On July 7, attorneys from Sher Tremonte LLP, representing Yale AAUP, sent President Maurie McInnis and Yale General Counsel Alexander Dreier a letter detailing the serious factual and legal deficiencies in the Department of Justice’s allegations and urging Yale to resist the administration’s efforts to pressure the University into capitulation.

The letter followed a June 26 New York Times article reporting that Yale leadership has entered into settlement discussions with the Trump administration. According to three confidential sources briefed on the matter, the Times reported that “Yale recently offered a proposal to the government.”

We urge faculty, students, staff, alumni, and friends of Yale who share these concerns to contact President Maurie McInnis directly at president@yale.edu as well as your academic dean.

WHAT IS THE DOJ LETTER OF FINDINGS?

As our Yale AAUP chapter explained during a Zoom meeting on June 22, the Department of Justice sent a “Letter of Findings” in late May alleging that the admissions practices of the Yale School of Medicine violate federal anti-discrimination law. Yale’s proposed settlement terms were not disclosed, but according to the Times, the negotiations purportedly reach far beyond the medical school and could have significance for universities across the country. All faculty should be alarmed that Yale is seeking to quickly settle rather than standing up for the independence of higher education more broadly, which is under unprecedented threat today. Yale carefully reviewed and updated its admissions processes after the 2023 Supreme Court case, SFAA v. Harvard.  It adopted an approach it believed complied with the law, and it should stand by that approach.  The DOJ letter is not a binding judgment that Yale violated the law, and in the normal course, the DOJ would bring legal proceedings if it believed it could obtain a favorable legal determination.

Six years ago, in fact, the DOJ issued a similar letter to Yale, targeting its undergraduate admissions processes. Yale’s then President, Peter Salovey, immediately issued a statement dismissing the DOJs claims as “baseless.” He wrote that Yale would not “change its admissions processes in response to today’s letter because the DOJ is seeking to impose a standard that is inconsistent with existing law.” Yale did not negotiate, and it defended itself in court when the DOJ sued. The subsequent administration withdrew the lawsuit.

Today’s Trump Administration has shown itself willing to take extraordinary and unlawful measures to pressure universities to bow to its commands. That makes it all the more important that President McInnis stand up for Yale’s autonomy, as President Salovey did, rather than striking a hasty, private deal that compromises Yale’s independence.

IMPACTS OF A SETTLEMENT COULD BE WIDE RANGING

In settlement negotiations, the Trump Administration can ask for concessions that bear no relationship to medical school admissions. Indeed, reporting from the New York Times indicates that admissions for at least two other schools – Yale College and Yale Law School – are already the subject of negotiations. The Trump Administration could seek concessions from all parts of the university, compromising  admissions, academic freedom, particular departments or programs, faculty governance, or other aspects of university life that bear little or no relation to the original allegations. Agreements reached behind closed doors today could reshape the university’s policies, governance, and academic mission for years to come. (For example, a proposed demand letter from the DOJ to UCLA in 2025 included wide-ranging limits on the university’s autonomy; UCLA faculty mobilized to prevent its administration from agreeing to these demands and a court eventually blocked the settlement).

The implications of Yale’s actions extend well beyond Yale. At least 15 medical schools have reportedly received similar Department of Justice letters. If Yale chooses to settle before any court has ruled on the government’s claims, it will validate the Trump Administration’s tactics, establishing a template for federal pressure on colleges and universities across the country.  

TRANSPARENCY MATTERS

Faculty also deserve transparency. To date, the university administration has not communicated with the Yale community about the Department of Justice’s allegations, the status of the case, or the reported negotiations, leaving faculty, students, staff, and alumni to piece together developments through news reports while trying to determine whether the university’s institutional independence is being compromisedThe university community has received no explanation of what, if anything, that proposal contains, what principles are guiding the administration’s approach, or what commitments may be under discussion. Decisions with potentially sweeping consequences for Yale’s future should not unfold without meaningful communication with the faculty whose teaching, research, and governance responsibilities may ultimately be affected.

The AAUP Yale calls on the administration to:

• Defend Yale’s legal rights in court rather than negotiating over unproven allegations.

• Preserve the university’s institutional independence and shared governance.

• Communicate openly and transparently with faculty, students, staff, and alumni about the status of the case and any negotiations.

• Reject any agreement that compromises Yale’s academic mission or allows political officials to dictate academic policy.

We again urge faculty, students, staff, alumni, and friends of Yale who share these concerns to contact President Maurie McInnis directly at president@yale.edu as well as your academic dean.

A brief message urging Yale’s leadership not to negotiate with the Trump administration over unproven allegations and instead to require the Department of Justice to make its case in court would send a powerful signal that the Yale community expects the university to defend its autonomy, its system of shared governance, and its academic mission.