DOJ Opens Civil Rights Investigation Into University of Virginia Over Its DEI Framework

The Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the University of Virginia (UVA) over allegations that it is continuing discriminatory practices under the guise of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), despite legal prohibitions.

The probe, confirmed Thursday by the DOJ in a letter to America First Legal (AFL), focuses on claims that UVA is actively operating programs “that discriminate based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, and other impermissible, immutable characteristics,” AFL said in a press release.

The investigation arrives at a critical juncture in the national debate surrounding DEI. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that race-based admissions policies, commonly used under affirmative action frameworks, violate the Equal Protection Clause. In addition, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order during his second term that bans race-based college admissions and federal funding for institutions found in violation.

According to AFL, the University of Virginia has not only failed to eliminate DEI-based practices but has simply relabeled many of its programs and personnel to avoid public scrutiny and legal accountability.

“UVA has not dismantled its DEI framework — it has merely rebranded it to evade legal scrutiny,” said AFL counsel Megan Redshaw. “What the law prohibits, UVA simply renamed.”

Redshaw’s statement was reinforced by examples provided in AFL’s complaint to the DOJ. One notable example cited the Darden School of Business, which the letter claims continues to maintain “diversity-focused scholarships, programming, and a Chief Diversity Officer who oversees strategic implementation.”

The AFL letter also pointed out that Darden partners with external organizations to offer scholarships that reportedly give preference based on race or ethnicity — practices that run counter to current federal guidelines and court rulings.

In another case, UVA’s former “Associate Director of Global Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” was reportedly given the new title of “Associate Director, Global Recruiting.” AFL maintains that the mission, responsibilities, and networks associated with that role remained unchanged, essentially continuing DEI practices under a different label.

The current controversy follows a March 7 vote by UVA’s Board of Visitors to dissolve the school’s official DEI office. At the time, the administration promised to review the office’s functions and relocate any lawful programs or personnel within the university within 30 days.

However, AFL’s letter states that there is “no public indication UVA responded to the Board of Visitors within the 30-day window,” which it says raises additional questions about whether the university is complying with its own governance or transparency obligations.

The Department of Justice’s decision to open an investigation into these allegations signals a stronger federal response to institutions that continue implementing DEI practices under new labels. The move also affirms the Trump administration’s position that public universities must follow the law and avoid circumventing Supreme Court rulings or executive orders.

DEI initiatives have come under increased scrutiny from conservatives who argue that these programs substitute one form of discrimination for another. While supporters claim DEI policies help correct historic injustices, critics maintain that they violate principles of meritocracy and equal treatment under the law.

America First Legal, founded by former Trump administration officials, has been at the forefront of legal challenges to DEI across the country. The group celebrated the DOJ’s decision, calling it a major step in restoring equal opportunity based on merit, not race.

As the investigation proceeds, UVA will likely face increased pressure to publicly account for its DEI policies and demonstrate compliance with federal law. For institutions that attempt to sidestep accountability, the message is becoming increasingly clear: rebranding discrimination does not make it legal.