Medical Schools Should Resist the DOJ’s Data Probes into Student Admissions

As the April 24, 2026, deadline approaches for three medical schools targeted by the Trump administration to hand over seven years of private applicant data to the Department of Justice, the AAUP is urging institutional leaders to resist the DOJ's demands and prioritize student privacy and academic independence rather than capitulate to federal intimidation.

In a letter sent today to presidents and administrators of Stanford University, Ohio State University, and UC-San Diego, AAUP General Counsel Veena Dubal urged the universities to take a principled stand in defense of student and applicant privacy and approach all information requests with a "narrowly tailored framework that preserves both legal compliance and academic independence."

"Disclosures [to the DOJ] should be limited to the minimum information necessary, with a strong preference for deidentified or aggregated data," Dubal wrote. "The university should also maintain thorough documentation of its determinations regarding scope and disclosure and should decline or seek modification of requests that are overly broad, insufficiently justified, or inconsistent with its obligations to protect privacy, confidentiality, and the integrity of academic decision-making.

At 4 p.m. PT today, Stanford medical school faculty are planning to deliver a petition opposing the data demand to the Stanford University president and the dean of the School of Medicine. The petition has drawn nearly 2,000 signatures. Stanford medical students have also published an op-ed arguing that the investigation rests on a false premise and misunderstands the purpose of medical school admissions. Their concern points to the larger fight now unfolding on campuses across the country: whether universities will protect their students and their independence or allow politically driven investigations to dictate the terms.

"As medical educators, we cannot remain silent while the Department of Justice weaponizes admissions data in service of an ideological agenda," said Audrey Shafer, professor emeritus at Stanford. "This invasive overreach threatens our students', graduates', and applicants' privacy, and jeopardizes the professional and institutional integrity required to train the next generation of physicians."

On March 25, the Justice Department opened investigations into admissions practices at the medical schools of Stanford, Ohio State, and UC-San Diego, part of a broader escalation against universities over race-conscious admissions and diversity-related policies. At Ohio State, federal investigators have demanded applicant-level admissions records, including MCAT scores, GPAs, extracurricular activities, essays, admissions outcomes, demographic information, admissions policy documents, and internal reviews of admissions trends by race. The Ohio State demand letter also signals that the administration is using federal funding as leverage, reminding the school that its access to federal money comes with strings attached that the Justice Department now intends to enforce aggressively. Although the Stanford and UC-San Diego demand letters have not been made public, reporting indicates those schools received similar demands.

In a move described by AAUP President Todd Wolfson as a "stunning breach of student privacy and the independence of colleges and universities," the DOJ's Civil Rights Division is demanding extensive applicant-level records-including test scores, home zip codes, and internal communications regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion. These probes, initiated without formal complaints, target institutions that are among the highest recipients of National Institutes of Health funding.

Medical school applications contain some of the most personal information students ever share with a university. Applicants turn over grades, test scores, essays, and intimate details about their lives because they trust schools to evaluate them fairly and professionally. They do not expect that information to be included in broad federal requests unrelated to their qualifications for admission to medical school.

That concern is especially serious in medical education, where classes are relatively small and students can be easier to identify even when names are removed. Schools can cooperate with legitimate investigations while still protecting students' privacy, relying on anonymous or summary data whenever possible and refusing to hand over sensitive material that has little to do with the government's stated purpose.

The stakes go beyond privacy. If universities start casually surrendering admissions files and internal deliberations, students may lose faith that their personal information will be protected and faculty may face growing pressure in decisions that are supposed to be based on academic judgment, not politics. No student should have to wonder whether the essay they wrote to get into medical school could end up in a federal file because politicians want to make an example of their school.

That concern is not hypothetical. In a separate case, a federal judge recently blocked another Trump administration effort to force public universities in seventeen states to turn over sweeping admissions data. That ruling did not decide these medical school investigations, but it reinforced a basic point: Schools do not have to simply accept broad federal demands without question, especially when those demands reach deep into sensitive student records.

For AAUP faculty across the country, this is about trust, fairness, and the basic responsibility universities owe the people who apply to them and study there. Medical schools can respond to legitimate investigations without throwing open the door to unnecessary invasions of privacy. As these Justice Department probes expand, the real question is whether universities will protect students' private information and academic independence or allow political officials to pry into personal records and academic decisions that should remain in the hands of students and universities.