The Biden Department of Justice, now under a different kind of leadership, is finally taking a closer look at racial and gender preferences in higher education, starting with California’s crown jewel, the University of California (UC) system.
Breitbart reported that on Thursday, DOJ Civil Rights Division chief Harmeet Dhillon launched a formal federal investigation into whether UC’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs cross the line into unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Dhillon’s inquiry zeroes in on whether the UC system’s diversity-centric hiring and training policies are unlawfully favoring or excluding individuals based on race or gender.
This isn’t a vague complaint—it’s a serious civil rights probe into a system that’s long championed identity over merit.
In her letter beginning the probe, Dhillon articulated concerns that DEI procedures may be violating federal law by discriminating against employees, job candidates, and participants in university-sponsored training programs.
Given the university’s high-profile position and its influence nationwide, the case could be a bellwether for how far the federal government is willing to go in policing woke hiring practices that have become mainstream in academia.
For context, this action is distinct from a separate ongoing DOJ task force investigating reported antisemitism at UC Los Angeles and UC Berkeley—a task headed by civil rights attorney Leo Terrell, not Dhillon. In other words, the DOJ now considers UC’s policies problematic from more than one angle.
Notably, Dhillon made no mention of California’s Proposition 209, a voter-approved law banning racial preferences in hiring and admissions.
Instead, she focused squarely on federal law—specifically Title VII—which bars employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin.
This move implies that whatever the state may allow or ignore, Washington is preparing to hold institutions like UC accountable to national standards. That’s the beauty of federalism—sometimes the backstop against discrimination is in D.C., not Sacramento.
Meanwhile, the University of California is playing nice—at least on the surface.
In a public statement, UC claimed its programs are consistent with both federal and state anti-discrimination laws, insisting it seeks to cultivate an inclusive academic environment where "everyone is welcomed and supported."
Yet, the UC 2030 Capacity Plan tells a different story. That initiative aims to make the university system a flagship for Minority-Serving and Hispanic-Serving Institutions, with focused strategies to boost diversity through graduate enrollment growth and targeted pipelines from underrepresented institutions.
It may sound virtuous to some, but DOJ officials suspect these blueprints for “equity” operate like employment quotas—something expressly prohibited under Title VII.
Dhillon’s timing is particularly interesting given that just a few months ago, UC was pressured to abandon mandatory diversity statements in its hiring practices. That policy shift followed warnings from President Trump to cut federal funding if such ideological gatekeeping continued.
In other words, when political pressure hit the wallet, UC suddenly discovered the value of merit over mission statements. But don’t expect the DEI machine to shut down easily—it’s deeply embedded in the university’s strategic goals.
Dhillon, who has long criticized DEI efforts for promoting division over opportunity, is taking a markedly different approach than her predecessor, Kristen Clarke.
Instead of ignoring civil rights concerns unless they aligned with progressive orthodoxy, Dhillon appears keen to enforce legal standards even—gasp—when they impact left-wing institutions.
This investigation might finally put some real legal scrutiny behind concerns that have long haunted conservatives and centrists alike—concerns that "diversity" is often just discrimination in bureaucratic camouflage.
If UC’s “equity” efforts turn out to ignore federal protections in favor of trendy social goals, the ruling could have drastic implications for colleges nationwide pushing similar playbooks.