On behalf of the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC), I would like to take the opportunity to address the question that launched this post. The question raises a couple of inherent assumptions that should each be addressed.
Aside from the phenotypical traits associated with racial and ethnic identity, how one identifies herself is a deeply personal decision. Such identity decisions may have social and political implications given the US’s long checkered history on the issue of race. The resulting choice on how to identify racially and ethnically, should be based on how you personally see yourself.
The question about choosing to self-identify as someone who is historically underrepresented specifically for the purposes of gaining some perceived advantage in the application process is concerning. First, let me be very clear, although AAVMC and our member institutions are committed to increasing diversity in our national enrollment, such a commitment is not rooted in a belief that these applicants need to be given an advantage of some type in the application process. Such an approach does nothing to promote the notion that such applicants are not otherwise qualified based on all other criteria. We are committed to attracting competitive applicants from a diversity of backgrounds, and we have been successful in this endeavor as evidenced by our data.
Secondly, the inquiry assumes that admissions processes “give” advantage simply on the basis of racial/ethnic identity. Such practices are illegal. The 2003 Supreme Court case,
Gratz v. Bollinger, ruled the practice of awarding points based on these characteristics unconstitutional. In a parallel case,
Grutter v. Bollinger, holistic evaluation, meaning admissions processes that consider not only the quantitative metrics of competiveness but also what an applicant adds to the learning environment, were constitutional. These are the kinds of admissions processes embraced by our member institutions in various ways, and the constitutionality of holistic evaluation was upheld in 2013 in
Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin. Certainly characteristics like race or ethnicity may be contributing factors in evaluating the whole student (just like rural background or playing sports), but they will not be defining factors in being offered admissions.
We understand that the admissions process seems high stakes and that applicants are eager to find ways to enhance their profile. I would respectfully suggest that this line of inquiry is not the way to meaningfully strengthen a veterinary school application. I am happy to answer any questions; I can be reached at
[email protected].
Thank you.
Lisa M. Greenhill, MPA, EdD
AAVMC,
Associate Executive Director for Institutional Research and Diversity 
