Case Particulars

Tribunal

Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (HHS OCR)

Date Filed

June 18, 2026

Docket No.

N/A

Case Status

OCR Complaint Filed

Case Overview

On June 18, 2026, the Equal Protection Project (EPP) filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (HHS OCR) against Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) “for the administration and promotion of five (5) scholarships which discriminate based on race, color, and/or national origin, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”) and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (“Section 1557”).

EPP’s civil rights complaint continues:

As the Supreme Court explained in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, race-based decision-making in education is subject to the strictest judicial review. 600 U.S. 181 (2023). Title VI prohibits recipients of federal funding from treating individuals differently on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Programs that allocate educational opportunities, financial assistance, or other benefits based on racial or ethnic classifications, including classifications framed as “underrepresented in medicine” as proxies for race and ethnicity—raise serious concerns under Title VI. The challenged scholarships use either racial classifications or race conscious eligibility and selection criteria to identify preferred beneficiaries and therefore warrant scrutiny under federal civil rights laws.

 

Equal access to medical education and training should be based on individual merit, qualifications, and potential to serve patients — not racial or ethnic group membership. Discriminatory practices undermine public trust in medicine, fairness, and the integrity of the healthcare workforce undermining HHS’s nondiscrimination requirements and policy goals.

 

TJU administers and promotes scholarships that either expressly allocate benefits based on race or use race-conscious classifications to identify preferred beneficiaries. The challenged scholarships provide educational opportunities and financial assistance using criteria that distinguish among applicants on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

The Complaint next explains how the scholarships violate federal law:

Several of the challenged scholarships expressly identify preferred beneficiaries based on race. Others use ostensibly race-neutral language while identifying specific racial or ethnic groups as the intended recipients of scholarship benefits. Whether implemented through explicit racial classifications or through race-conscious selection criteria and promotion, these scholarships distribute educational benefits on the basis of race rather than race-neutral standards.

 

The scholarships that claim to be open to all but simultaneously identify eligibility to certain racial and ethnic groups signal to students not identified that they are not eligible. Courts evaluate potentially discriminatory messaging based on its effect on an “ordinary reader,” rather than the speaker’s stated intent. The relevant inquiry is whether the message would convey that individuals of a particular race or national origin are preferred or discouraged from participating. Here, TJU’s and SKMC’s racial and ethnic signaling is not subtle, but even subtle messaging can convey discriminatory preferences See Ragin v. New York Times Co., 923 F.2d 995, 999–1000 (2d Cir. 1991); Jancik v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 44 F.3d 553, 556 (7th Cir. 1995); Hous. Rts. Ctr. v. Donald Sterling Corp., 274 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1138 (C.D. Cal.), aff’d, 84 F. App’x 801 (9th Cir. 2003). In other words, the perception of a reasonable observer controls whether a communication operates as discriminatory signaling, regardless of the speaker’s subjective intent. United States v. Hunter, 459 F.2d 205, 215–16 (4th Cir. 1972).

 

As the Supreme Court cautioned in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, universities may not accomplish through indirect means what they are forbidden from doing directly. The Court explained that institutions may not “simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.” Students for Fair Admissions, 600 U.S. at 230. Accordingly, a scholarship program that is nominally open to all applicants but is structured to recruit, promote, and confer benefits based on race may still violate Title VI.

Finally, EPP’s complaint summarizes and requests HHS OCR take action:

HHS OCR has the power and obligation to investigate TJU’s role in creating, funding, promoting, and administering these programs and scholarships and to impose whatever remedial relief is necessary to hold them accountable for that unlawful conduct. This includes, if necessary, imposing fines, initiating administrative proceedings to suspend or terminate federal financial assistance and referring the case to the Department of Justice for judicial proceedings to enforce the rights of the United States under federal law. After all, “[t]he way to stop discrimination … is to stop discriminating[.]” Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 748 (2007).

 

Accordingly, we respectfully ask that the Department of Health and Human Services promptly open a formal investigation, impose such remedial relief as the law permits for the benefit of those who have been illegally excluded from these programs and scholarships based on discriminatory criteria, and ensure that all ongoing and future programming and scholarships at TJU comport with federal civil rights laws.

HHS OCR is evaluating EPP’s civil rights complaint for further action.