This week’s Tuesday Takeaways is for K-12 and higher ed leaders alike.

Whether a student is applying to a magnet program in eighth grade or to medical school after college, the path to that opportunity runs through years of choices made by schools and institutions. This fall, federal investigators made clear they intend to examine that entire path under Title VI, from the first outreach effort to the final admission offer. The question for every K-12 district and higher ed institution is whether its own review goes just as far.

Berkeley Law and UCSF’s medical school found that out last month.

On September 9, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education (ED) announced joint findings that UC Berkeley School of Law discriminated against white and Asian applicants in violation of Title VI. Investigators pointed to admissions data, essay prompts, and application questions asking applicants to identify a “primary” racial identity. Their statistical analysis found that Black applicants had several times higher odds of admission than comparable white applicants in 2024 and 2025. Berkeley Law disputes the findings, stating that race is not considered in its admissions decisions and that its process complies with federal law and California’s Proposition 209. DOJ has said it will seek a voluntary resolution and may sue if those efforts fail. Read the Berkeley Law findings letter.

On September 22, DOJ announced findings that the UCSF School of Medicine violated Title VI in admissions for the incoming classes of 2023 through 2025 and in its operation of diversity pipeline programs. This review reached well past the final admissions decision, covering recruitment, interview practices, scholarships and funding, and programs designed to guide prospective students from high school through medical school. UCSF disagrees with DOJ’s conclusions and maintains that its admissions process complies with the law. Read the UCSF findings letter and UCSF’s response.

Both sets of findings come from agency investigations, and a determination of liability would require a court ruling if either matter moves to litigation. Even so, they show how much federal investigators are prepared to examine after Students for Fair Admissions. A written policy may say race plays no role, and investigators will still look at the information decision makers receive, the instructions they follow, the criteria they apply, and who gets access to programs that lead to an educational benefit.

This connects to the IRS proposal we covered on September 15. Published in the Federal Register on September 4, the proposed rule would weigh racial discrimination in a private school’s admissions, scholarship, athletic, and other programs when determining tax-exempt status. It remains a proposal and operates under a different legal framework than Title VI. For tax-exempt private schools, both K-12 and higher ed, it adds one more reason to look at how opportunities are offered across the whole institution.

Race-neutral criteria remain available. DOJ’s UCSF letter acknowledges that institutions may consider factors such as income, first-generation status, neighborhood or community circumstances, disadvantages overcome, and an applicant’s individual experiences. Federal concern arises when those criteria are used intentionally as substitutes for race or when participation, scholarships, or other benefits are allocated based on race.

Tuesday Takeaways

For colleges and universities, a Title VI review should follow the full pathway to each opportunity. Areas worth examining include:

• Outreach and recruitment
• Pipeline, summer, and bridge programs
• Mentoring and research opportunities
• Scholarships and stipends
• Application, essay, and interview questions
• The instructions given to the people making selection decisions

K-12 districts have their own pathways to review, and some of them feed directly into programs like the ones DOJ examined at UCSF. K-12 schools and districts should look at these:

• Admissions criteria for magnet schools, gifted programs, and other selective academic programs
• Prerequisites and recommendation requirements that control access to advanced and dual enrollment coursework
• Eligibility rules for internships, leadership programs, and summer opportunities
• Scholarships and awards the district administers or promotes, including those funded by outside partners
• Partnerships with colleges, universities, and community organizations that run pipeline or mentoring programs for district students.

At every level, an institution should be able to explain what each criterion measures, why it was chosen, and how it is applied in practice. The written policy is a starting point. Staff instructions, application materials, eligibility rules, and outcome data show whether the policy works the way it reads.

Look for every point where a student might encounter a gate on the way to an opportunity. That is where we would start the review.

Community Partners can find Title VI courses in their ICS on-demand training, and our team is available to support reviews like this one. Not yet a Community Partner? Learn more at icslawyer.com.