The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced that its investigation found Duke University School of Law deliberately tried to exclude white and Asian applicants from admission, alleging the school used race-focused practices after the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling barred affirmative action in admissions. The probe says admissions staff used essay prompts and internal tagging to steer outcomes and that those practices produced markedly different admission odds across racial groups.
The department said the inquiry uncovered practices that prioritized racial composition over neutral evaluation. Investigators concluded that Duke Law placed explicit emphasis on race in its admissions process, which they say persisted even after the Supreme Court limited race-conscious admissions policies in 2023.
According to the report, applicants were prompted to answer short questions meant to capture background and perspective. Reviewers then tagged responses with labels intended to signal characteristics tied to race, using tags like “Diversity/Services” to mark submissions that fit the school’s preferred profile.
Those internal tags and instructions, investigators say, functioned as a way to “preserve race-based outcomes for its incoming classes.” The probe framed those steps as a deliberate system to help admissions staff hit a desired racial mix rather than assessing each candidate on neutral factors like test scores and grades.
https://x.com/AAGDhillon/status/2085442793808294094
The Justice Department’s probe discovered that, despite a 2023 Supreme Court ruling preventing affirmative action in school admittances, “Duke Law emphasized racial diversity in admissions and engaged in a deliberate effort to preserve race-based outcomes for its incoming classes.” Investigators reported that this approach created different admission odds for applicants with similar academic records.
Data in the investigation showed that black and Hispanic applicants had substantially higher chances of admission than white or Asian applicants with comparable credentials. The probe also found that median LSAT scores of white or Asian applicants who were rejected exceeded the median scores of black or Hispanic applicants who were admitted.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division framed the findings bluntly, saying black applicants had a 3.5 times higher chance of admission over Asian students. The report treats that ratio as a concrete sign that the admissions process favored some racial groups over others.
“Duke Law School doesn’t get a free pass to discriminate against white and Asian students simply because it thinks it has good intentions,” Dhillon said in a press release. “Using ‘diversity’ essay questions to identify preferred races for admission is still illegal discrimination based on race, and this Department is committed to eliminating it everywhere we find it, including in our nation’s law schools.”
The Justice Department said its next steps typically begin with settlement talks when discrimination is found. Officials indicated negotiations will be opened with Duke Law, and if those talks do not resolve the issue, the department will pursue litigation to enforce civil rights law.
This probe lands amid broader debates over how universities define diversity after the Supreme Court limited race-conscious admissions. For critics, the findings confirm concerns that institutions might try to work around legal limits by using proxies and internal procedures to shape class composition.
From a Republican perspective, the report reads as proof that policies framed as diversity efforts can mask preferential treatment based on race. The Justice Department’s intervention signals that federal authorities will scrutinize admissions practices that produce disparate outcomes tied to race.
For legal observers, the case could set a test of how far schools can go in pursuing diversity goals without running afoul of civil rights statutes. The department’s willingness to move toward settlement or litigation means law schools will face clearer consequences if investigations find race-based decision making.
Students, applicants, and university administrators will be watching how negotiations proceed and whether any court action follows. The outcome could change how law schools craft questions, train admissions reviewers, and document the reasons behind each acceptance or rejection.
Whatever happens next, the core findings in the probe focus on internal admissions tools and outcomes rather than abstract intentions. That focus makes the report a practical roadmap for regulators and a warning for institutions that continue to treat race as a decisive factor in admissions decisions.
