The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) launched an ongoing investigation into the University of California (UC) system, claiming the UC 2030 Capacity Plan may violate federal anti-discrimination laws, on June 26. The UC plans intend to expand enrollment and increase faculty diversity to meet race and sex-based employment quotas by the end of the decade.
The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division alleges that UC’s hiring initiatives potentially violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion or national origin.
Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, wrote a letter to UC President Michael V. Drake. According to the L.A. Times, the department had “reasonable cause” to claim UC’s hiring practices may discriminate against job applicants and training program participants.
The DOJ letter mentioned the UC 2030 Capacity Plan, which aspires to add at least 20,000 students by the end of the decade and potentially raise the goal to 33,000 students depending on state funding. UC Merced and UC Riverside discussed their ambitions to become an R1 institution and a member of the American Association of Universities, respectively. The UC hopes to boost graduation rates, increase access for historically underrepresented minority groups and hire 1,100 new tenure-track faculty.
The plan also sets a foundation for becoming a national model as a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) and Minority-Serving Institution (MSI), but DOJ officials assert that these goals could be interpreted as de facto hiring quotas, which are illegal under federal law. An HSI must enroll 25% or more Latino students, and an MSI must serve high concentrations of historically underrepresented students.
UC Davis is on track to become a designated HSI, with UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC San Diego following suit. Many campuses are also interested in “improving representation and experience for African American, Native American and underrepresented Asian subpopulations,” according to the UC 2030 Capacity Plan.
In addition to this federal development, on Aug. 22, the DOJ refused to defend the long-standing HSI grant program, which provides an estimated $350 million annually to those institutions. According to AP News, DOJ officials deemed the program “patently unconstitutional,” citing the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against “outright racial balancing,” putting future funding for over 500 institutions at risk.
At UC Irvine, where matters of faculty diversity and representation have long been discussed, concerned students are closely monitoring the investigation and its potential impact. The campus, established as an HSI in 2017, has frequently noted its diverse student body, with more than half of undergraduates identifying as Asian American, Latino, or African American.
For many students, the push for faculty diversity is vital to shaping the UC experience. Samantha Phung, co-president of the South Asian Student Association at UCI, stressed the significance of representation in classrooms.
“I feel like regardless of your major, whether you’re in STEM or in humanities, having a diverse faculty allows a, not super obvious, but a very important influence on things like student motivation, feeling understood and feeling seen,” Phung said. “That’s only possible if your faculty is diverse and, two, well-trained on different perspectives because that’s how you build that relationship with your students.”
The UC 2030 Capacity Plan does not explicitly require hiring a particular number of staff members based on race or gender. However, the DOJ argues that connecting UC institutional goals with racial and ethnic representation in hiring can influence campuses to consider those characteristics when making employment decisions.
In response to these allegations, the UC strongly denied that it uses diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) quotas or illegal hiring preferences. In a statement, Senior Director of Strategic and Critical Communications Rachel Zaentz emphasized the UC’s compliance with federal and state laws.
“The University of California is committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programs and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws,” Zaentz said. “The university also aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported.”
Zaentz and other UC officials have highlighted that quotas have been explicitly banned by the UC Regents since 2020; Californians rejected Proposition 16, which would have repealed the state’s longstanding ban on affirmative action in public institutions. However, the DOJ’s letter suggested the UC’s initiatives were at legal risk.
This is the second time this year that the DOJ has opened a civil rights case against the UC, reflecting the Trump administration’s broader efforts against educational institutions that allegedly give preference to racial, religious or ethnic groups.
In March, federal officials began investigating whether the UC tolerated a hostile work environment for Jewish faculty and staff. The investigation was initiated from complaints linked to pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The DOJ also accused UCLA, UC Berkeley and UC Irvine of using “illegal DEI” in admissions, even though UC officials assert that the system ended the consideration of race in admissions following Proposition 209.
The controversy also surfaced after the UC formally dropped the use of mandatory diversity statements in faculty hiring, in context of President Donald Trump’s threats to withhold federal funding from institutions that have initiatives related to DEI. Diversity statements are written responses asking applicants for faculty positions to describe how their past experiences with teaching, research or service have contributed to DEI on campus.
UC Provost Katherine S. Newman announced that although diversity statements would no longer be required for applicants, candidates are allowed to discuss DEI work in their applications if they choose to. This decision was widely interpreted as a direct response to federal scrutiny and heightened concerns about the legality of evaluating candidates based on their personal views and approaches to diversity.
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Sell is assigned to the ongoing DOJ investigation and plans to meet with UC President Drake to discuss the investigation.
Legal scholars suggest that the outcome of this case could have an immense impact on public universities across the nation, potentially shaping how institutions design faculty hiring practices, implement diversity programs, expand equity programs and determine eligibility for federal funding. For the UC, the investigation represents both a legal challenge and a test of its broader public mission.
Anika Denny is a News Intern for the summer 2025 quarter. She can be reached at adenny1@uci.edu.
Edited by Jeralynn Querubin and Joshua Gonzales
