Department of Justice Determination Regarding Racial Discrimination in UCLA Medical School Admissions
司法部關於 UCLA 醫學院招生種族歧視之裁定
Introduction
The United States Department of Justice has concluded that the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, utilized illegal racial considerations during its student selection process.
美國司法部已認定，加州大學洛杉磯分校（UCLA）的 David Geffen 醫學院在學生選拔過程中，採取了違法的種族考量。
Main Body
The Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation indicates that the David Geffen School of Medicine (DGSOM) implemented admissions practices that disadvantaged white and Asian applicants to provide preferential treatment to Black and Hispanic candidates. This determination is supported by quantitative data from 2023 and 2024, which reveals a disparity in academic qualifications; for instance, the average GPA for admitted Black students in 2024 was 3.72, whereas Asian and white students averaged 3.84 and 3.83, respectively. The DOJ further noted a 28-percentile point deficit in test scores between the preferred and non-preferred racial cohorts.
司法部（DOJ）的調查指出，David Geffen 醫學院（DGSOM）實施了使白人與亞裔申請人處於劣勢的招生做法，以對黑人與西班牙裔候選人提供優待。此裁定由 2023 年與 2024 年的量化數據支持，數據顯示學術資格存在差異；例如，2024 年錄取的黑人學生平均 GPA 為 3.72，而亞裔與白人學生則分別為 3.84 與 3.83。司法部進一步指出，受優待與非優待種族群體之間的測試分數存在 28 個百分位點的差距。
Institutional leadership, specifically Dean of Admissions Jennifer Lucero and Executive Director of Admissions Alisa Lopez, were identified as central to the prioritization of diversity objectives over meritocratic standards. Allegations suggest the use of race-based quotas and the utilization of application prompts regarding marginalized group membership as proxies for racial classification. These actions are characterized by the DOJ as violations of Title IV and contrary to the 2023 Supreme Court ruling prohibiting affirmative action, as well as a 1996 California state ban.
校方領導層，特別是招生主任 Jennifer Lucero 與招生執行總監 Alisa Lopez，被認定是將多樣性目標優先於能力標準的核心人物。指控指出其使用了基於種族的配額，並利用申請表中關於邊緣化群體成員身份的提示作為種族分類的替代指標。司法部將這些行為定義為違反第四條款（Title IV），且違背 2023 年最高法院禁止採取積極平權措施（affirmative action）的裁決，以及 1996 年加州州的禁令。
This regulatory action occurs within a broader federal initiative to scrutinize higher education admissions. The Trump administration has expanded investigations into similar practices at Stanford University, Ohio State University, and the University of California, San Diego. While the University of California system has previously argued that race-neutral measures were insufficient to maintain diversity, the current administration maintains that such proxies constitute illegal discrimination. The institutional fallout at DGSOM is reportedly reflected in a decline in global rankings from sixth to 18th place between 2020 and 2024, alongside reports of increased failure rates in basic medical knowledge assessments.
此次監管行動屬於一項更廣泛的聯邦計畫，旨在審查高等教育招生。川普政府已擴大對史丹佛大學、俄亥俄州立大學及加州大學聖地牙哥分校類似做法的調查。儘管加州大學系統先前辯稱種族中立措施不足以維持多樣性，但現任政府堅持認為此類替代指標構成非法歧視。據報導，DGSOM 的體制影響反映在全全球排名上，從 2020 年的第六名下滑至 2024 年的第 18 名，同時有報告指出基礎醫學知識評估的不及格率有所增加。
Conclusion
The DOJ is currently seeking a voluntary resolution agreement with UCLA to ensure legal compliance, with the potential for litigation and loss of federal funding if an agreement is not reached.
司法部目前正尋求與 UCLA 達成自願解決協議以確保符合法律規範，若未能達成協議，則可能面臨訴訟及失去聯邦資助。
Vocabulary Learning
The Architecture of 'Institutional Euphemism' and C2 Syntactic Precision
To bridge the gap from B2 to C2, a student must move beyond meaning and enter the realm of nuance and strategic positioning. This text is a masterclass in Nominalization and Legalistic Hedging, where the writer replaces active, emotive verbs with abstract nouns to create an aura of objective, clinical authority.
◈ The Pivot: From Action to 'Determination'
Observe the shift from 'The DOJ decided' (B2) to 'The Department of Justice has concluded... [this] determination is supported by' (C2).
In C2 English, we don't just describe events; we frame them as administrative outcomes. Note the use of the word "determination". In a general context, it means resolve; in this high-level regulatory context, it functions as a formal legal finding. This is a "semantic shift" that learners must master to navigate academic and legal registers.
◈ Lexical Sophistication: The 'Proxy' Mechanism
One of the most potent C2 concepts in this text is the use of "proxies."
"...utilization of application prompts... as proxies for racial classification."
At a B2 level, a student would say: "They used questions to find out the race of the students."
At C2, we use the term proxy to describe a variable that is not the target itself but stands in for it. This allows for a high degree of intellectual precision. To master this, you must learn to identify "stand-in" concepts in complex arguments.
◈ Syntactic Density: The 'Cohort' and 'Disparity' Nexus
Analyze the phrasing: "...a 28-percentile point deficit in test scores between the preferred and non-preferred racial cohorts."
Why this is C2:
- Adjective-Heavy Noun Phrases: "28-percentile point deficit" acts as a single, complex modifier.
- Categorical Labeling: Instead of saying "groups of people," the text uses "cohorts," a term rooted in sociology and statistics.
- Binary Oppositions: The use of "preferred" vs "non-preferred" strips the emotion from the sentence while intensifying the legal accusation. It transforms a social conflict into a structural anomaly.
C2 Strategic Takeaway: To write at this level, stop using verbs to describe human action and start using nouns to describe systemic processes. Replace "they discriminated" with "the implementation of practices that disadvantaged." This creates the 'distance' required for high-level academic and professional discourse.