Lawsuit Claims UCLA Med School Discriminates Against White and Asian Applicants

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA is facing a lawsuit from Do No Harm and Students for Fair Admissions. They claim the school is unfairly discriminating against white and Asian applicants by favoring others with lower qualifications. This legal challenge targets the admissions practices under Jennifer Lucero, who became associate dean of admissions in 2020.

Jennifer Lucero also holds a position focused on inclusive excellence, previously known as diversity, equity, and inclusion, within the Geffen Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine. Back in 2020, UCLA was recognized by U.S. News and World Report as the sixth-best medical school for research. However, their ranking dropped significantly to 18th, following a decision by several top medical schools to stop sharing data over concerns related to equity.

Reports from the Free Beacon highlight a troubling trend, with the number of students failing exams increasing dramatically since 2020. This issue arises amidst the backdrop of Proposition 209, a measure passed by California voters in 1996, which prohibits considering race in hiring, contracting, and education. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard further emphasized that race-based affirmative action policies violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The lawsuit provides examples of Lucero’s controversial actions during admissions committee meetings. In one instance, when discussing a black applicant with lower scores, Lucero reportedly argued the need for such students by citing health disparities affecting African-American women. The complaint describes how Lucero allegedly intimidates committee members who question these admissions by labeling them as privileged or implying racism.

There was an incident where Lucero reportedly reacted strongly when a Native American applicant was rejected. She allegedly subjected the committee to a two-hour lecture on Native American history, delivered by her sister. Despite requests, UCLA has not released full admissions data, which may be required during the lawsuit’s discovery phase.

Do No Harm has pointed out substantial differences in admissions rates among white, Asian, and black applicants to the Geffen School from 2020 to 2023. In 2020, these groups made up 36.71%, 37.83%, and 7.06% of applicants, respectively, with admission rates at 30.29%, 35.43%, and 8%. By 2023, the applicant pool shifted to 32.83% white, 40.79% Asian, and 7.86% black, with admission rates changing to 24%, 29.71%, and 14.29%.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, expressed concern over UCLA’s hesitance to share admissions data. He suggests that this reluctance indicates potential violations of federal law regarding race consideration in admissions. Goldfarb argues that if UCLA isn’t engaging in discriminatory practices, they should have no issue providing the requested data.

Do No Harm isn’t just focused on this lawsuit; they are also challenging California’s mandatory implicit bias training for physicians. According to the group, this training promotes the idea that white individuals are inherently racist. This position aligns with the organization’s broader mission to push back against what they see as politically motivated changes in medical education and practice.

The case against UCLA highlights ongoing debates around affirmative action and race consideration in academia. It reflects broader societal tensions about equity, merit, and opportunity. This lawsuit could have implications for how other institutions approach similar issues.

The legal battle at UCLA underscores the importance of transparency and fairness in the admissions process. It raises questions about the balance between diversity initiatives and the principles of merit-based selection. Supporters of the lawsuit argue that admissions should focus solely on qualifications, without considering race.

Critics of race-based affirmative action often cite the importance of a level playing field, where all applicants are judged equally. They argue that policies favoring certain groups can undermine confidence in the system’s fairness. As the lawsuit progresses, it could set a precedent for how schools nationwide address these complex issues.

This situation also reflects broader political and ideological divides in the country. Many conservatives argue for color-blind policies that treat all individuals equally, regardless of background. The UCLA lawsuit, therefore, becomes a flashpoint in the ongoing national conversation about race and equality in education.