The U.S. Department of Justice is again accusing Duke University of racial discrimination in its admissions practices. Federal officials say Duke's law school discriminated against white and Asian prospective students in favor of Black and Hispanic applicants.
The investigation makes several claims, including that Duke used proxies for race — such as first-generation status and Pell Grant eligibility — to illegally advance "racial diversity goals" in its incoming 2023, 2024, and 2025 classes.
It's among several probes the DOJ has launched against Duke, but one of the first to come back with findings.
The DOJ said it's seeking a "settlement negotiation" to resolve the issue. A university spokesperson said Duke is reviewing the DOJ's conclusions and is "committed to complying with the law" while maintaining its academic mission.
Some are worried Duke's compliance might go too far out of fear of retribution. University of California, Berkeley professor Jesse Rothstein researches admissions and affirmative action in law schools.
He said in the last year, just the threat of an investigation has led to multiple selective institutions paying millions of dollars to the federal government.
"The threat that underlies the investigation is that the government will find the school is in violation of the Civil Rights Act and will cut off its access to federal financial aid, which could be hugely damaging to a university," Rothstein said. "(Universities) back away from anything close to the line in order to avoid the risk of being investigated or the risk of a negative finding. They stop doing things even that would be legal, just to try to make things unambiguous."
Duke has complied with federal anti-DEI objectives in the past, both preemptively and responsively. Two years ago, administrators ended a full-ride competitive scholarship for Black students and transitioned it into a "leadership program" for all Duke students. They blamed the change on the "legal landscape related to race-based considerations in higher education."
Earlier this year, the university ended its partnership with an organization that helped underrepresented students earn doctorate degrees. The decision came after the Trump administration said it was investigating 31 universities, including Duke, for working with The PhD Project.
The DOJ's basis for these and other investigations has been the Supreme Court's 2023 decision to overturn race-conscious admissions. According to Rothstein, that ruling doesn't prevent universities from considering aspects of a student's identity that might be correlated with race, like their socioeconomic status or being the first in their family to go to college.
"Universities for many years have said 'Look, we want more than just the highest-scoring students we can find,'" Rothstein said. "We want students who come from a diversity of backgrounds, who come from a diversity of experiences. That makes for richer classroom discussions and makes the educational experience better for everybody."
But, he says, it appears the Trump administration is taking a stronger stance than the Supreme Court's definition.
"Schools may avoid doing anything that runs afoul of this really expansive interpretation that the DOJ has adopted," Rothstein continued. "And so, (the worry is) they go to a much narrower idea of what to look for in admissions and focus primarily on the quantitative measures because that's safer."
The case that led to the Supreme Court's decision was brought by an organization called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). Kenny Xu is a North Carolina-based conservative activist who used to be one of SFFA's spokespeople.
He said admissions criteria should largely rely on quantitative measures like strong GPAs and LSAT scores. Once personal aspects are brought in, Xu said, universities must make sure their evaluators aren't prejudiced.
"Especially in a school like Duke Law School, which is not just supposed to represent the nation, but it's supposed to represent the American South," Xu said. "You can't have admissions officers that are too liberal … you need to have admissions officers who are able to work together with conservative-minded people. There needs to be a balance in that body."
Xu said Duke is part of a network of universities that have been "arrogant in their own prejudices for decades."
"Duke better respond like a submissive cat, and they better freaking say, 'We look forward to admitting more white and Asian American qualified law school applicants and eliminating our affirmative action regime," Xu said.
Xu called for Duke to face “escalating consequences” if it continues what he called its “discriminatory, fake, prejudicial regime.”
However, other members of the Asian American community say they’re tired of being used as a "political tool." Shruti Parikh is the director of education and political engagement for North Carolina Asian Americans Together.
She said Asian American voices should not be used to further a narrative that pits communities against each other.
"We feel that using Asian Americans as that wedge puts us in a really bad position, and that's not a position that our community wants to be in," Parikh said. "We believe in fairness. We believe in opportunities and inclusivity for everyone. We want to make sure that Asian American experiences are heard and taken into account when making policy actions or making decisions about school admissions — but not at the expense of other communities."
Meanwhile, the DOJ's investigations are continuing against other universities in North Carolina. Federal officials are in the midst of investigating East Carolina University's Brody School of Medicine for similar "racial discrimination" allegations.
At Duke, the DOJ said it is seeking a "voluntary" resolution with the university to bring its admissions practices "into legal compliance." If the two cannot reach an agreement, federal officials have threatened to sue.
WUNC partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.
