Doesn't affirmative action enhance stereotypes in admissions?

[ratman7]

I read a piece today from one of my friend's school newsletter and saw this about admissions (to undergraduate/graduate schools) and thought that it applies to medical school admissions as well. What are your reactions?

(note: "I" does not refer to me; it refers to the author of the article in the newsletter; abbreviations were used)

[common abbreviations/jargon used by me, however]

text:

With this whole, "I'm a URM" therefore "I am judged more leniently than you" view that exists in some graduate school admissions, it looks as if the URM's have an unfair advantage over those who have the same but are ORM. I agree, the whole stereotypes in the past and unfair judgement from earlier in history on was wrong, but giving them their own category and grading them differently in the admissions process is unfair.

Instead of further enhancing their URM status, why don't adcoms just combine the entire pool of applicants and select the best ones, regardless of majority or minority. Quite honestly, I would want the best [doctors] to enter the field and couldn't care less about whether they are URM or ORM.

Making up for past discrimination isn't fair in the present time, and the best thing to do now is to be blind to those statuses now and not discriminate going forward. I don't get why admissions still uses affirmative action, says they want to end discrimination, but still blatantly uses it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[whitemagic]

What do you do in an African American community where nobody trusts their physician? And your community has been underserved for the past century?

You speak entirely for yourself when you say you "couldnt care less about whether they are URM or ORM." Affirmative action is not discrimination. And this is coming from an Asian who statistically has the lowest acceptance percentage of any race.

 

[LizzyM]

The best won't go into family practice and pediatrics and internal medicine in inner-city and rural America. The good-enough will serve in those areas. Furthermore, schools want, and need (for accreditation) to have diverse student body and American needs a diverse workforce. Applicants who are "good enough" are cherry picked to fill those roles.

And @xyphr, no subjects in Tuskeegee were injected with syphilis or otherwise deliberately infected. Don't go starting rumors.

 

[Syns]

Classic difference between equality and equity. I would argue, not being an URM myself, that the perspective of URMs is a tangible asset that is as valuable as its substantial counterparts: grades, exam scores and ECs.

 

[whitemagic]

The best won't go into family practice and pediatrics and internal medicine in inner-city and rural America. The good-enough will serve in those areas. Furthermore, schools want, and need (for accreditation) to have diverse student body and American needs a diverse workforce. Applicants who are "good enough" are cherry picked to fill those roles.

And @xyphr, no subjects in Tuskeegee were injected with syphilis or otherwise deliberately infected. Don't go starting rumors.

Edited!

 

[ndafife]

The point of affirmative action is to identify applicants who did not perform as well as they could have in school due to factors that were out of their control. Its meant to find the students who had to work full-time in school to help support their family, students at underfunded schools, students who didnt grow up in an environment of academic support.

Yeah it has its faults - that whole Indian/African American story from awhile back - but in terms of trying to level the playing field for students from disadvantaged background, I don't know of any proposed systems that are much better.

 

[Syns]

@xyphr I believe that the difference is that a sample of AA men were told that they would receive free health care and then were untreated and observed in order to better understand the effects of untreated syphilis. They were not intentionally infected but instead intentionally untreated for the purpose of scientific discovery. Regardless, the latter is not withstanding ethical scrutiny for obvious reasons.

 

[whitemagic]

@Syns, just read up on it and seems you are right. I can't believe my understanding of that was so off for all of these years. Thanks for clearing that up! Edited my post.

 

[ndafife]

@LizzyM, could you explain? This is based off of my understanding from textbooks I read in sociology race courses and working in an African-American clinic. Pardon my ignorance but knowledge is power.

They didn't inject anyone with syphilis. The ethical implications of the study were that they left infected patients untreated and kept them in the dark about actually having the disease.

 

[ofthesaints]

As a URM-Hispanic with first-hand experience, I've seen the case where a hispanic patient is more apt to reveal more things about their history and illness from a doctor with a latin background. I've seen white doctors who, even if grammatically-fluent in Spanish, will still get looks of confusion from the patient mainly due to their accent. As a result, the patient might not reveal a lot about themselves. Patient trust is built largely by how we communicate with them, and the more comfortable they are, the more I believe they will open up about themselves. So, is affirmative action unfair to White and Asians? Yeah, I think so. But is there a reason why it exists? You bet.

 

[Law2Doc]

I read a piece today from one of my friend's school newsletter and saw this about admissions (to undergraduate/graduate schools) and thought that it applies to medical school admissions as well. What are your reactions?

(note: "I" does not refer to me; it refers to the author of the article in the newsletter; abbreviations were used)

[common abbreviations/jargon used by me, however]

text:

With this whole, "I'm a URM" therefore "I am judged more leniently than you" view that exists in some graduate school admissions, it looks as if the URM's have an unfair advantage over those who have the same but are ORM. I agree, the whole stereotypes in the past and unfair judgement from earlier in history on was wrong, but giving them their own category and grading them differently in the admissions process is unfair.

Instead of further enhancing their URM status, why don't adcoms just combine the entire pool of applicants and select the best ones, regardless of majority or minority. Quite honestly, I would want the best [doctors] to enter the field and couldn't care less about whether they are URM or ORM.

Making up for past discrimination isn't fair in the present time, and the best thing to do now is to be blind to those statuses now and not discriminate going forward. I don't get why admissions still uses affirmative action, says they want to end discrimination, but still blatantly uses it.

I think the problem with your statement "I would want the best doctors to enter the field.." Presumes that numerical stats correlate with "best". While this is certainly an important yardstick to help determine who has the aptitude to pass the tough med school coursework, I think after a certain threshold a few more tenths of a GPA or a few more points on the MCAT doesn't really dictate that much difference in quality. Diversity, both in terms of race, experience age can be useful to the field. As mentioned a person from a certain underserved population who is willing to work with that population is also highly coveted. So I think your difficulty is in making this be about reparations and less about soliciting desired attributes to better serve our patient population.

 

[Goro]

A) Life's unfair.
B) the strategy behind the benefits of URM status are not the same as affirmative action. The latter are to correct past wrongs, the former are exactly as the abbreviation applies: Under Represented in Medicine.

See this for one perspective
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/opinion/sunday/the-case-for-black-doctors.html

and these for even more:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26028982
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25853595
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25192970
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25077576
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23293808




Syns and LizzyM are correct. The definitive account of this is in the book "Bad Blood":

Amazon product


@@xyphr I believe that the difference is that sample of AA men were told that they would receive free health care and then were untreated and observed to better understand the effects of untreated syphilis.

 

[VitaminVater]

This argument is analogous to saying we should get rid of need-based aid for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds because students who don't qualify for it would get jealous and look down on those students and reinforce stereotypes about the poor.
It's always amazing to me the arguments some people use to blame the minorities themselves for racism/stereotypes.

 

[Syns]

@OP Please take Goro's post seriously. This is a fantastic opportunity to reflect and challenge your mindset. Even if you walk away with a similar opinion, you'll be a stronger person for exploring your ideas more fully.

 

[Petrichor1]

The best won't go into family practice and pediatrics and internal medicine in inner-city and rural America. The good-enough will serve in those areas. Furthermore, schools want, and need (for accreditation) to have diverse student body and American needs a diverse workforce. Applicants who are "good enough" are cherry picked to fill those roles.

And @xyphr, no subjects in Tuskeegee were injected with syphilis or otherwise deliberately infected. Don't go starting rumors.

What happened there was that despite treatment available, subjects wee kept in that study. LizzyM is right and this is one of the most well known ethical scandals before the code of ethics was enforced in medical research. I have to laugh at the poster that thought about something so insane otherwise.

 

[chemist16]

OP, the text of that article just reflects the reality in America today. That is, a great many people now feel some sense of entitlement - you can observe this in the great many affirmative action lawsuits of the modern era. They're all similar. "You took my seat at _______ University or School of Medicine." Here's the reality: that seat wasn't "yours" to begin with. It's not yours until you're sitting in it. Instead of bitching about how others took your spot, why don't you work harder and outcompete everybody else who is competing for "your spot"? So be it if there are 20 seats for Asians and 80 seats for Caucasians. Outcompete the other Asians for one of the 20 spots and you've earned it. Life isn't fair but bitching about it won't help. Working harder will.

(The "you" I refer to above is not in reference to OP but rather in general to those who feel entitled to a seat somewhere)

 

[Petrichor1]

As far as I'm concerned it does seem unfair but at the whole I don't think it is unfair because there are multiple issues at large for urms. If I am meant to be a doctor I will and any shortcomings that will come will come from me and me alone. I know I'm not perfect and I also know medicine isn't the only thing in the world I am bright in. If you want to compare yourself to a another person your entire life you can...and you won't ever see your own imperfections. LizzyM put everything in a succinct and wise manner. Strive to be the best and don't cry foul because as goro says, life isn't fair. If you have great stats and you don't get in, don't worry, you can try a different path and be even better. But if you have a low GPA and you get out of the game, don't expect a handout. You'really not looking to succeed, your looking at reaching a destiny that is really only the beginning.

 

[chemist16]

What happened there was that despite treatment available, subjects wee kept in that study. LizzyM is right and this is one of the most well known ethical scandals before the code of ethics was enforced in medical research. I have to laugh at the poster that thought about something so insane otherwise.

I think the real shocker was that the study lasted until 1972 - an age within recent memory and an age in which we like to think medical ethics was already established.

 

[Womb Raider]

What are your reactions?

You're right - the entire process is unfair and unethical. A lot of posts have been made regarding this issue, here's a link to the latest one. I suggest reading the entire thread (lots of good points) to understand the issue in its entirety.

Basically the system is discrimination, but the proponents of the system have somehow convinced themselves that it's not discrimination if it's justified. They don't feel bad about supporting such a system as long as it is compatible with their belief system, which, ironically is how oppression has been justified historically.

It's unfortunate that this is the reality in America (i.e. the Supreme Court reluctantly ruled that these unofficial quotas are justified for the time being, but admit that they are ultimately not a long term solution - look up Grutter v. Bollinger) but this is the reality of America that is becoming ever more socialist. It's incredible that people think this is the right way to achieve equality; if anything, it's perpetuating the racial divide.

 

[Petrichor1]

I think the real shocker was that the study lasted until 1972 - an age within recent memory and an age in which we like to think medical ethics was already established.

I shudder to think that anything took place so close to our time. Unfortunately medical ethics did not develop as greatly as it did in the 90s. Now computer soft wares are keeping a check on everything documented.

 

[Syns]

@Womb Raider I appreciate you sharing your opinion but I felt an uncomfortable undertone that accompanied your remarks. I respectfully disagree with your premise. I believe that medicine is built on the long standing dogma of the Hippocratic Oath for a reason and that oath supersedes your dismissal of patient centered care.

 

[Doudline]

They didn't inject anyone with syphilis. The ethical implications of the study were that they left infected patients untreated and kept them in the dark about actually having the disease.

The ethical implications are worse, might I add.

Had they infected the patients those would still have had a chance for treatment; in this case treatment is denied and great suffering or death is guaranteed.

 

[dog_swag]

It's always amazing to me the arguments some people use to blame the minorities themselves for racism/stereotypes.

It's really tragic. I can think of several of my peers who are URM and also elite (and I rarely use that word) candidates, scholars, and humans. It makes me sad knowing that they are going to contribute so much to medicine but there are always going to be some who are going to say, "Well, we know _____ is just here to fill a quota."

Truly successful people celebrate others' successes as well, not bring them down.

 

[noleknight16]

Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

 

[Womb Raider]

@Womb Raider I believe that medicine is built on the long standing dogma of the Hippocratic Oath for a reason and that oath supersedes your dismissal of patient centered care.

You're using the Hippocratic Oath as your ethical foundation? Really? You're OK with pledging loyalty to a variety of Gods and refuse to administer any treatment (including abortions) with the intent of terminating pregnancies?

Are you saying that the end justify all the means as long as the patient's care is top priority? What if the patient is acting unethically or wants me to do something unethical for his care? What then? Or, by your definition, nothing is unethical as long as it's what the patient wants?

 

[Petrichor1]

It's really tragic. I can think of several of my peers who are URM and also elite (and I rarely use that word) candidates, scholars, and humans. It makes me sad knowing that they are going to contribute so much to medicine but there are always going to be some who are going to say, "Well, we know _____ is just here to fill a quota."

Truly successful people celebrate others' successes as well, not bring them down.

In this day and age, I believe in acting and showing what you are capable. Ok, you filled a quota (for the sake of argument) but what are you going to do now? If you have the stats, you will glow amongst the best. Even ppl that are book smart from all ethinicities come across acting cluttered. That is OK if you are learning, but I have a problem with those that don't share any interest in the study or are unwilling to learn. A kid came up and discussed this system with me and the fact is that is that kid was trying to look for the easy way out by making excuses he would have seemed a lot more respectable to me. I will say that urmy friends think that it is an unfair system too. However, spinning it this way: if you knew someone on ad Com committee and you knowingly have them to back you up, aren't you also using the system to your advantage. It's silly not to, but it is questionable ethical. Likewise, if you come from middle class parents and have had a stress free education, do you deserve to be in medical school, compared to the urm who had a rough life but still managed to do well but a little less than a 3.5? Maybe it is wrong to give the urm the hope of applying to an ivy because the stats aren't there but to bar them from medical education entirely is not equality

 

[bee17]

What happened there was that despite treatment available, subjects wee kept in that study. LizzyM is right and this is one of the most well known ethical scandals before the code of ethics was enforced in medical research. I have to laugh at the poster that thought about something so insane otherwise.

Don't be so quick to laugh. Participants were not infected with syphilis in the Tuskegee experiment, but they certainly were (without their knowledge or consent) in NIH-funded STD experiments in Guatemala during the mid-1900s. The U.S. officially apologized for that one in 2010.

http://www.hhs.gov/1946inoculationstudy/factsheet.html = this will give you an overview. Other sources provide grittier details.

Sorry to derail the thread, but I wanted to point out that the other poster's supposition wasn't necessarily "insane."

 

[Petrichor1]

Don't be so quick to laugh. Participants were not infected with syphilis in the Tuskegee experiment, but they certainly were (without their knowledge or consent) in NIH-funded STD experiments in Guatemala during the mid-1900s. The U.S. officially apologized for that one in 2010.

http://www.hhs.gov/1946inoculationstudy/factsheet.html = this will give you an overview. Other sources provide grittier details.

Sorry to derail the thread, but I wanted to point out that the other poster's supposition wasn't necessarily "insane."

I was referring to the tuskeegee, but I have also read about the Guatemalan one (forgot at that instance). I believe though in that instance false documentation occurred and unfortunately nih did not know what was happening.

 

[MrMe123]

Medicine isn't about striving for fairness to applicants. Medicine is about striving for fairness to the patient population. If you think otherwise then you need a shift of perspective.

 

[Petrichor1]

^ but we are talking about admissions selection, not patient centricity.

 

[Syns]

@ngc 2170 I would be not be surprised to find literature supporting the idea that the race/ethnicity agreement between the practitioner and patient does not afford care advantage. However, I am equally expecting to find a corrilation between gross medical representation and health care outcomes with respect to race/ethnicity.

^ but we are talking about admissions selection, not patient centricity.

The argument is that they are discretely linked. Therefore imperative to improving health care outcomes for underserved populations.

 

[MrMe123]

^ but we are talking about admissions selection, not patient centricity.

The two are inherently related. If you have an admissions process that results in a workforce that grossly inaccurately reflects the population they are treating then that population will not receive as high quality treatment as they potentially can.

 

[Goro]

Plus Medicine already had, oh, some 200 years worth of data as to what happened with untreated syphilis. It wasn't just an immoral study, it was pointless..

I think the real shocker was that the study lasted until 1972 - an age within recent memory and an age in which we like to think medical ethics was already established.

 

[PantherPride]

In medical school admissions, physical spots in the school are being given to URMs, 'preventing' many ORMs from attending the school.

There are thousands of perfectly capable premeds that will not get into a medical school each cycle simply because of the volume of applicants applying. URM's aren't preventing other people from getting seats.

 

[HCHopeful]

The way I look at it... If you're too good to pass up, none of this matters anyway.

Don't be average. Be better.

 

[BlueCircle]

For the billionth time........

The "URM Advantage" isnt about righting the wrongs of the past, and provide URMs with a boost.

Its about creating a physician population that can better meet the needs of the patient population.

Thus, this is NOT like undergraduate AA policies. So, can we set aside this "It's not fair to ORM applicants" because it isnt about the individial applicants, ORM or URM. Its about the patients, something MUCH greater than the individual. If you cannot see this, I'm not sure how you can sit through an interview and say you are a true advocate for patient care. With this perspective, you are putting your own individual wants/needs before those of the more important patient population.

 

[Petrichor1]

The two are inherently related. If you have an admissions process that results in a workforce that grossly inaccurately reflects the population they are treating then that population will not receive as high quality treatment as they potentially can.

are you saying that if a certain population is at an increase in the US, adcoms should pick ppl from that ethnicity more likely and dismiss those that have the stats and capability just the same? That's a bit pushing it. I think the adcoms do urm admission to an extent but there is a limit to everything. As far as I am concerned whatever adcoms do, they make the decisions based off of certain situations and needs in the community. Us premeds don't really know any better, so I don't know why there are rumours about urm advantage. I think I like to put this into a conversation to encourage certain minorities from not giving up on medicine since they often don't have many people in the family that may be from medicine. You won't believe it but most urm don't even know about this and simply base their success off of applicants coming from advantaged backgrounds. It is important to educate each one of us. I believe that they have the capacity of helping a lot of people based off of the population they represent.

 

[NotYou20]

Med school admissions aren't really AA like undergrad. You missed the point by a mile. Oh and "just move on" is ridiculous in a world where most everyone strives to do better for their children.

edit:

Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

Good god, people still say "reverse discrimination"? Affirmative Action is, of course, discriminatory. Boo hoo

 

[Goro]

Ahh! Someone who gets it. Blue, send an app to my school!

Another thing to consider is that for med school admissions, it's not what the applicant wants, it's want the school wants. Schools like diverse classes, for one.

For the billionth time........

The "URM Advantage" isnt about righting the wrongs of the past, and provide URMs with a boost.

Its about creating a physician population that can better meet the needs of the patient population.

Thus, this is NOT like undergraduate AA policies. So, can we set aside this "It's not fair to ORM applicants" because it isnt about the individial applicants, ORM or URM. Its about the patients, something MUCH greater than the individual. If you cannot see this, I'm not sure how you can sit through an interview and say you are a true advocate for patient care. With this perspective, you are putting your own individual wants/needs before those of the more important patient population.

 

[charmiedermie]

For the billionth time........

The "URM Advantage" isnt about righting the wrongs of the past, and provide URMs with a boost.

Its about creating a physician population that can better meet the needs of the patient population.

Thus, this is NOT like undergraduate AA policies. So, can we set aside this "It's not fair to ORM applicants" because it isnt about the individial applicants, ORM or URM. Its about the patients, something MUCH greater than the individual. If you cannot see this, I'm not sure how you can sit through an interview and say you are a true advocate for patient care. With this perspective, you are putting your own individual wants/needs before those of the more important patient population.

Instead of quoting brochures, why not explain this better for people? Just so applicants know, affirmative action continues into residency selection, fellowship selection, and the workplace. It doesn't stop at med school selection.

 

[chemist16]

Plus Medicine already had, oh, some 200 years worth of data as to what happened with untreated syphilis. It wasn't just an immoral study, it was pointless..

Yeah, but it was not until penicillin was widely available in the late forties/early fifties that syphilis treatment became reality for many of the subjects. So at the outset, the study wasn't necessarily immoral but by the late-40s, it became immoral because physicians did not treat even though treatment was widely available and in use.

 

[Hyde]

URM's aren't preventing other people from getting seats.

I have no dog in this fight... but AAMC statistics do not support your theory. Just saying...

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/app...mcat-gpa-grid-by-selected-race-ethnicity.html

 

[LizzyM]

Funny thing, a needs assessment in an area close to our school identified a need for subspecialist psychiatrists who speak a specific language spoken by some Asians (I don't want to be specific). I've been lobbying for admission of native speakers of that language with the hope that 10 years from now we'll have a the services needed in the community. (Sooner would be better and maybe service providers can recruit physicians in the next few years.) While Asians are not URM, some subsets with specific language skills might but URM in some specialties. It really is up to each school to know the needs of the community and to admit accordingly.

 

[aesklepi]

I read a piece today from one of my friend's school newsletter and saw this about admissions (to undergraduate/graduate schools) and thought that it applies to medical school admissions as well. What are your reactions?

(note: "I" does not refer to me; it refers to the author of the article in the newsletter; abbreviations were used)

[common abbreviations/jargon used by me, however]

text:

With this whole, "I'm a URM" therefore "I am judged more leniently than you" view that exists in some graduate school admissions, it looks as if the URM's have an unfair advantage over those who have the same but are ORM. I agree, the whole stereotypes in the past and unfair judgement from earlier in history on was wrong, but giving them their own category and grading them differently in the admissions process is unfair.

Instead of further enhancing their URM status, why don't adcoms just combine the entire pool of applicants and select the best ones, regardless of majority or minority. Quite honestly, I would want the best [doctors] to enter the field and couldn't care less about whether they are URM or ORM.

Making up for past discrimination isn't fair in the present time, and the best thing to do now is to be blind to those statuses now and not discriminate going forward. I don't get why admissions still uses affirmative action, says they want to end discrimination, but still blatantly uses it.

Don't think of URM as stealing seats away from ORM. It is very important to have a diverse work force. If everyone was in the same pool, there would be white and asian doctors (mostly). This is because they have better access to resources in this nation.

 

[Hyde]

It really is up to each school to know the needs of the community and to admit accordingly.

How can med schools predict with any certainty that URM's are going to ultimately choose to practice in the "community" where they received their UG med school training? Selecting med school students on the basis of an identified ethnic or racial community near the med school seems like a stretch.

 

[NeuResurgens]

I dislike this topic because I see both sides - it can feel unfair for those who aren't URM, but those who are URM often have circumstances which would likely prevent them from attaining the levels the non-URM students regularly reach in appreciable numbers. I generally support URM status because I think it's important to have these different perspectives in my future colleagues.

The only concern I think is legitimate with URM status is if you have two applicants with essentially the same stats and similar impact ECs, but one with URM status, if it comes down to the two, URM becomes a distinct advantage. However, as Goro said, the purpose of URM isn't to make up for discrimination in the past, but rather to increase the diversity of the health field; in which case, URM should be an advantage. In addition, I doubt it happens all that often, when two identical applicants are competing with each other for the same seat in a zero-sum game. More likely, both applicants could realistically get into the same class.

 

[Hyde]

Don't think of URM as stealing seats away from ORM. It is very important to have a diverse work force. If you don't understand this, it's because you're apart of the majority and applying to med school is the only time you have been faced with diversity issues. If everyone was in the same pool, there would be white and asian doctors (mostly). This is because they have better access to resources in this nation. Again, if you don't get this, it's more of a maturity issue or lack of life experience.

Wow! A rather inflammatory pejorative response to ratman. Just because OP has an opinion that's different from yours, it doesn't give you license to insult him/her or make unsupported allegations.

 

[RedPhys]

How can med schools predict with any certainty that URM's are going to ultimately choose to practice in the "community" where they received their UG med school training? Selecting med school students on the basis of an identified ethnic or racial community near the med school seems like a stretch.

As has been mentioned in previous threads, studies show that URMs are more likely to go work in URM-heavy communities.

 

[Banco]

You're right - the entire process is unfair and unethical. A lot of posts have been made regarding this issue, here's a link to the latest one. I suggest reading the entire thread (lots of good points) to understand the issue in its entirety.

Basically the system is discrimination, but the proponents of the system have somehow convinced themselves that it's not discrimination if it's justified. They don't feel bad about supporting such a system as long as it is compatible with their belief system, which, ironically is how oppression has been justified historically.

It's unfortunate that this is the reality in America (i.e. the Supreme Court reluctantly ruled that these unofficial quotas are justified for the time being, but admit that they are ultimately not a long term solution - look up Grutter v. Bollinger) but this is the reality of America that is becoming ever more socialist. It's incredible that people think this is the right way to achieve equality; if anything, it's perpetuating the racial divide.

Oh brother.

 

[Hyde]

As has been mentioned in previous threads, studies show that URMs are more likely to go work in URM-heavy communities.

The question under discussion is this - are URM's likely to practice in the specific under served ethnic/racial communities identified by and located near the med schools where they received their UG medical education? I would suggest that it's a stretch to believe that this happens with any regularity and therefore is not a credible rationale for selecting URM's with specific ethnicity in the hopes he/she will stay in the locale to fulfill a specific perceived "community" need.