A Letter of Findings is a document issued by the Department of Justice summarizing its view that an institution may have violated federal law. It is not a court ruling, a judicial determination, or a finding of legal liability. Rather, it is the government’s legal position based on its own investigation.

In May 2026, the Department of Justice sent such a letter to Yale alleging that Yale School of Medicine’s admissions practices unlawfully discriminated on the basis of race. Yale has publicly stated that it remains confident in the legality and rigor of its admissions process.

No.

A Letter of Findings is not a judicial decision and carries no independent legal force. No court has concluded that Yale violated federal civil rights law. If the Department of Justice believes Yale has acted unlawfully, it bears the responsibility of proving that claim in court.

The Yale AAUP believes this distinction is critical. Universities should not be pressured into making major institutional concessions based solely on allegations that have never been tested before a judge.

The Department of Justice has released only a brief summary of its claims. It alleges that statistical disparities in admissions outcomes, together with references in internal admissions materials, demonstrate unlawful consideration of race. The Letter of Findings does not include a judicial evaluation of the evidence, testimony subject to cross-examination, or findings of fact established through litigation. Many legal and higher education experts have questioned whether the allegations establish violations of existing law.

The Yale AAUP is concerned that the government’s letter substitutes assertion for adjudication and seeks to pressure the university before any court has evaluated the evidence.

The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision prohibited universities from making admissions decisions based on race itself. However, the Court also made clear that applicants may discuss how race has shaped their experiences, and universities may consider those experiences as part of holistic admissions.  The current Department of Justice has adopted a much broader interpretation, arguing that universities may not consider race in any way. That interpretation has not itself been endorsed by the Supreme Court and remains legally contested.  

Moreover, nothing in the law requires that universities rely solely on standardized test scores in admissions, and universities clearly may take into account non-race-based circumstances – including socioeconomic status, a student’s potential or overcoming of adversity, and other individual factors – in admissions.

According to The New York Times, Yale has entered settlement discussions with the Department of Justice, and the newspaper reported—based on confidential sources—that “Yale recently offered a proposal to the government.”

The concern is not only the allegations themselves, but the negotiations they may produce.

Once negotiations begin, there is no guarantee that any resulting agreement will remain limited to the Yale School of Medicine’s admissions process.  Indeed, the New York Times has now reported that other admissions practices at Yale College and Yale Law School are being evaluated as part of settlement discussions. The federal government could in addition seek concessions affecting faculty governance, academic freedom, particular departments and programs, hiring practices, research priorities, student life, or any other aspect of university administration.

Negotiated settlements often extend well beyond the specific allegations that prompted an investigation.

Public reporting indicates that Yale cooperated extensively with the Department of Justice’s investigation by providing admissions materials and data requested by federal investigators.

By contrast, other universities—including Harvard—have challenged federal demands through litigation rather than immediately negotiating settlements. 

Yale clearly modified its admissions processes carefully after the 2023 SFAA v. Harvard decision, and there is no reason to think that the university’s position about the legality of its approach should have changed.  Yale should insist that the government establish its claims through the courts before agreeing to institutional concessions that go to the core of our academic mission and institutional independence.

This is not simply a dispute about one professional school’s admissions process. Once negotiations begin, there is no obvious limiting principle governing what the federal government may seek or what a university may agree to. Issues involving academic programs, faculty governance, student services, research priorities, centers and institutes, and other aspects of university life could become subjects of negotiation.

For that reason, every Yale faculty member has a stake in how the university responds.

Yale’s class of medical school students all have outstanding academic records – and Yale has many more excellent applicants than it can admit.  

The Yale School of Medicine’s admissions process has long reflected the judgment that excellence in medicine requires consideration of a broad range of experiences, talents, and forms of preparation—not simply numerical metrics. The Yale AAUP is concerned that political interference in admissions decisions threatens the university’s ability to educate physicians equipped to meet the needs of patients and society.

Yale is one of the nation’s leading research universities. How it responds will shape expectations far beyond New Haven.

At least fifteen medical schools are reportedly under similar investigations launched by the Department of Justice.  Only two – UCLA and Yale – have already received DOJ Findings letters.  If Yale agrees to significant concessions without requiring the government to prove its claims in court, it could establish a model for future administrations seeking to reshape universities through investigations and negotiated settlements rather than judicial decisions.

The Yale AAUP calls on the administration to:

• Defend Yale’s legal rights in court rather than negotiating over unproven allegations.
• Preserve the university’s institutional independence and shared governance.
• Communicate openly and transparently with faculty, students, staff, and alumni about the status of the case and any negotiations.
• Reject any agreement that compromises Yale’s academic mission or allows political officials to dictate academic policy.

The stakes extend beyond admissions. They concern the future of university autonomy, academic freedom, and the ability of faculty—not politicians—to shape Yale’s educational and research mission.