UC Office of the President, Oakland Credit: Coolcaesar / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
At the heart of the issue: How far can colleges go to build a diverse faculty without breaking the law?
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is taking a closer look at how the University of California (UC) hires its professors—and whether those efforts to build a more diverse faculty cross legal lines.
The investigation, announced on June 26, focuses on the UC 2030 Capacity Plan—a long-term strategy to add about 1,100 new tenure-track faculty members by the end of the decade. The goal? To meet student needs and better reflect California’s diversity in the classroom.
But federal officials say they’re concerned the plan may have gone too far in prioritizing race and gender when it comes to hiring decisions. That, they warn, could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, sex, and other protected categories.
“Institutional directives that use race‑ and sex‑based hiring practices expose employers to legal risk under federal law,”said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.
The DOJ has not accused UC of any wrongdoing—yet. The department says it’s still gathering information and hasn’t made any final decisions. But the inquiry, known as a “pattern or practice” investigation, suggests the government is looking into whether UC’s hiring approach has been systematically unfair or illegal.
UC Says It’s Playing by the Rules
In response, UC leaders have defended the plan, saying their hiring practices are completely legal—and rooted in the idea that qualified candidates from all backgrounds should have an equal shot.
“We are committed to complying with all applicable federal and state laws,” said UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz in a statement to The Washington Post. “We stand by our efforts to recruit diverse and highly qualified faculty members. The university does not use quotas or make hiring decisions based on protected characteristics.”
In California, race-based affirmative action in public schools and hiring has been banned since 1996 under Proposition 209. And in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against race-conscious admissions nationwide. But experts say there’s still legal room for universities to widen their applicant pools—so long as they don’t base hiring decisions directly on race or gender.
“Aiming to have a diverse workforce is not illegal under antidiscrimination laws,” said Risa Lieberwitz, labor law professor at Cornell University. “The Justice Department has offered no evidence that it has cause to believe the UC system broke such laws.” (The Washington Post, June 26, 2025)
A Bigger Debate About Diversity
This investigation is part of a wider federal crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs under the Trump administration. Government officials have also launched reviews of antisemitism on college campuses, transgender policies in sports, and how universities handle foreign research funding.
At UC, the 2030 plan was designed to address real needs—more faculty to teach more students. But how those hires are made is now under a legal spotlight.
For now, the outcome of the DOJ’s investigation remains uncertain. But the case could set a national example for how far public universities can go in building diverse teams—while staying within the law.
