Here’s what was just discovered.
Six American medical schools are facing scrutiny after a new investigation alleged that universities have been changing the names of diversity programs while continuing many of the same activities President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to examine.
The findings have sparked fresh questions about whether colleges are making meaningful policy changes or simply replacing controversial terminology with less recognizable language.
According to a report published by Fox News Digital on October 27, 2026, researchers at CriticalRace.org examined six medical schools and found that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives had been renamed, reorganized, or moved into other departments.
The changes come as the Trump administration continues pushing universities to comply with federal civil rights laws and restrictions on discriminatory practices.
And the controversy could extend well beyond the college campus.
Six Major Medical Schools Named in New Investigation
The report identified six institutions where researchers say diversity-related programs have continued operating despite changes in their public descriptions.
The institutions identified in the report include the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine; Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Hofstra/Northwell’s Zucker School of Medicine; Saint Louis University School of Medicine; Drexel University College of Medicine; and Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine.
Researchers found that familiar DEI language was sometimes replaced with expressions such as “inclusive excellence,” “engagement,” “belonging,” and “health equity.”
While these terms may appear less controversial, critics argue that the programs behind them have not necessarily changed.
William Jacobson, a Cornell Law School professor and founder of the Equal Protection Project, told Fox News Digital that some schools appear to have retained their previous activities while altering how those activities are presented.
His central concern is that a new department name does not necessarily indicate a new policy.
However, the investigation does not establish that all six institutions violated federal law or deliberately attempted to deceive government officials.
Universities Make Changes as Trump’s DEI Crackdown Continues
Several examples highlighted in the report reveal how medical schools have reorganized their diversity-related operations.
At Drexel University College of Medicine, an Office of Community Health and Inclusive Excellence incorporated responsibilities previously associated with diversity and health equity offices.
The university has also continued activities associated with diversity in medicine, including educational events and research programming.
Meanwhile, Hofstra/Northwell’s Zucker School of Medicine renamed its DEI office the Office of Engagement and Excellence.
According to the report, the school’s events have included Diversity Night and student discussions involving inclusion and personal experiences.
Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine has operated an Office of Health Equity, that provides educational programming that includes training focused on supporting different groups within the university community.
At Temple University, the Lewis Katz School of Medicine changed its former diversity office into the Office of Strategic Partnership in Health, Education and Resources, also known as SPHERE.
These examples have become central to the debate over whether universities are complying with the Trump administration’s priorities or merely changing their public messaging.
Trump Administration Targets Discriminatory DEI Practices
President Trump made eliminating unlawful diversity-related preferences a major priority after returning to the White House in January 2025.
His administration issued executive orders aimed at strengthening merit-based decision-making and enforcing federal civil rights protections.
One executive order, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” directed federal agencies to examine potentially discriminatory practices in institutions receiving federal support.
Higher education and the medical profession were among the areas highlighted for scrutiny.
The administration’s approach followed the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision restricting the use of race in college admissions.
However, the federal directives do not automatically make every program promoting inclusion or student support unlawful.
The legal distinction generally depends on whether an institution is engaging in prohibited discrimination rather than simply offering educational resources or campus activities.
That distinction could become increasingly important as universities face questions about their policies.
Why Medical Schools Are Drawing Particular Attention
The controversy is especially significant because the institutions involved train America’s future doctors.
Medical schools are responsible for preparing professionals who will make important decisions involving patient care, diagnosis, and treatment.
Critics of race-conscious selection practices argue that medical education must remain centered on academic achievement, clinical ability, professional qualifications, and equal treatment.
They contend that public confidence in healthcare depends partly on patients knowing that physicians have met demanding professional standards.
Jacobson raised concerns that identity-based policies could weaken that confidence.
Supporters of diversity initiatives offer a different argument, maintaining that programs designed to improve inclusion can help students succeed and encourage medical professionals to understand the needs of different communities.
The fundamental disagreement concerns how schools pursue those objectives while complying with anti-discrimination laws.
Importantly, the CriticalRace.org investigation did not demonstrate that the six medical schools admitted unqualified students or lowered clinical training standards.
The allegations instead focus on the structure and continuation of diversity-related programs.
University Officials Respond to Allegations
Some universities have pushed back against suggestions that their programs are improper.
A spokesperson for Hofstra University told Fox News Digital that the Zucker School of Medicine supports its students while following applicable laws and institutional principles.
The University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine also provided clarification about its administrative structure.
Officials explained that the medical school no longer maintains a separately named diversity office, although its leadership includes an associate dean for inclusive excellence.
The university further clarified that its Multicultural Center serves the broader student population rather than functioning as a medical school admissions office.
According to university officials, the center focuses on student engagement, cultural understanding, and educational support.
The medical school also maintained that it complies with federal and state legal requirements.
Fox News Digital reported that several other universities contacted for comment had not immediately responded.
These responses demonstrate that changes in university department names can have different explanations, and that continued student-support programming does not by itself prove unlawful discrimination.
Could Trump’s Administration Take Further Action?
The findings could contribute to continued federal and state scrutiny of diversity-related policies at American universities.
Jacobson has argued that executive orders alone may not produce lasting changes within higher education.
He believes that administrators, state governments, and accrediting organizations also influence how universities develop and maintain these initiatives.
Public medical schools could face particular attention from state officials responsible for overseeing taxpayer-supported institutions.
Federal officials could also examine whether particular practices comply with civil rights requirements.
Nevertheless, no finding of wrongdoing against the six schools follows automatically from the new report.
Any enforcement action would require additional examination of the relevant policies and applicable law.
For universities, the challenge will be demonstrating that their procedures satisfy legal requirements regardless of the language used to describe their programs.
Bigger Questions Remain for American Higher Education
The controversy comes at a time when the Trump administration and university leaders continue to disagree over the proper role of DEI initiatives in American education.
Critics want assurances that institutions are not preserving discriminatory practices by placing them under new administrative titles.
Universities, meanwhile, must determine how to continue lawful educational and student-support programs while meeting federal requirements.
For medical schools, the stakes include public confidence in professional training and the fairness of admissions and employment decisions.
The debate also raises questions about transparency, accountability, and the responsibilities of institutions receiving public funding.
As scrutiny continues, universities may be asked to provide more information about what their programs actually do rather than relying on how those programs are named.
The biggest unanswered question is whether these changes represent genuine reforms or largely a new way of describing existing policies.
For the Trump administration, federal regulators, and the universities involved, the answer could help determine what happens next.
