Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 24 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION

George Stewart, on behalf of himself

and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences

Center; Lori Rice-Spearman, in her
official capacity as President of Texas
Tech University Health Sciences Center;
Steven Lee Berk, in his official capacity
as Dean of the School of Medicine at
Texas Tech University Health Sciences
Center; Lindsay Johnson, in her official
capacity as Associate Dean for
Admissions and Student Affairs at Texas
Tech University Health Sciences Center;
Hollie Stanton, in her official capacity
Case No. 5:23-cv-00007
as Senior Director for Admissions and
Student Affairs at Texas Tech University
Health Sciences Center; Jeri Moravcik,
in her official capacity as Director of
Admissions at Texas Tech University
Health Sciences Center; University of
Texas at Austin; Jay Hartzell, in his
official capacity as President of the
University of Texas at Austin; Claudia F.
Lucchinetti, in her official capacity as
Dean of Dell Medical School; Steve
Smith, in his official capacity as
Associate Dean of Student Affairs for
Dell Medical School; Joel A. Daboub,
in his official capacity as director of
admissions and records at the University
of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School;
University of Texas Health Science
Center at Houston; Giuseppe N.
Colasurdo, in his official capacity as
President of the University of Texas

-  Page 1 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 24 PageID 2

Health Science Center at Houston; John

Hancock, in his official capacity as
executive dean of McGovern Medical
School at University of Texas Health
Science Center at Houston; Margaret
C. McNeese, in her official capacity as
associate dean for admissions and
student affairs at the University of Texas
Health Science Center Medical School in
Houston; University of Texas Medical
Branch at Galveston; Charles P.
Mouton, in his official capacity as
President ad interim of University of
Texas Medical Branch; Jeffrey Susman,
in his official capacity as Interim Dean of
the John Sealy School of Medicine;
Ruth E. Levine, in her official capacity
as Associate Dean of Student Affairs and
Admissions at the John Sealy School of
Medicine; Pierre W. Banks, in his
official capacity as Assistant Dean of
Admissions and Recruitment the John
Sealy School of Medicine; University of
Texas Health Science Center at San
Antonio; William L. Henrich, in his
official capacity as President of the
University of Texas Health Science
Center at San Antonio; Robert A.
Hromas, in his official capacity as Dean
of the Long School of Medicine;
Belinda Chapa Gonzalez, in her official
capacity as Director of Admissions and
Special Programs Undergraduate
Medical Education at the Long School
of Medicine; Chiquita Collins, in her
official capacity as Vice President for
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and
Chief Diversity Officer of the University
of Texas Health Science Center at San
Antonio; University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center; Daniel
K. Podolsky, in his official capacity as
President of the University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center; W. P.

-  Page 2 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 3 of 24 PageID 3

Andrew Lee, in his official capacity as

Dean of the University of Texas
Southwestern Medical School; Leah
Schouten, in her official capacity as
Director of Admissions and Recruitment
at University of Texas Southwestern
Medical School,

Defendants.

CLASS-ACTION COMPLAINT
Federal law prohibits universities that accept federal funds from discriminating on

account of race or sex. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI); 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (Title IX).
Medical schools in Texas are flouting these requirements by using race and sex pref-
erences in student admissions — a practice that violates the clear and unequivocal text
of Title VI and Title IX, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The plaintiff brings suit to enjoin these discriminatory practices, and to
ensure that the defendants comply with their obligations under federal anti-discrimi-
nation laws.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28
U.S.C. § 1343.

2. Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the
claims occurred in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Venue is addi-
tionally proper because at least one of the defendants resides in this judicial district
and all defendants reside in Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

PARTIES
3. Plaintiff George Stewart is a citizen of Texas.
4. Defendant Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center is located in Lub-
bock, Texas. It can be served at the Office of General Counsel for the Texas Tech

-  Page 3 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 4 of 24 PageID 4

University System, whose address is: System Administration Building, 1508 Knoxville
Avenue, Suite 301, Box 42021, Lubbock, Texas 79409-2021.

5. Defendant Lori Rice-Spearman is President of Texas Tech University Health

Sciences Center. Dr. Rice-Spearman can be served at the Office of General Counsel
for the Texas Tech University System, whose address is: System Administration Build-
ing, 1508 Knoxville Avenue, Suite 301, Box 42021, Lubbock, Texas 79409-2021.
Dr. Rice-Spearman is sued in her official capacity.
6. Defendant Steven Lee Berk is Dean of the School of Medicine at Texas Tech
University Health Sciences Center. Dr. Berk can be served at the Office of General
Counsel for the Texas Tech University System, whose address is: System Administra-
tion Building, 1508 Knoxville Avenue, Suite 301, Box 42021, Lubbock, Texas
79409-2021. Dr. Berk is sued in his official capacity.
7. Defendant Lindsay Johnson is Associate Dean for Admissions and Student
Affairs at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. Ms. Johnson can be served
at the Office of General Counsel for the Texas Tech University System, whose address
is: System Administration Building, 1508 Knoxville Avenue, Suite 301, Box 42021,
Lubbock, Texas 79409-2021. Ms. Johnson is sued in her official capacity.
8. Defendant Hollie Stanton is Senior Director for Admissions and Student Af-
fairs at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. Dr. Stanton can be served at
the Office of General Counsel for the Texas Tech University System, whose address
is: System Administration Building, 1508 Knoxville Avenue, Suite 301, Box 42021,

Lubbock, Texas 79409-2021. Dr. Stanton is sued in her official capacity.

9. Defendant Jeri Moravcik is Director of Admissions at Texas Tech University
Health Sciences Center. Ms. Moravcik can be served at the Office of General Counsel
for the Texas Tech University System, whose address is: System Administration Build-
ing, 1508 Knoxville Avenue, Suite 301, Box 42021, Lubbock, Texas 79409-2021.
Ms. Moravcik is sued in her official capacity.

-  Page 4 of 24

 Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 5 of 24 PageID 5

10. Defendant University of Texas at Austin is located in Austin, Texas. It can

be served at the Office of General Counsel for the University of Texas System, whose

address is: 210 West 7th Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2982.

11. Jay Hartzell is President of the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Hartzell
can be served at the Office of General Counsel for the University of Texas System,
whose address is: 210 West 7th Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2982. Dr. Hartzell is
sued in his official capacity.
12. Defendant Claudia F. Lucchinetti is Dean of Dell Medical School. Dr. Luc-
chinetti can be served at the Office of General Counsel for the University of Texas
System, whose address is: 210 West 7th Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2982. Dr. Luc-
chinetti is sued in her official capacity.
13. Defendant Steve Smith is Associate Dean of Student Affairs for Dell Medical
School. Dr. Smith can be served at the Office of General Counsel for the University
of Texas System, whose address is: 210 West 7th Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2982.
Dr. Smith is sued in his official capacity.
14. Joel A. Daboub is Director of Admissions and Records at the University of
Texas at Austin Dell Medical School. Mr. Daboub can be served at the Office of Gen-
eral Counsel for the University of Texas System, whose address is: 210 West 7th
Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2982. Mr. Daboub is sued in his official capacity.
15. Defendant University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston is located
in Houston, Texas. It can be served at its Office of Legal Affairs, whose address is:

7000 Fannin Street, Houston, Texas 77030.

16. Defendant Giuseppe N. Colasurdo is President of the University of Texas
Health Science Center at Houston. Dr. Colasurdo can be served at the Office of Legal
Affairs for the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, whose address
is: 7000 Fannin Street, Houston, Texas 77030. Dr. Colasurdo is sued in his official
capacity.

-  Page 5 of 24

 Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 6 of 24 PageID 6

17. Defendant John Hancock is Executive Dean of the McGovern Medical

School at University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Dr. Hancock can be

served at the Office of Legal Affairs for the University of Texas Health Science Center
at Houston, whose address is: 7000 Fannin Street, Houston, Texas 77030. Dr. Han-
cock is sued in his official capacity.
18. Defendant Margaret C. McNeese is Associate Dean for Admissions and Stu-
dent Affairs at the University of Texas Health Science Center Medical School in Hou-
ston. Dr. McNeese can be served at the Office of Legal Affairs for the University of
Texas Health Science Center at Houston, whose address is: 7000 Fannin Street, Hou-
ston, Texas 77030. Dr. McNeese is sued in her official capacity.
19. Defendant University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston is located in
Galveston, Texas. It can be served at its Office of Legal & Regulatory Affairs, whose
address is: 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, Texas 77555.
20. Defendant Charles P. Mouton is President ad interim of University of Texas
Medical Branch. Dr. Mouton can be served at the Office of Legal & Regulatory Af-
fairs for the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, whose address is: 301
University Boulevard, Galveston, Texas 77555. Dr. Mouton is sued in his official ca-
pacity.
21. Defendant Jeffrey Susman is Interim Dean of the John Sealy School of Med-
icine. Dr. Susman can be served at the Office of Legal & Regulatory Affairs for the
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, whose address is: 301 University

Boulevard, Galveston, Texas 77555. Dr. Susman is sued in his official capacity.
22. Defendant Ruth E. Levine is Associate Dean of Student Affairs and Admis-
sions at the John Sealy School of Medicine. Dr. Levine can be served at the Office of
Legal & Regulatory Affairs for the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston,
whose address is: 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, Texas 77555. Dr. Levine is
sued in her official capacity.

-  Page 6 of 24

 Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 7 of 24 PageID 7

23. Defendant Pierre W. Banks is Assistant Dean of Admissions and Recruit-

ment at the John Sealy School of Medicine. Dr. Banks can be served at the Office of

Legal & Regulatory Affairs for the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston,
whose address is: 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, Texas 77555. Dr. Banks is
sued in his official capacity.
24. Defendant University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio is lo-
cated in San Antonio, Texas. It can be served at 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio,
Texas 78229.
25. Defendant William L. Henrich is President of the University of Texas Health
Science Center at San Antonio. Dr. Henrich can be served at 7703 Floyd Curl Drive,
San Antonio, Texas 78229. Dr. Henrich is sued in his official capacity.
26. Defendant Robert A. Hromas is Dean of the Long School of Medicine. Dr.
Hromas can be served at 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78229. Dr.
Hromas is sued in his official capacity.
27. Defendant Belinda Chapa Gonzalez is Director of Admissions and Special
Programs Undergraduate Medical Education at the Long School of Medicine. Ms.
Gonzalez can be served at 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78229. Ms.
Gonzalez is sued in her official capacity.
28. Defendant Chiquita Collins is Vice President for Diversity, Equity and In-
clusion and Chief Diversity Officer of the University of Texas Health Science Center
at San Antonio. Dr. Collins can be served at 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio,

Texas 78229. Dr. Collins is sued in her official capacity.

29. Defendant University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center is located in
Dallas, Texas. It can be served at its Office of Legal Affairs, which is located at: 5323
Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 7539.
30. Defendant Daniel K. Podolsky is President of the University of Texas South-
western Medical Center. Dr. Podolsky can be served at the Office of Legal Affairs for

-  Page 7 of 24

 Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 8 of 24 PageID 8

the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, which is located at: 5323 Harry
Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 7539. Dr. Podolsky is sued in his official capacity.

31. Defendant W.P. Andrew Lee is Dean of the University of Texas Southwestern
Medical School. Dr. Lee can be served at the Office of Legal Affairs for the University
of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, which is located at: 5323 Harry Hines Boule-
vard, Dallas, Texas 7539. Dr. Lee is sued in his official capacity.
32. Defendant Leah Schouten is Director of Admissions and Recruitment at
University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. Ms. Schouten can be served at the
Office of Legal Affairs for the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center,
which is located at: 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 7539. Ms. Schouten
is sued in her official capacity.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
33. Each of the defendant medical schools and universities, along with nearly
every medical school and university in the United States,1 discriminates on account of
race and sex when admitting students by giving discriminatory preferences to females
and non-Asian minorities, and by discriminating against whites, Asians, and men. This
practice, popularly known as “affirmative action,” allows applicants with inferior aca-
demic credentials to obtain admission at the expense of rejected candidates with better
academic credentials.
34. These race and sex preferences are illegal under the clear and unambiguous
text of Title VI and Title IX, which prohibit all forms of race and sex discrimination

1. See Mark J. Perry, New Chart Illustrates Graphically the Racial Preferences for
Blacks, Hispanics Being Admitted to US Medical Schools, American Enterprise In-
stitute, available at: https://bit.ly/3Qp0RZQ (last visited on January 10, 2023);
see also Exhibit 1 (data from the American Association of Medical Colleges show-
ing that the mean GPAs and MCAT scores of black and Hispanic matriculants to
U.S. MD-granting medical schools in 2022–23 were significantly lower than the
mean GPAs and MCAT scores of white and Asian matriculants).

-  Page 8 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 9 of 24 PageID 9

at medical schools and universities that receive federal funds and make no exception
for diversity-based affirmative-action programs.

35. They also violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in
contracting and makes no exception for diversity-based affirmative-action programs.
36. Plaintiff George Stewart grew up in Texas with the desire to study science,
become a physician and serve others with his gifting. He made the sacrifices necessary
to excel as a student from an early age and thereafter, graduating from high school
with a 4.39/4.0 GPA and from college at the University of Texas at Austin with a
3.96/4.0 unaudited GPA in Biology while also volunteering with various relief and
ministry organizations. He worked, interned and volunteered in medical facilities at
MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Neofluidics Laboratory in San Diego, and
Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. He also scored a 511 on his MCAT. He
believed he would be a good candidate for the Texas medical schools and for two
years applied to medical schools hoping to fulfill his dream and calling to become a
physician. Unfortunately, he was denied this opportunity while over 450 lesser quali-
fied minority students, ranging as low as a GPA of 2.82 or an MCAT of 495, were
offered admission. The schools to which Mr. Stewart applied included: Texas Tech
University Health Sciences Center; Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at
Austin; McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center
at Houston; John Sealy School of Medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch
at Galveston; Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science

Center at San Antonio; and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

37. After his rejections, Mr. Stewart obtained the admissions data for each of
the six medical schools through an open-records request, which revealed the race, sex,
grade-point average, and MCAT score of every applicant in the 2021–2022 cycle.

-  Page 9 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 10 of 24 PageID 10

38. The data reveal that the median and mean grade-point averages and MCAT
scores of admitted black and Hispanic students are significantly lower than the grade-

point averages and MCAT scores of admitted white and Asian students.
39. At UT-Austin (Dell), for example, the 75% percentile MCAT score for an
admitted black student was well below the 25% percentile MCAT score for an admit-
ted white or Asian student:
UT Austin (Dell), MCAT by race

525

520
MCAT

515

510

505

African American Asian Hispanic Multiple REDACTED Unreported White/Caucasian

race

Figure 1. MCAT score by race. Boxes represent the inner-quartile-range (25th to 75th quantiles), and the solid
black line represents the median.

40. The data from UT-Austin (Dell) also show a statistically significant relation-
ship between a positive admissions decision and an applicant’s status as a female, black,
or Hispanic individual.

-  Page 10 of 24

consider the entire sample of both admitted and rejected students. We then fit a logistic regression
model for admission decision as a function of all available variables and discuss the results.
Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 11 of 24 PageID 11
1. Admitted sample
• Admitted
41. Thestudents are those
data from Texaswith
Techstatus
alsovariable equal
reveal that to: “Matriculated”,
blacks and Hispanics“Withdrawn After
are admitted
Acceptance”, “Offer Declined” “Deferred” and “Admitted”.
with much lower MCAT scores than whites or Asians, and that women are admitted
• The total number of applicants with these admissions statuses equals 607.
with lower MCAT scores than men:
Texas Tech, MCAT by race

520
MCAT

510

500

African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Multiple Unreported White/Caucasian

race

Figure 1. MCAT score by race. Boxes represent the inner-quartile-range (25th to 75th quantiles), and the solid
black line represents the median.
Texas Tech, MCAT by gender

520
1
MCAT

510

500

Female Male
gender

Figure 2.42.MCAT The data

score from Boxes
by gender. UT-Houston (McGovern)
represent the reveal(25th
inner-quartile-range thetosame pattern: and
75th quantiles), blacks
the solid
black line represents the median.
and Hispanics getting admitted with lower MCAT scores than whites and Asians, and

Texas Tech, MCAT by gender and race

520

-  Page

gender 11 of 24
MCAT

Female
Male
510
 • Admitted students are those with status variable equal to: “Offered from Waitlist and De-
clined”, “Matriculated”, “Admissions Offer Declined”, and “Withdraw after offer”.
Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 12 of 24 PageID 12
• The total number of applicants with these admissions statuses equals 722.
• The following races were aggregated: “American Indian or Alaska Native” converted to “Ameri-
a can Indian”, significant
statistically “White” to “White/Caucasian”, “Hispanic,
relationship between Latino,
black or or of Spanish
Hispanic origin;”
status and converted
a positive
to “Hispanic/Latino”, and “Hispanic” converted to “Hispanic/Latino”.
admissions decision:
UT Houston (McGovern), MCAT by race

520
MCAT

510

500

African American American Indian Asian Hispanic/Latino Multiple Unreported White/Caucasian

race

Figure 1.43. MCATThe McGovern

score datarepresent
by race. Boxes also show that admitted female
the inner-quartile-range students
(25th to 75th haveand
quantiles), lower
the solid
black line represents the median.
MCAT scores than admitted male students:
UT Houston (McGovern), MCAT by gender 1

520
MCAT

510

500

Female Male
gender

Figure 2. MCAT score by gender. Boxes represent the inner-quartile-range (25th to 75th quantiles), and the solid
black line represents the median.

UT Houston (McGovern), MCAT by gender and race

520

-  Page gender

12 of 24
MCAT

Female
510
Male
consider the entire sample of both admitted and rejected students. We then fit a logistic regression
model for admission decision as a function of all available variables and discuss the results.
Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 13 of 24 PageID 13
1. Admitted sample
• Admitted
44. Atstudents are thoseMedical
UT Galveston with status variable
Branch, equal
blacks andto:Hispanics
“Declined are
Admissions
likewise Offer”,
admit-“Of-
fered Admissions-Matriculated”, and “Offered Admissions-Deferred Accepted”.
ted with much lower MCAT scores than whites or Asians, and women are admitted
• The total number of applicants with these admissions statuses equals 1094.
with lower MCAT scores than men:
UT Galveston, MCAT by race

520
MCAT

510

500

African American American Indian Asian Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Hispanic Multiple Unreported White/Caucasian
race
UT Galveston, MCAT by gender
Figure 1. MCAT score by race. Boxes represent the inner-quartile-range (25th to 75th quantiles), and the solid
black line represents the median.

520
MCAT

1
510

500

Female Male
gender

Figure 2.45.MCAT The data

score from UT
by gender. Galveston
Boxes Medical
represent the Branch show
inner-quartile-range (25tha to
statistically significant
75th quantiles), and the solid
black line represents the median.
relationship between a positive admissions decision and an applicant’s status as a fe-
male,UTblack, or MCAT
Galveston, Hispanic individual.
by gender and race

520

gender
MCAT

Female
Male
510
-  Page 13 of 24
1. Admitted sample
• Admitted
Case students are assumed
5:23-cv-00007-H to be1those
Document with
Filed status variable
01/10/23 Page equal
14 ofto:
24 “OA”, “OW”,
PageID 14and
“AD”.

• The total number of applicants with these admissions statuses equals 214.
46. The same is true at UT San Antonio (Long):
UT San Antonio, MCAT by race

525

520
MCAT

515

510

505

African American Asian Hispanic Multiple Unreported White/Caucasian

race
UT San Antonio, MCAT by gender
Figure 1. MCAT score by race. Boxes represent the inner-quartile-range (25th to 75th quantiles), and the solid
black line represents
525
the median.

520

1
MCAT

515

510

505

Female Male Decline to Answer

gender

Figure 2. MCAT score by gender. Boxes represent the inner-quartile-range (25th to 75th quantiles), and the solid
black line represents the median.

UT San Antonio, MCAT by gender and race

525

520

gender
MCAT

Female
Male
515
Decline to Answer

510

-  Page 14 of 24

505

African American Asian Hispanic Multiple Unreported White/Caucasian

race
 missions Offer”.
• The 5:23-cv-00007-H
Case total number of applicants with these
Document admissions
1 Filed 01/10/23statuses
Pageequals 724.
15 of 24 PageID 15
• The following race categories were aggregated: “Black or African American” converted to
“African American”, “Asian; White” converted to “Asian”, and “White” converted to “White/Caucasian”.
47. And likewise at UT Southwestern Medical School:
UT Southwestern, MCAT by race

520
MCAT

510

500

African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Multiple Other Unreported White/Caucasian
race

Figure 1. MCAT score by race.

UT Southwestern, Boxes
MCAT represent the inner-quartile-range (25th to 75th quantiles), and the solid
by gender
black line represents the median.

1
520
MCAT

510

500

Female Male REDACTED

gender

Figure 2.48.MCAT The data

score demonstrate
by gender. that each
Boxes represent of the defendant(25th
the inner-quartile-range medical schools
to 75th is provid-
quantiles), and the solid
black line represents the median.
ing admissions preferences to female, black, and Hispanic applicants while unlawfully
discriminating against
UT Southwestern, whites,
MCAT by Asians,
gender and race and men in admissions decisions.
49. In addition to these data, the John Sealy School of Medicine at the Univer-
sity of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston openly admits that it gives admissions pref-
520
erences to black and Hispanic applicants:
gender
MCAT

Female
Male
REDACTED
510

-  Page 15 of 24

500
Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 16 of 24 PageID 16

[T]he [admissions committee] will intentionally recruit and select a

class whose racial and socioeconomic demographics are representative
of Texas residents. Utilizing a holistic approach, the committee will seek
to admit qualified underrepresented in medicine (URM) and econom-
ically disadvantaged applicants. Based on the ethnographic and socio-
economic makeup of the Houston-Galveston Metropolitan Area, the
John Sealy School of Medicine Admissions Committee will support
pipeline programs and partnerships explicitly focused on increasing
Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and economically disadvan-
taged applicants’ matriculation to medical school.

Any applicant whose TMDSAS application Race or Ethnicity is Ameri-

can Indian, Alaska Native, Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino,
Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander will be classified as a URM per TMDSAS.
Any applicant designated as Disadvantaged A or B on their TMDSAS
application will be deemed economically disadvantaged. The designa-
tions are based on parental education level and income, household size,
residential asset value and descriptors of the applicant’s hometown (ru-
ral, inner city).
Admissions Policies & Procedures, John Sealy School of Medicine, page 8 (attached
as Exhibit 2).

FACTS RELATED TO STANDING

50. Mr. Stewart intends to reapply to each of the six defendant medical schools,
and he stands “able and ready” to do so. See Carney v. Adams, 141 S. Ct. 493, 499–
500 (2020); Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 261 (2003); Northeast Florida Chapter
of Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 666
(1993).
51. But the race and sex preferences that the defendants have established and

enforce prevent Mr. Stewart from competing on equal terms with other applicants for
admission to these medical schools because Mr. Stewart is a white male. This inflicts
injury in fact. See Gratz, 539 U.S. at 261; Jacksonville, 508 U.S. at 666.
52. This injury is caused by the defendants’ use of race and sex preferences in
student admissions, and it will be redressed by a declaratory judgment and injunction

-  Page 16 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 17 of 24 PageID 17

that bars the defendants from considering or discriminating on account of race or sex
when admitting students to the medical schools.

CLASS-ACTION ALLEGATIONS
53. Mr. Stewart brings this class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the federal rules
of civil procedure.
54. The class comprises all white and Asian men who stand “able and ready” to
apply for admission to any of these six medical schools.

55. The number of persons in the class makes joinder of the individual class
members impractical.
56. There are questions of law common to the class. All class members stand
able and ready to apply for admission to one or more of the six medical schools, yet
each will encounter discrimination on account of their race and sex unless the defend-
ants are enjoined from implementing their discriminatory admissions practices. The
common legal questions are whether the defendants’ discriminatory admissions poli-
cies violate Title VI, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, or the Equal Protection Clause.
57. Mr. Stewart’s claims are typical of other members of the class. Each class
member will face the same type of race and sex discrimination — discrimination in
favor of blacks and Hispanics and against whites and Asians, and discrimination in
favor of women and against men — when they apply to any of the six medical schools.
58. Mr. Stewart adequately represents the interests of the class, and he has no
interests antagonistic to the class.
59. A class action is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because the defendants
are acting on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.

-  Page 17 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 18 of 24 PageID 18

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF — VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VI AND

TITLE IX
60. Each of the defendants is violating Title VI and Title IX by discriminating

in favor of female, black, and Hispanic applicants for admission and against whites,
Asians, and men.
61. Each of the six medical schools to which Mr. Stewart intends to apply is a
“program or activity” that “receives Federal financial assistance” within the meaning
of Title VI and Title IX.
62. Mr. Stewart therefore seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that prohibits
the defendants from considering or discriminating on account of race and sex in any
way in student admissions, and that compels the defendants to select applicants for
admission in a color-blind and sex-neutral manner.
63. Mr. Stewart seeks this relief under Title VI, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
any other law that might supply a cause of action for the requested relief.
64. Mr. Stewart seeks this relief against each of the named defendants, including
the institutional defendants.
65. The text of Title VI makes no exceptions for “compelling state interests,”
“student-body diversity,” or race-based affirmative-action programs. It prohibits all
forms of racial discrimination at institutions that receive federal funds — regardless of

whether that racial discrimination is independently prohibited by the Equal Protection

Clause.
66. The text of Title IX makes no exceptions for “compelling state interests,”
“student-body diversity,” or sex-based affirmative-action programs. It prohibits sex
discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funds, without regard to
whether that sex discrimination is independently prohibited by the Equal Protection
Clause.

-  Page 18 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 19 of 24 PageID 19

67. If the Court concludes that Grutter’s interpretation of the Equal Protection
Clause should somehow control the interpretation of Title VI and Title IX, the de-

fendants’ affirmative-action programs are impermissible even under Grutter because:

(1) They are not limited in time, see Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 342 (2003)
(“[R]ace-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time”); id. at 351 (Thomas,
J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“I agree with the Court’s holding that
racial discrimination in higher education admissions will be illegal in 25 years.”); (2)
The defendants failed to adequately consider race- and sex-neutral alternatives to
achieve diversity, see Grutter, 539 U.S. 306, 339 (2003) (“Narrow tailoring . . . re-
quire[s] serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives that
will achieve the diversity the university seeks.”); (3) The defendants are using quotas
and racial balancing to ensure a minimum number of black and Hispanic matriculants,
see Grutter, 539 U.S. at 328 (“[A] race-conscious admissions program cannot use a
quota system”); id. at 330 (“[O]utright racial balancing . . . is patently unconstitu-
tional”); and (4) The defendants’ use of race and sex preferences are not narrowly
tailored to advance the supposedly “compelling” interest of student-body diversity.
68. Mr. Stewart also brings suit to seek the overruling of Grutter and Fisher v.
University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), and he respectfully preserves for
appeal his claim that Grutter and Fisher should be overruled.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF — VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981
69. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) guarantees individuals the same right to make and en-
force contracts without regard to race. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) (“All persons within
the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Ter-
ritory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens”).

-  Page 19 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 20 of 24 PageID 20

70. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) protects whites (and Asians) on the same terms that it
protects “underrepresented” racial minorities. See McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Trans-

portation Co., 427 U.S. 273, 295 (1976) (“[T]he Act was meant, by its broad terms,
to proscribe discrimination in the making or enforcement of contracts against, or in
favor of, any race.”).
71. The individual defendants are violating 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) by discriminat-
ing in favor of blacks and Hispanics in student admissions, and against whites and
Asians.
72. Mr. Stewart therefore seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that prohibits
the individual defendants from considering or discriminating on account of race in
any way in student admissions, and that compels the defendants to select applicants
for admission in a color-blind and race-neutral manner.
73. Mr. Stewart seeks this relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as the implied
right of action that the Supreme Court has recognized to enforce 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981(a), and any other law that might supply a cause of action for the requested
relief. See Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 459–60 (1975).
74. Mr. Stewart seeks this relief only against the individual defendants, and not
against the institutional defendants, as 42 U.S.C. § 1981 neither abrogates nor waives
a state institution’s sovereign immunity from suit. See Sessions v. Rusk State Hospital,
648 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1981) (“Section 1981 contains no congressional waiver of
the state’s eleventh amendment immunity.”).

75. The text of 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) makes no exceptions for “compelling state
interests,” “student-body diversity,” or race-based affirmative-action programs. It pro-
hibits all forms of racial discrimination in contracting — regardless of whether that
racial discrimination is independently prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.

-  Page 20 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 21 of 24 PageID 21

76. If the Court concludes that Grutter’s interpretation of the Equal Protection
Clause should somehow control the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), the de-

fendants’ affirmative-action programs are impermissible even under Grutter because:

(1) They are not limited in time, see Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 342 (2003)
(“[R]ace-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time”); id. at 351 (Thomas,
J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“I agree with the Court’s holding that
racial discrimination in higher education admissions will be illegal in 25 years.”); (2)
The defendants failed to adequately consider race- and sex-neutral alternatives to
achieve diversity, see Grutter, 539 U.S. 306, 339 (2003) (“Narrow tailoring . . . re-
quire[s] serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives that
will achieve the diversity the university seeks.”); (3) The defendants are using quotas
and racial balancing to ensure a minimum number of black and Hispanic matriculants,
see Grutter, 539 U.S. at 328 (“[A] race-conscious admissions program cannot use a
quota system”); id. at 330 (“[O]utright racial balancing . . . is patently unconstitu-
tional”); and (4) The defendants’ use of race and sex preferences are not narrowly
tailored to advance the supposedly “compelling” interest of student-body diversity.
77. Mr. Stewart also brings suit to seek the overruling of Grutter and Fisher v.
University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), and he respectfully preserves for
appeal his claim that Grutter and Fisher should be overruled.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF — EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

78. As public institutions, the six medical schools to which Mr. Stewart intends
to apply are subject to the commands of the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits
state universities or their components from denying to any person the equal protec-
tion of the laws.

-  Page 21 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 22 of 24 PageID 22

79. The Supreme Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits
race and sex discrimination by state universities in all but the most compelling situa-

tions. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003); United States v. Virginia, 518
U.S. 515, 531 (1996) (“Parties who seek to defend gender-based government action
must demonstrate an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’ for that action.”).
80. The medical schools’ affirmative-action programs are incompatible with
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin,
579 U.S. 365 (2016), because: (1) They are not limited in time, see Grutter v. Bol-
linger, 539 U.S. 306, 342 (2003) (“[R]ace-conscious admissions policies must be
limited in time”); id. at 351 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
(“I agree with the Court’s holding that racial discrimination in higher education ad-
missions will be illegal in 25 years.”); (2) The defendants failed to adequately consider
race- and sex-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity, see Grutter, 539 U.S. 306, 339
(2003) (“Narrow tailoring . . . require[s] serious, good faith consideration of worka-
ble race-neutral alternatives that will achieve the diversity the university seeks.”); (3)
The defendants are using quotas and racial balancing to ensure a minimum number
of black and Hispanic matriculants, see Grutter, 539 U.S. at 328 (“[A] race-conscious
admissions program cannot use a quota system”); id. at 330 (“[O]utright racial bal-
ancing . . . is patently unconstitutional”); and (4) The defendants’ use of race and sex
preferences are not narrowly tailored to advance the supposedly “compelling” interest
of student-body diversity.

81. Even if the medical schools’ affirmative-action programs were consistent

with Grutter and Fisher, they would remain illegal under the text of Title VI, Title IX,
and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which categorically prohibit race and sex discrimination with
no caveats or allowances for “compelling interests, “student body diversity,” or any-
thing else.

-  Page 22 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 23 of 24 PageID 23

82. And if the Court somehow concludes that the medical schools’ affirmative-
action programs are allowable under Grutter and Fisher, then Mr. Stewart will respect-

fully seek the overruling or reconsideration of Grutter and Fisher on appeal.

83. Mr. Stewart therefore seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that prohibits
the defendants from considering or discriminating on account of race and sex in any
way in student admissions, and that compels the defendants to select applicants for
admission in a color-blind and sex-neutral manner.
84. Mr. Stewart seeks this relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and any other law that
might supply a cause of action for the requested relief.
85. Mr. Stewart seeks this relief only against the individual defendants, and not
against the institutional defendants, as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 authorizes lawsuits only
against “persons” and not states or state institutions. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64–71 (1989) (a state is not a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

86. Mr. Stewart respectfully requests that the court:
a. certify the class described in paragraph 54;
b. declare that each of the defendants is violating Title VI and Title IX
by discriminating in favor of women and non-Asian racial minorities
in student admissions;
c. declare that the individual defendants (but not the institutional de-
fendants) are violating 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) and the Equal Protection
Clause by discriminating in favor of women and non-Asian racial mi-
norities in student admissions;
d. permanently enjoin the defendants from considering race or sex in
student admissions;

-  Page 23 of 24

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 24 of 24 PageID 24

e. permanently enjoin the defendants from asking or allowing an appli-

cant for admission to reveal their race or sex;

f. enter an award of nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages;

g. appoint a court monitor to oversee all decisions relating to the de-
fendants’ admission of students to ensure that these decisions are free
from race and sex discrimination of any sort;
h. appoint a court monitor to oversee any “diversity office” that may
exist at any of the institutional defendants to ensure that it does not
aid or abet violations of the nation’s civil-rights laws;
i. award costs and attorneys’ fees;
j. grant all other relief that the Court deems just, proper, or equitable.

Respectfully submitted.

/s/ Jonathan F. Mitchell

G P. H J F. M
Virginia Bar No. 80434 Texas Bar No. 24075463
Vice-President and General Counsel Mitchell Law PLLC
R  D. R* 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
D.C. Bar No. 400153 Austin, Texas 78701
A  J. B* (512) 686-3940 (phone)
Virginia Bar No. 91537 (512) 686-3941 (fax)
N R. B* jonathan@mitchell.law
Tennessee Bar No. 031963
America First Legal Foundation
300 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 964-3721
gene.hamilton@aflegal.org
reed.rubinstein@aflegal.org * pro hac vice applications
andrew.block@aflegal.org forthcoming
nicholas.barry@aflegal.org
Counsel for Plaintiff
Dated: January 10, 2023 and Proposed Class

-  Page 24 of 24

 Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1-1 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 25

Table A-18: MCAT Scores and GPAs for Applicants and Matriculants to U.S. MD-Granting Medical Schools by Race/Ethnicity, 2022-2023
2022

The table below displays the MCAT scores, GPAs, and self-identified racial and ethnic characteristics of applicants and matriculants to U.S. MD-granting medical schools from 2022-2023. MCAT scores and GPAs are displayed by mean and standard
deviation (SD). The "Multiple Race/Ethnicity" category includes those who selected more than one race/ethnicity response. Please email datarequest@aamc.org if you need further assistance or have additional inquiries.
Non-U.S. Citizen and
American Indian Black or Hispanic, Latino, or Native Hawaiian or Multiple Unknown
Matriculants Asian White Other Non-Permanent Total
or Alaska Native African American of Spanish Origin Other Pacific Islander Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity
Resident
MCAT CPBS Mean 125.7 128.8 126.1 126.4 126.9 128.0 127.9 127.7 128.2 128.4 127.9
SD 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.2 1.7 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2
MCAT CARS Mean 125.6 127.3 125.3 125.2 126.2 127.4 126.4 126.9 127.4 126.6 127.0
SD 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.6 1.7 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.5 2.4
MCAT BBLS Mean 126.3 128.9 126.5 126.9 127.3 128.3 128.4 128.0 128.6 128.7 128.2
SD 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.1
MCAT PSBB Mean 127.3 129.5 127.6 127.6 128.4 129.0 129.0 128.7 129.2 129.1 128.9
SD 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0
Total MCAT Mean 504.9 514.4 505.7 506.1 508.9 512.6 511.7 511.2 513.4 512.8 511.9
SD 6.7 6.0 6.4 7.3 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.5 5.9 6.9 6.7
GPA Science Mean 3.40 3.75 3.42 3.52 3.59 3.73 3.71 3.63 3.73 3.76 3.68
SD 0.48 0.26 0.41 0.35 0.32 0.27 0.27 0.32 0.26 0.25 0.31
GPA Non-Science Mean 3.75 3.87 3.71 3.76 3.85 3.86 3.86 3.82 3.85 3.86 3.84
SD 0.28 0.17 0.28 0.25 0.12 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.21
GPA Total Mean 3.56 3.80 3.55 3.62 3.69 3.79 3.78 3.71 3.78 3.80 3.75
SD 0.36 0.20 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.24
Total Matriculants 37 5,604 1,856 1,444 22 9,599 496 2,698 642 314 22,712
Notes: The means and SDs of MCAT scores are calculated based on data from applicants who applied with MCAT scores. In recent years, approximately 98% of individuals submitted MCAT scores in their applications. In 2022, 53,762 applicants and
22,011 matriculants were included in the calculations; only the most recent MCAT score is used for individuals who took the exam more than once. The means and SDs of UGPA are calculated based on applicants with available GPA data. In 2022,
54,969 applicants and 22,562 matriculants were included in the calculations.

Each academic year includes applicants and matriculants that applied to enter medical school in the fall of the given year. For example, academic year 2022-2023 represents the applicants and matriculants that applied to enter medical school during
the 2022 application cycle.

©2022 Association of American Medical Colleges.

Source: AAMC 10/27/2022 This data may be reproduced and distributed with attribution for educational, noncommercial purposes only.
Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 26

ADMISSIONS

POLICIES & PROCEDURES

JOHN SEALY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH

Galveston, Texas

Revised 9/27/2022

1
 Case 5:23-cv-00007-H Document 1-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 27

and state and local requirements regarding students and applicants with disabilities.
Under these laws, no qualified individual with a disability shall be denied access to or
participation in services, programs, and activities of UTMB-Galveston, solely on the basis
of the disability.

Diversity Categories

In accordance with the University of Texas Medical Branch Vision, Mission, Values
Statement, the John Sealy School of Medicine Admissions Committee is committed to
"educating and inspiring skilled physicians and scientists who are dedicated to lifelong
learning and reflect the diversity of the people who we serve." Therefore, the AC will
intentionally recruit and select a class whose racial and socioeconomic demographics
are representative of Texas residents. Utilizing a holistic approach, the committee will
seek to admit qualified underrepresented in medicine (URM) and economically
disadvantaged applicants. Based on the ethnographic and socioeconomic makeup of
the Houston-Galveston Metropolitan Area, the John Sealy School of Medicine
Admissions Committee will support pipeline programs and partnerships explicitly
focused on increasing Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and economically
disadvantaged applicants' matriculation to medical school.

Any applicant whose TMDSAS application Race or Ethnicity is American Indian, Alaska
Native, Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander will be
classified as a URM per TMDSAS. Any applicant designated as Disadvantaged A or B
on their TMDSAS application will be deemed economically disadvantaged. The
designations are based on parental education level and income, household size,
residential asset value and descriptors of the applicant's hometown (rural, inner city).

Technical Standards/Essential Functions

All accepted applicants must meet the minimum required technical standards and
essential functions. All accepted applicants must electronically sign this document thru
the mySTAR portal. If accepted applicants have a documented disability or would like to
obtain information regarding services for students with disabilities at UTMB, they may
contact the Institutional ADA Officer.

Holistic Admissions Policy

Utilizing holistic admissions practices, committee members must consider aspects such
as the recommendation of the health professions advisor or advisory committee,
personal attributes, academic profile, undergraduate coursework, grades, and MCAT
scores. Academic and non-academic factors are of equal importance. Particular
consideration is given to the applicant’s maturity, motivation, and intellectual curiosity as