Trump Administration Accuses UC Berkeley Law of Racial Bias
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
On Wednesday, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education alleged that the University of California, Berkeley School of Law favored Black applicants over White and Asian applicants in violation of federal law. In a letter to attorney Tania Faransso, who represents the school, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said the institution “deliberately discriminated,” after a compliance review begun in March 2025. Officials said this violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars racial discrimination in federally funded programs; California public universities have been barred from considering race in admissions since Proposition 209 in 1996, and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 prohibited race-conscious admissions nationwide. The Justice Department said Black applicants in 2025 had 5.8 times higher odds of admission than comparable White applicants, that large shares of admitted Black students had LSAT scores below 95 to 99 percent of admitted White students, and that from 2021 through 2025 the median LSAT among Black admits was about five points lower than among White or Asian admits. Berkeley Law rejected the allegations, stating that race is not considered in admissions and that it pursues diversity only through race-neutral factors such as socioeconomic status and personal experiences.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 2 articles
2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Justice Department, Education Department, Harmeet Dhillon and Department of Justice
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: on-record letter, DOJ letter/analysis
- Credits another outlet 0 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 10, 17:24 UTC by The Hill, naming its source. First document in the first report, from The Hill (on-record letter).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage reports the federal accusation without the Justice Department's statistics, so a reader cannot see how large the alleged disparity is said to be. The Hill said officials alleged that Berkeley Law favors Black applicants over white and Asian applicants, and cited a letter charging that it “deliberately discriminated.” Fox News reported the DOJ finding that Black applicants had 5.8 times higher odds of admission than comparable white applicants. That ratio is absent from left-leaning coverage.
Right-leaning coverage said the administration “blasted” Berkeley Law. Left-leaning coverage said officials “alleged” that the school favors Black applicants. The two verbs sit on the same event and pull in opposite directions on how settled the charge sounds.
How did the Justice Department define comparable applicants when it calculated those admission odds?
Bottom line
Fox News printed the DOJ's 5.8-times admission-odds figure and Berkeley Law's denial; The Hill printed the charge without either.
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- DOJ said Black applicants in 2025 had 5.8 times higher odds of admission than comparable white applicants
- Berkeley Law said race is not considered in any way in admissions decisions
- California already banned affirmative action in public education under Proposition 209 in 1996
- 37% of Black admitted applicants scored below 99% of admitted White applicants on the LSAT
- Berkeley Law enrollment was 51 Black students out of 1,128 as of October 2025
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage framed the episode as a charge by the Trump administration, not as a settled finding. The Hill reported that Justice and Education Department officials “alleged” Berkeley Law “favors Black applicants over white and Asian applicants” in violation of federal law, and quoted Dhillon’s claim that the school “deliberately discriminated.”
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage framed the action as the administration “blast[ing]” Berkeley Law and finding a Title VI violation, and as the latest federal move against race-conscious university admissions after the 2023 Supreme Court ruling. Fox News led with the Justice Department’s statement that the data “demonstrates a strong bias against Asian and White applicants, with a corresponding bias in favor of Black applicants,” treating the odds-ratio and LSAT comparisons as the core of the case. It also reported the school’s denial and its claim that race-neutral diversity efforts remain lawful, while keeping the government’s statistical conclusions at the center.
Our Take (balanced)
The administration’s strongest argument is that the cited admission-odds and LSAT gaps among comparable applicants are too large to explain without a racial preference, which would violate Title VI, Proposition 209, and the 2023 ruling. Berkeley’s strongest argument—and the one left-leaning coverage implicitly credits by treating the charges as allegations—is that the school does not consider race and that lawful race-neutral factors can still produce a diverse class. The central unresolved tension is whether those disparities prove race was used as a plus factor, or whether they can arise from race-neutral practices that remain legal.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.