Staff Reports
The Justice Department and the Education Department this week dropped a legal bomb on one of the country’s leading law schools. Their joint finding says UC Berkeley School of Law deliberately discriminated against white and Asian applicants in admissions for the classes that arrived in 2024 and 2025. This isn’t a he-said, she-said dust-up. The agencies pointed to data, application language, and public remarks as the basis for their conclusion. The question now is whether Berkeley will fix the problem or fight the federal government in court.
Federal Finding: What the DOJ and ED Said
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon and Assistant Secretary Kimberly Richey announced a joint finding under Title VI that Berkeley Law’s admissions practices violated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). The agencies say Berkeley used essay prompts, a “primary identity” choice, and other tactics as race proxies to advance a racial‑diversity goal. The DOJ and Education Department want a voluntary settlement to bring Berkeley into compliance. If Berkeley refuses, the feds are prepared to sue. That is a big deal when your school takes federal funds and insists it follows the law.
Data and Evidence the Agencies Cite
Odds Ratios and LSAT Gaps Explained
The government didn’t just point fingers. It analyzed applicant‑level data and found stark disparities. In 2025, a Black applicant had about 5.8 times the odds of admission compared with a comparable white applicant; in 2024 the odds were about 6.5 times. Median LSAT scores for admitted Black students trailed white and Asian admits by roughly five points across recent years. Put plainly: applicants with higher test scores were being passed over in ways the DOJ says line up with race‑based preferences. That is the kind of statistical pattern courts look at when they decide whether discrimination occurred.
Berkeley’s Response and the Fight Ahead
UC Berkeley and Dean Erwin Chemerinsky deny the allegations and say the law school follows Proposition 209 and federal law. Chemerinsky’s past comments about finding race‑neutral “proxies” for diversity are quoted in the findings, and the DOJ treats those remarks as evidence of intent. Expect a vigorous rebuttal and a drawn‑out fight. The feds will try settlement talks first, but they’ve made clear they will litigate if Berkeley won’t change course. For a public university that takes hundreds of millions in federal dollars, this could become costly in more ways than one.
Why This Matters
This decision strikes at the heart of college admissions policy and the post‑SFFA world. Federal enforcers are signaling they will police race‑conscious admissions and any creative attempts to hide racial preferences behind essays or identity boxes. For parents, applicants, and the rule‑of‑law crowd, the message is simple: admissions must be fair, transparent, and race‑neutral where the law requires it. Conservatives should welcome vigorous enforcement — equal treatment under the law is not a political slogan, it’s the baseline. The Berkeley episode shows the fight over admissions law is far from over, and the courtroom may be the next battleground.
