain admission.

The Justice Department said its investigation found that the school relied on a “shadow application process” to identify applicants by race through responses to hardship questions. Officials argued that the practice violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ignored the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that banned race-conscious admissions in higher education.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said the department plans to stop what it described as unlawful admissions practices.

“San Diego Med’s blatant efforts to prioritize race are illegal, and we will end these practices,” Dhillon said in a statement. She also said the school judged applicants based on race instead of focusing on academic measures such as GPA and MCAT scores.

The Justice Department launched its investigation in March. Investigators reviewed internal university records and admissions data covering the period from 2019 through last year. According to the department, admissions staff used applicants’ answers to hardship questions to determine whether they were likely Black or Hispanic. Officials said the school then gave those applicants favorable consideration during the admissions process.

Federal officials argued that the hardship questions served as a racial proxy. They said the admissions system aimed to increase racial diversity rather than evaluate applicants only on academic achievement and other lawful factors.

In a letter sent to the medical school, Dhillon wrote that the university intentionally granted or denied admission based on race. She also said the department believes the alleged discrimination may still be taking place.

The Justice Department claimed that the admissions process resulted in different academic standards for applicants from different racial groups. According to the department, Black and Hispanic applicants gained admission with lower grade point averages and lower standardized test scores than many White and Asian applicants.

Federal officials said White and Asian applicants generally needed a GPA of about 3.50 and test scores in the 83rd percentile or higher. By comparison, the department alleged that many Black and Hispanic applicants received admission with a GPA around 3.1 and average test scores.

As a result, the department argued that qualified White and Asian applicants lost opportunities despite having stronger academic records. Investigators also said admission rates for Black applicants were more than twice those for White applicants during the period under review.

The Justice Department linked its findings to the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. In that landmark ruling, the court held that colleges and universities cannot make admissions decisions based on race. The decision also rejected the use of indirect methods, or proxies, to achieve the same outcome.

Federal officials said the alleged use of hardship responses as a substitute for race conflicts with that ruling. They argued that schools cannot avoid legal limits by using other factors to identify an applicant’s racial background.

The University of California San Diego School of Medicine has not been found liable in court. The Justice Department’s conclusions come from its own investigation and outline the federal government’s position on the admissions process.

The dispute adds to a broader national debate over diversity policies in higher education. Since the Supreme Court’s decision, colleges and universities across the country have reviewed their admissions policies to ensure they comply with federal law. Many schools have also changed application procedures and admissions reviews in response to the ruling.