Let’s Make a Deal? Law School Tells Yale Don’t Do It

By Y62 Communications Team member Lee Bolman

A controversy brewing since May continues to mushroom on and off campus over reports that Yale and the Trump administration are trying to make a deal on admissions practices. The New York Times first reported in mid-May that the Justice Department had accused two medical schools — Yale and UCLA — of admissions policies that illegally favored Black and Hispanic applicants. A month later the Times reported that, with the investigation extending beyond the medical school, Yale and Justice were try to negotiate a settlement. That prompted widespread concern on and off campus that Yale would concede too much. Typical of the negative sentiment was an alumnus who reported just celebrating his 50th reunion and wrote that he was “angry that Yale’s leadership is seeking to cut a deal with this utterly unethical administration.”

The tension escalated again this week when the Times reported that the Dean and members of the Law School faculty were actively lobbying the Yale administration not to make a deal, arguing “that the Trump administration cannot be trusted and that settling would threaten the rule of law and the university’s reputation.” (Yale Law School Fights to Stop Trump Deal – The New York Times).

Adding to the pressure, Yale’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors hired lawyers who sent a letter to McInnis contending that the evidence cited by the Department of Justice is flimsy and urging the university to “hold fast against any DOJ demands.” The president of the AAUP chapter, Daniel Martinez HoSang, a professor of American studies, told the Chronicle of Higher Education in an interview, “What happens at Yale will not stay at Yale. If Yale settles before the government proves its claims, it will create a blueprint for political pressure on colleges and universities across the country.”

President Maurie McInnis has stayed mostly silent as criticism mounted, until July 13 when she sent a message to the Yale community in which she argued that the negotiations were simply following the normal process after DOJ issues findings from an investigation —lawyers for both parties seek a voluntary resolution. McInnis wrote that Yale is approach these negotiations with a firm commitment to academic freedom and to Yale’s right to decide whom to admit and hire. An alumni group, Stand Up for Yale, responded by asking, “Why is McInnis assuming a conciliatory posture towards a federal government that makes use of tactics that are extortionate, authoritarian, and possibly unlawful?”

Yale Daily News reported that Yale’s negotiations have “prompted widespread opposition from student, faculty and alumni groups, including the Yale College Council, which emailed the student body and administrators, encouraging them to call on McInnis and trustees “to reject any agreement that compromises students or Yale’s independence.” (McInnis emails YCC heads as reported Trump talks face backlash | Yale Daily News)

Yale is not alone. The Justice Department has also opened investigations into medical school admissions practices at Harvard, Stanford, Ohio State and the University of California, San Diego. A potential issue in the case is whether medical schools can and should try to train physicians who align with the patient populations they will serve. Can they consider research suggesting that Hispanic patients receive better case from Hispanic physicians, and the same for Black doctors and patients?

We welcome your comments below.