On August 6, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division issued a formal findings letter accusing Duke University School of Law of intentionally discriminating based on race in its admissions practices (see Kevin Johnson’s post from last week). Daniel Rodriguez has this analysis on his substack, where he identifies problems and ambiguities in the letter. A brief excerpt:
First and foremost, the story of purposeful discrimination told in this short letter has some holes in it — or to put the point less provocatively, rests on a few key assumptions and beliefs. * * * * These are all permissible admissions strategies and there is nothing in the “gotcha” quotation that suggests that these are or are not the strategies Duke is pursuing. So there must be something more by way of a smoking gun than this, no? * * * * This seems less of a smoking gun than a lot of smoke. * * * * These ambiguities are problematic, not only for Duke but for law schools looking for guidance in determining what admissions policies are both legal and optimal.
You can read the complete analysis on Dan’s substack. See also Claire Cranford, How Might Duke Law Respond to DOJ Findings? Peer Institutions Offer Possible Roadmap, The Duke Chronicle, August 10, 2026 (describing similar language sent to other universities); Johanna Alonso, DOJ Finds Duke Law Discriminated in Admissions, Inside Higher Ed, August 7, 2026 (describing the letter and some initial analysis).
Continued on the next page….
