SCOTUS Decision

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

deleted1141182

Disclaimer this isn't a URM vs ORM thread but I want just some thoughts and discussion from others, especially adcoms. The expected time for a SCOTUS decision on affirmative action is June 2023. If it gets banned, how will this affect admissions? Will the effects be for this cycle, or after this cycle?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Disclaimer this isn't a URM vs ORM thread but I want just some thoughts and discussion from others, especially adcoms. The expected time for a SCOTUS decision on affirmative action is June 2023. If it gets banned, how will this affect admissions? Will the effects be for this cycle, or after this cycle?
We won't know until the opinion is made public. It could be immediate. That is the general message among admissions professionals at various conferences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Does this mean that candidate's names, pictures, and background information will be withheld? Without such things it would be difficult to have any meaningful enforcement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Since in 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor set the timeline for affirmative action to be finished in 2028, many are speculating that it may remain permissible until then. I just don't want it to cause all this chaos because that's the last thing I need right now when applying lol.
 
I honestly dont know how to feel. If med schools want to diversify their student body I feel like this will make it harder for them to do so and will become more of a stat oriented process. The number of ORM in most med schools is a lot larger than URM already so would this make the gap bigger ?
 
I honestly dont know how to feel. If med schools want to diversify their student body I feel like this will make it harder for them to do so and will become more of a stat oriented process. The number of ORM in most med schools is a lot larger than URM already so would this make the gap bigger ?
I don't think it will become a more stat-oriented process, as there is no way that medical schools will allow for this to happen. I think they will FINALLY be forced to acknowledge socioeconomic inequities/family wealth inequities/parental education inequities and start looking at those factors. Those factors should have been extremely heavily-weighted from the start.
 
I honestly dont know how to feel. If med schools want to diversify their student body I feel like this will make it harder for them to do so and will become more of a stat oriented process. The number of ORM in most med schools is a lot larger than URM already so would this make the gap bigger ?
I think schools will find a way to get around it.
 
Like what?
Again, I do not want this to descend into a debate about the merits of affirmative action, but studies have proven that people feel more comfortable and open with doctors who share similar backgrounds with them. That includes ethnic and racial backgrounds. It would be a detriment to public health to not have a diverse physician workforce. That includes SES status as well. This isn't like college admissions.
 
  • Like
  • Dislike
Reactions: 14 users
To answer the question, certainly the decision would be a little more complex for medical schools and I'm sure they could define a vague "other factors" or "background factors" that takes URM status into account.
 
To answer the question, certainly the decision would be a little more complex for medical schools and I'm sure they could define a vague "other factors" or "background factors" that takes URM status into account.
Ideally they should use socioeconomic status, family/generational wealth values, zip code, and parental education levels. Only then would med school admissions be truly equitable. Right now medical school admissions are anything but equitable and favor the most privileged students regardless of their racial background.
 
Ideally they should use socioeconomic status, family/generational wealth values, zip code, and parental education levels. Only then would med school admissions be truly equitable. Right now medical school admissions are anything but equitable and favor the most privileged students regardless of their racial background.
Sure, but racial identity is also an important part of medical school diversity. Even if your daddy is a millionaire, growing up black or hispanic or white are all totally different experiences with different struggles and hardships.
 
  • Like
  • Hmm
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Sure, but racial identity is also an important part of medical school diversity. Even if your daddy is a millionaire, growing up black or hispanic or white are all totally different experiences with different struggles and hardships.
But it is very difficult to see that the overwhelming majority of medical students from all racial backgrounds come from the top SES brackets in our country. That's not equitable, and there are some experiences (i.e. a patient having the inability to afford a prescription medication, not having transportation to the doctor's office, etc.) that a High SES bracket prevents you from first-handedly experiencing. Socioeconomic factors are overwhelmingly the biggest cause of health disparities. I definitely think that low-income generational African Americans (those with all four grandparents born in the US and whom are descendants of the extreme historical wrongs in our society) face more additional challenges than low-income people of other races. But the number of generational African Americans in medicine is extremely small. Ideally affirmative action would have only used race in the context of applicants with low SES (to particularly help generational African Americans), but it didn't. Affirmative action (like nearly every part of the medical school admissions process) favors wealthy applicants. Data proves this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
To get this back on track, I personally believe that a ruling against wouldn't impact admissions that much. As a reminder, California currently outlaws affirmative action, but its 2 flagship public medical schools are almost famous for their commitment to diversity and their student body reflects that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
But it is very difficult to see that the overwhelming majority of medical students from all racial backgrounds come from the top SES brackets in our country. That's not equitable, and there are some experiences (i.e. a patient having the inability to afford a prescription medication, not having transportation to the doctor's office, etc.) that a High SES bracket prevents you from first-handedly experiencing. Socioeconomic factors are overwhelmingly the biggest cause of health disparities. I definitely think that low-income generational African Americans (those with all four grandparents born in the US and whom are descendants of the extreme historical wrongs in our society) face more additional challenges than low-income people of other races. But the number of generational African Americans in medicine is extremely small. Ideally affirmative action would have only used race in the context of applicants with low SES (to particularly help generational African Americans), but it didn't. Affirmative action (like nearly every part of the medical school admissions process) favors wealthy applicants. Data proves this.
I don't think we are going to agree on this subject - you are certainly not going to change my mind, so how about we leave it at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Does this mean that candidate's names, pictures, and background information will be withheld? Without such things it would be difficult to have any meaningful enforcement.
Many schools already do some of this now. It's not that hard. But the challenge is to what extent we have to keep redacting/reacting.

Keep reading
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I don't think we are going to agree on this subject - you are certainly not going to change my mind, so how about we leave it at that.
Wow, so much for being tolerant and open-minded!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
worry about getting that GPA up, buddy.
This shouldn't be about putting each other down - this should be about advocating for the most disadvantaged applicants to become doctors to make medical school admissions more equitable!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I don't think it will become a more stat-oriented process, as there is no way that medical schools will allow for this to happen. I think they will FINALLY be forced to acknowledge socioeconomic inequities/family wealth inequities/parental education inequities and start looking at those factors. Those factors should have been extremely heavily-weighted from the start.
Yeah I definitely think that this will become a factor for sure and I wonder how much It would impact the landscape of the demographics at med schools.
 
Yeah I definitely think that this will become a factor for sure and I wonder how much It would impact the landscape of the demographics at med schools.
It will definitely diversify the life experiences of medical school students, which is a great thing.
 
I suppose my point is that while the court can make their ruling, I don't think this will stop medical schools from recruiting an ethnically and racially diverse class of people. How do you even prove that you were rejected by your race? Surely this will just encourage medical schools to be more vague when making admissions files to obfuscate the exact criteria they use when someone inevitably sues.
 
SDN Admins, The college board has a comprehensive page with links and educational materials regarding the upcoming SCOTUS decision on Affirmative Action.
It would be great if SDN could also have updates and info for premeds/students on this: regardless of the final verdict, having the background knowledge helps all.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
SDN Admins, The college board has a comprehensive page with links and educational materials regarding the upcoming SCOTUS decision on Affirmative Action.
It would be great if SDN could also have updates and info for premeds/students on this: regardless of the final verdict, having the background knowledge helps all.

I think it’s all speculation at this point so following the national news will be your best source of information
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Many schools already do some of this now. It's not that hard. But the challenge is to what extent we have to keep redacting.reacting.

Keep reading

I always enjoy reading your articles and the other content in the class. Thank you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't think we are going to agree on this subject - you are certainly not going to change my mind, so how about we leave it at that.
Unfortunately it's not a matter of agreeance there is science on the matter which is why the policies were put in to begin with.

Patients have better outcomes from providers who look like them and know their backgrounds and language better

I generally defer to literature regardless of my own beliefs, as a scientist.
 
Ideally they should use socioeconomic status, family/generational wealth values, zip code, and parental education levels. Only then would med school admissions be truly equitable. Right now medical school admissions are anything but equitable and favor the most privileged students regardless of their racial background.
These factors are already considered. That is why AMCAS asks about your household income, whether your family was on government assistance growing up, parent education levels, if you grew up in a rural/underserved area, etc. First gen and low income students are sought after at many schools similar to URM students.

I am white/nonhispanic and when I was applying to medical school, I was interviewed by a black woman who was the assistant dean for diversity and inclusion or something like that, and she asked me a question along the lines of how I was diverse. I gave some answer that my own cultural background was not particularly diverse/unique, but that I had made an effort to work in communities and build relationships with people who were different than me, blah blah blah. She told me "but you are diverse! you grew up in a rural area." I was accepted there, and several other schools - way more than I should have been based on my stats alone.

If someone thinks these factors are not being taken into account in the application process, it is because they are not paying attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
These factors are already considered. That is why AMCAS asks about your household income, whether your family was on government assistance growing up, parent education levels, if you grew up in a rural/underserved area, etc. First gen and low income students are sought after at many schools similar to URM students.

I am white/nonhispanic and when I was applying to medical school, I was interviewed by a black woman who was the assistant dean for diversity and inclusion or something like that, and she asked me a question along the lines of how I was diverse. I gave some answer that my own cultural background was not particularly diverse/unique, but that I had made an effort to work in communities and build relationships with people who were different than me, blah blah blah. She told me "but you are diverse! you grew up in a rural area." I was accepted there, and several other schools - way more than I should have been based on my stats alone.

If someone thinks these factors are not being taken into account in the application process, it is because they are not paying attention.
Unfortunately, generational African Americans are still extremely underrepresented within medicine. If every medical student in the US was a generational African American, I would literally be so happy. Nothing makes me more happy than to see generational African Americans succeed and attain professions like medicine, teaching, law, etc. However, it is a very true but deeply taboo subject to discuss that the majority of black students at medical schools in the US are not generational African American. You may not think that's a big deal, but it is. The majority of black people in this country are generational African American, but the majority of black doctors are not - why is that? It's because that medical schools are doing absolutely NOTHING to help the generational African American communities. They are literally hiding behind a check box and masking this as "equity". I suggest you read the article I have linked below, about who is actually benefiting from affirmative action. It's really sad - affirmative action was designed in the 1960s to help generational African Americans only, but statistically today they are the group of people who are least benefitting from it. We desperately need more generational African Americans and Native Americans from Indian reservations in medicine. THAT would be an equitable physician workforce that is truly representative of the patient population.

 
  • Like
  • Care
Reactions: 5 users
Unfortunately, generational African Americans are still extremely underrepresented within medicine. If every medical student in the US was a generational African American, I would literally be so happy. Nothing makes me more happy than to see generational African Americans succeed and attain professions like medicine, teaching, law, etc. However, it is a very true but deeply taboo subject to discuss that the majority of black students at medical schools in the US are not generational African American. You may not think that's a big deal, but it is. The majority of black people in this country are generational African American, but the majority of black doctors are not - why is that? It's because that medical schools are doing absolutely NOTHING to help the generational African American communities. They are literally hiding behind a check box and masking this as "equity". I suggest you read the article I have linked below, about who is actually benefiting from affirmative action. It's really sad - affirmative action was designed in the 1960s to help generational African Americans only, but statistically today they are the group of people who are least benefitting from it. We desperately need more generational African Americans and Native Americans from Indian reservations in medicine. THAT would be an equitable physician workforce that is truly representative of the patient population.

I don't disagree with you, but I think a huge part of the reason there are so few African American, Native American, etc. medical students is because there are so few applicants from those communities, because of the enormous number of extra hurdles they have to get over to even get to the point of having a reasonably competitive application in the first place. I am familiar with the literature on who benefits from affirmative action, frankly that's not a secret to anyone, nor would I describe it as "taboo." This is a topic that is ROUTINELY discussed in admissions and DEI offices around the country, and many medical schools have pipeline and outreach programs at local majority POC/low income schools to address this exact issue.

Moreover, I take a little bit of issue with the idea that students/doctors from African immigrant families are somehow a less valuable form of diversity. I have had the privilege to train and work with many doctors who fall into this group. They are excellent people and excellent physicians, and they do still have a unique and valuable perspective that contributes in a positive way to the work environment and to patient care. They still face racism, albeit perhaps in different ways in some cases. Many of them are advocates for racial equity in medical education and in healthcare for all black students and patients, not just the ones from immigrant families.

Not saying there's not work to be done here and certainly not saying affirmative action programs are perfect as is. Affirmative action, even done well, is also nowhere near an adequate solution to this issue on its own. But I think you have kind of an inaccurate view of how medical school admissions teams actually view these sorts of things - your views and ideas here are nowhere near as controversial or taboo as you seem to think they are. Regardless, I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the right answer.

edit-clarity
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
I don't disagree with you, but I think a huge part of the reason there are so few African American, Native American, etc. medical students is because there are so few applicants from those communities, because of the enormous number of extra hurdles they have to get over to even get to the point of having a reasonably competitive application in the first place. I am very, very familiar with the literature on who benefits from affirmative action, frankly that's not a secret to anyone, nor would I describe it as "taboo." This is a topic that is ROUTINELY discussed in admissions and DEI offices around the country, and many medical schools have pipeline and outreach programs at local majority POC/low income schools to address this exact issue.

Moreover, I take a little bit of issue with the idea that students/doctors from African immigrant families are somehow a less valuable form of diversity. I have had the privilege to train and work with many doctors who fall into this group. They are excellent people and excellent physicians, and they do still have a unique and valuable perspective that contributes in a positive way to the work environment and to patient care. They still face racism, albeit perhaps in different ways in some cases. Many of them are advocates for racial equity in medical education and in healthcare for all black students and patients, not just the ones from immigrant families.

Not saying there's not work to be done here and certainly not saying affirmative action programs are perfect as is. Affirmative action, even done well, is also nowhere near an adequate solution to this issue on its own. But I think you have kind of an inaccurate view of how medical school admissions teams actually view these sorts of things - your views and ideas here are nowhere near as controversial or taboo as you seem to think they are. Regardless, I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the right answer.

edit-clarity
What's your sense on how SCOTUS decision would affect residency placements ?
 
Assuming the SCOTUS ends race in admissions....

Admissions will have to cease using race in admissions. Sure there will be a few years of schools trying to figure out how to shape a diverse class and plenty of lawsuits, but eventually admissions will be race blind. Iknow there are some people on here that envision admissions landscape that is LizzyMscore + Publications + EC Hours = thumbs up or down. All I can say is "bless your hearts". The need for effective physicians in medically underserved communities is still there and medical schools will admit students to fill that need.

I see a future where deep impactful experiences in these communities will be more important than research.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I don't disagree with you, but I think a huge part of the reason there are so few African American, Native American, etc. medical students is because there are so few applicants from those communities, because of the enormous number of extra hurdles they have to get over to even get to the point of having a reasonably competitive application in the first place. I am very, very familiar with the literature on who benefits from affirmative action, frankly that's not a secret to anyone, nor would I describe it as "taboo." This is a topic that is ROUTINELY discussed in admissions and DEI offices around the country, and many medical schools have pipeline and outreach programs at local majority POC/low income schools to address this exact issue.

Moreover, I take a little bit of issue with the idea that students/doctors from African immigrant families are somehow a less valuable form of diversity. I have had the privilege to train and work with many doctors who fall into this group. They are excellent people and excellent physicians, and they do still have a unique and valuable perspective that contributes in a positive way to the work environment and to patient care. They still face racism, albeit perhaps in different ways in some cases. Many of them are advocates for racial equity in medical education and in healthcare for all black students and patients, not just the ones from immigrant families.

Not saying there's not work to be done here and certainly not saying affirmative action programs are perfect as is. Affirmative action, even done well, is also nowhere near an adequate solution to this issue on its own. But I think you have kind of an inaccurate view of how medical school admissions teams actually view these sorts of things - your views and ideas here are nowhere near as controversial or taboo as you seem to think they are. Regardless, I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the right answer.

edit-clarity

Thank you for responding! I really appreciate your post (you have a ton of good points), and I appreciate your willingness to discuss this respectfully. Since I love having discussions about how to make things more equitable for low-income applicants and students of color, I thought I'd just address some of your points.
I agree with you that there are many fewer generational African Americans and Native Americans from Indian reservations applying (obviously due to the enormous hurdles they face), and I understand that there are many outreach programs for these groups. However, there need to be MORE of these programs. Not just more. MANY, MANY MORE. Additionally, while medical schools and colleges predominantly cater to older teens and and people in their 20s/30s, medical schools ideally should put a lot of their money into investing in generational African American young children. Inequities start from birth. For example, while it would be great for a university to offer free MCAT prep courses for Native Americans who live on a reservation, it is important to keep in mind that doing well on the MCAT doesn't start three months before you test when you sit down to study. Doing well on the MCAT starts at birth. Universities should invest a ton of money and effort into under-resourced minority communities that help young children and their families, in addition to helping students who are applying to college/graduate school/medical school. Ideally, I think race-conscious admissions should exist (I am not for "throwing out" affirmative action, I just think that a much larger focus needs to be on generational African Americans and Native Americans from Indian reservations). I guess a main problem I have with affirmative action now is sometimes it can appear that universities are taking the easy way out and not addressing these issues systemically and working to eliminate systemic and structural inequities and racism in under-resourced communities.

Like you, I also think that African immigrant families represent an extremely valuable form of diversity. All ethnic minority groups are so critical to our country's success and contribute to it in so many great ways. I guess what I was trying to say, was that it is only through uplifting economically disadvantaged generational African Americans that one is going to create inter-generational upward mobility and opportunity for children who otherwise may not have it. I guess my main issue with this topic is more targeted at colleges like Harvard and the Supreme Court. For example during the Supreme Court arguments, Justice Sotomayor talked about how Black students were more likely to attend under-funded high schools and have less experienced teachers. This is absolutely true for the overall Black community, but this statistic is not accurate for the Black students who attend Harvard. While they definitely contribute in a very valuable way to diversity, they disproportionately are not growing up in de facto segregated neighborhoods or attending less-funded schools. While there are some that do, the percentage is nowhere near proportional to the percentage that generational African Americans face. This issue may be a bit different in medicine because our overall goal is for patients to relate more to their doctors, and I totally agree that physician-patient race concordance definitely can improve trust and health outcomes for minority communities. As a medical scribe in the past, one time I worked a shift in which both the attending doctor and resident doctor were both generational African American men, and that night they saw many Black patients. I thought this was so amazing, and I thought to myself, I wish every shift was like this. It was super inspiring to see them treating the Black patients in this ED, as we know that these patients can arguably relate to them better.

While all diversity is absolutely extremely valuable and important, I feel that it really is a huge problem that we currently do not have many generational African Americans in medicine. They themselves have experiences and perspectives that literally no other group of people can bring to the table; that is why we so greatly need them in medicine. When a generational African American benefits from affirmative action, that isn't "giving them an advantage in the process", it is literally just leveling the playing field. However, in terms of the admissions process, when a wealthy minority benefits from affirmative action, I think it definitely could be argued that that is much more of an "advantage" rather than "leveling the playing field". I definitely feel the medical profession is seriously lacking in diversity, and we desperately need more Black doctors. Black doctors from all background are a great asset to any physician workforce, but I still believe that since the majority of Black patients are generational African-American, the physician workforce should be obligated to reflect that.
I still also do take issue with the fact of Asians being considered "over-represented minorities", when in fact some Asian groups are actually under-represented in medicine (i.e. the Hmong population). If you think about it also, some African immigrant groups (i.e. Nigerians) could be said to be "over-represented" in medicine. I myself am not an over-represented minority, but I still really disagree with the ways that Asians are treated in the affirmative action debate. The data from the SCOTUS case regarding how Harvard treated them (from the documents) was really disturbing. Additionally, while you said that admissions committees and DEI offices across the country are very aware of the disparities within groups (i.e. that generational African-Americans are very under-represented at universities), I listened to all the SCOTUS arguments, and it wasn't talked about (although Students for Fair Admissions, the plaintiff, did write about it in its documents). The Supreme Court oral arguments literally treated every single racial group like a monolith, which is such an inaccurate portrayal of the diversity of our country.

I definitely don't want to be controversial and cause any arguments, but I guess my purpose is just to bring up some talking points that I think are highly worthy of discussion. I think any time a minority is in medicine, it is a great thing. But we must be careful not to label any group a monolith, as no racial/ethnic group is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thank you for responding! I really appreciate your post (you have a ton of good points), and I appreciate your willingness to discuss this respectfully. Since I love having discussions about how to make things more equitable for low-income applicants and students of color, I thought I'd just address some of your points.
I agree with you that there are many fewer generational African Americans and Native Americans from Indian reservations applying (obviously due to the enormous hurdles they face), and I understand that there are many outreach programs for these groups. However, there need to be MORE of these programs. Not just more. MANY, MANY MORE. Additionally, while medical schools and colleges predominantly cater to older teens and and people in their 20s/30s, medical schools ideally should put a lot of their money into investing in generational African American young children. Inequities start from birth. For example, while it would be great for a university to offer free MCAT prep courses for Native Americans who live on a reservation, it is important to keep in mind that doing well on the MCAT doesn't start three months before you test when you sit down to study. Doing well on the MCAT starts at birth. Universities should invest a ton of money and effort into under-resourced minority communities that help young children and their families, in addition to helping students who are applying to college/graduate school/medical school. Ideally, I think race-conscious admissions should exist (I am not for "throwing out" affirmative action, I just think that a much larger focus needs to be on generational African Americans and Native Americans from Indian reservations). I guess a main problem I have with affirmative action now is sometimes it can appear that universities are taking the easy way out and not addressing these issues systemically and working to eliminate systemic and structural inequities and racism in under-resourced communities.

Like you, I also think that African immigrant families represent an extremely valuable form of diversity. All ethnic minority groups are so critical to our country's success and contribute to it in so many great ways. I guess what I was trying to say, was that it is only through uplifting economically disadvantaged generational African Americans that one is going to create inter-generational upward mobility and opportunity for children who otherwise may not have it. I guess my main issue with this topic is more targeted at colleges like Harvard and the Supreme Court. For example during the Supreme Court arguments, Justice Sotomayor talked about how Black students were more likely to attend under-funded high schools and have less experienced teachers. This is absolutely true for the overall Black community, but this statistic is not accurate for the Black students who attend Harvard. While they definitely contribute in a very valuable way to diversity, they disproportionately are not growing up in de facto segregated neighborhoods or attending less-funded schools. While there are some that do, the percentage is nowhere near proportional to the percentage that generational African Americans face. This issue may be a bit different in medicine because our overall goal is for patients to relate more to their doctors, and I totally agree that physician-patient race concordance definitely can improve trust and health outcomes for minority communities. As a medical scribe in the past, one time I worked a shift in which both the attending doctor and resident doctor were both generational African American men, and that night they saw many Black patients. I thought this was so amazing, and I thought to myself, I wish every shift was like this. It was super inspiring to see them treating the Black patients in this ED, as we know that these patients can arguably relate to them better.

While all diversity is absolutely extremely valuable and important, I feel that it really is a huge problem that we currently do not have many generational African Americans in medicine. They themselves have experiences and perspectives that literally no other group of people can bring to the table; that is why we so greatly need them in medicine. When a generational African American benefits from affirmative action, that isn't "giving them an advantage in the process", it is literally just leveling the playing field. However, in terms of the admissions process, when a wealthy minority benefits from affirmative action, I think it definitely could be argued that that is much more of an "advantage" rather than "leveling the playing field". I definitely feel the medical profession is seriously lacking in diversity, and we desperately need more Black doctors. Black doctors from all background are a great asset to any physician workforce, but I still believe that since the majority of Black patients are generational African-American, the physician workforce should be obligated to reflect that.
I still also do take issue with the fact of Asians being considered "over-represented minorities", when in fact some Asian groups are actually under-represented in medicine (i.e. the Hmong population). If you think about it also, some African immigrant groups (i.e. Nigerians) could be said to be "over-represented" in medicine. I myself am not an over-represented minority, but I still really disagree with the ways that Asians are treated in the affirmative action debate. The data from the SCOTUS case regarding how Harvard treated them (from the documents) was really disturbing. Additionally, while you said that admissions committees and DEI offices across the country are very aware of the disparities within groups (i.e. that generational African-Americans are very under-represented at universities), I listened to all the SCOTUS arguments, and it wasn't talked about (although Students for Fair Admissions, the plaintiff, did write about it in its documents). The Supreme Court oral arguments literally treated every single racial group like a monolith, which is such an inaccurate portrayal of the diversity of our country.

I definitely don't want to be controversial and cause any arguments, but I guess my purpose is just to bring up some talking points that I think are highly worthy of discussion. I think any time a minority is in medicine, it is a great thing. But we must be careful not to label any group a monolith, as no racial/ethnic group is.
I agree with pretty much all of this - we can and should be doing more to address the root causes of these issues. But, I also think there are limitations in what a given medical school/university can realistically achieve, and while we should continue to try to improve how we address racial inequity in medical school admissions and in healthcare generally, we also need to look above/beyond medical schools to the institutions that actually have the (at least theoretical) ability to make the broader societal changes that result in racial inequity in medical school admissions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Healthcare is no place for DEI

This link give a well thought out perspective on this issue that may differ from the admissions committees.
It differs from admissions committees' perspectives because it includes a lot of hot takes that are built on inaccurate assumptions. Not trying to blow up this thread, so I'm happy to discuss my specific beef with some of the points made further via PM/separate thread, but I would not consider this a well thought out perspective lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I am fairly knowledgable about this topic having read several books on affirmative action and closely followed the SFFA case since it went to court.

The first thing to understand is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d reads:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

All medical schools depend on Federal financial assistance and are thus bound by this law. Under a plain reading of Title VI, it seems obvious that racial discrimination in anyway is illegal. So why are higher education allowed to practice affirmative action? Because in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that a "holistic" admission process that benefits favored minorities is legal so long as it is "narrowly tailored" with the goal of achieving the "educational benefits of diversity." The surge in use of "holistic" and "diversity" in admission decisions can directly be traced to this ruling as it is one of the ways for adcoms to demonstrate compliance with the law.

It is important to note that the "educational benefits of diversity" is the only justification the Supreme Court deemed acceptable. A different justification, like improving patient outcome by increasing the number of race-concordant physicians, or reparation for historical injustices, are illegal even under the current law. Any school that suggest their affirmative action process is not exclusively aimed at achieving the educational benefits of diversity would lose in court if sued.

The SFFA v. Harvard lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Grutter v. Bollinger decision. This is almost guaranteed to happen given the composition of the current Court. Once Gratz is overturned, the use of race in admission decisions will be subject to federal non-discrimination protection. This means that any individual who feels they are discriminated against (e.g. a rejected applicant) could seek redress from Federal courts or the Department of Education. Adcoms will likely take many preemptive measures to signal compliance with non-discrimination requirements to protect themselves from potential lawsuits (e.g. redacting the applicant's racial identity). Because changes in the legal standard apply immediately, the Supreme Court decision will affect admission in the 2023-2024 applicant cycle.

The main uncertainty is whether the Supreme Court will outlaw facially neutral policies that are aimed at benefitting certain races over others. If the Supreme Court bans facially neutral policies, it would severely restricts the options for medical schools seeking to enroll more URM. Even deemphasizing the MCAT, for example, could constitute illegal discrimination under a restrictive framework as it would have disparate impact on different races.

Happy to answer any questions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Dislike
Reactions: 6 users
I am fairly knowledgable about this topic having read several books on affirmative action and closely followed the SFFA case since it went to court.

The first thing to understand is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d reads:


All medical schools depend on Federal financial assistance and are thus bound by this law. Under a plain reading of Title VI, it seems obvious that racial discrimination in anyway is illegal. So why are higher education allowed to practice affirmative action? Because in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that a "holistic" admission process that benefits favored minorities is legal so long as it is "narrowly tailored" with the goal of achieving the "educational benefits of diversity." The surge in use of "holistic" and "diversity" in admission decisions can directly be traced to this ruling as it is one of the ways for adcoms to demonstrate compliance with the law.

It is important to note that the "educational benefits of diversity" is the only justification the Supreme Court deemed acceptable. A different justification, like improving patient outcome by increasing the number of race-concordant physicians, or reparation for historical injustices, are illegal even under the current law. Any school that suggest their affirmative action process is not exclusively aimed at achieving the educational benefits of diversity would lose in court if sued.

The SFFA v. Harvard lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Grutter v. Bollinger decision. This is almost guaranteed to happen given the composition of the current Court. Once Gratz is overturned, the use of race in admission decisions will be subject to federal non-discrimination protection. This means that any individual who feels they are discriminated against (e.g. a rejected applicant) could seek redress from Federal courts or the Department of Education. Adcoms will likely take many preemptive measures to signal compliance with non-discrimination requirements to protect themselves from potential lawsuits (e.g. redacting the applicant's racial identity). Because changes in the legal standard apply immediately, the Supreme Court decision will affect admission in the 2023-2024 applicant cycle.

The main uncertainty is whether the Supreme Court will outlaw facially neutral policies that are aimed at benefitting certain races over others. If the Supreme Court bans facially neutral policies, it would severely restricts the options for medical schools seeking to enroll more URM. Even deemphasizing the MCAT, for example, could constitute illegal discrimination under a restrictive framework as it would have disparate impact on different races.

Happy to answer any questions.
I don't think that the Supreme Court will outlaw race-neutral policies. From the arguments in October 2022, it seemed that they were actually arguing for race-neutral policies to be eliminated, such as elimination of legacy, dean's interest list, and donor's children. Although the concept of legacy/dean's interest list isn't as applicable to medical schools as it is to colleges like Harvard, at least it shows that the Supreme Court is pro- race-neutral policies. But what would "race-neutral" policies look like in med school admissions, besides taking into account SES/parental educational level/zip code?
 
they will FINALLY be forced to acknowledge socioeconomic inequities/family wealth inequities/parental education inequities and start looking at those factors.
This is how it should've been. Even in the SFFA v. Harvard case (pending SCOTUS case), the petitioners (SFFA) were able to prove that Harvard doesn't take as many fully qualified, low SES African Americans than they do high SES AAs. I get universities are businesses at the end of the day, but institutions are kidding themselves when they claim they're all for diversity. I get the feeling that it's all just virtue signaling without actually opening up opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Somewhat of a rhetorical question here: why, in medical school admissions or otherwise, might a well-off AA applicant receive greater attention than an ORM who grew up poor? How is that fair?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This is how it should've been. Even in the SFFA v. Harvard case (pending SCOTUS case), the petitioners (SFFA) were able to prove that Harvard doesn't take as many fully qualified, low SES African Americans than they do high SES AAs. I get universities are businesses at the end of the day, but institutions are kidding themselves when they claim they're all for diversity. I get the feeling that it's all just virtue signaling without actually opening up opportunities for the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Somewhat of a rhetorical question here: why, in medical school admissions or otherwise, might a well-off AA applicant receive greater attention than an ORM who grew up poor? How is that fair?
This is EXACTLY it. The documents from SFFA show that low SES African Americans were not receiving acceptances to Harvard and benefitting from affirmative action most of the time, especially in comparison to their peers from higher SES. Harvard's admissions policies are 100% about cosmetic diversity, window dressing, and virtue signaling. Harvard has never in its near 400-year history been socioeconomically diverse; it is literally spewing misinformation to the public that affirmative action is creating opportunities for people who otherwise would not have it.
I totally agree with you btw that a disadvantaged ORM should receive greater attention than somebody more well-off who isn't an ORM. That is the main argument against affirmative action and I totally believe it. The problem is that these news companies (i.e. NBC, NY Times, etc.) are trying to mislead the public into thinking that affirmative action helps disadvantaged kids, when it overwhelmingly just gives huge advantages to kids who are well-off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
OP’s questions:
“ The expected time for a SCOTUS decision on affirmative action is June 2023. If it gets banned, how will this affect admissions? Will the effects be for this cycle, or after this cycle?”

The effects of the SCOTUS ruling would take place immediately ( similar to how overturning Roe v Wade / constitutional right to abortion, and giving it back to the states happened swiftly after that verdict, and some states had infact in anticipation made some very restrictive rules to go in effect reflexly the moment the decision came out). Thereby we can infer that it would apply to and affect this new application cycle 2023-2024.

Regarding how the med applications will be changed by AMCAS and viewed by med schools, besides the question of how adoption of “race-neutral” policies by med schools will process, will entirely depend on how narrowly framed the SCOTUS decision is, and if the majority justices give any further guidance in their writing.

Below is an interesting slide form the college board slideshow that shows possible race-neutral criteria that med schools could consider: Again, this depends on how narrowly tailored the decision is if race cannot be considered going forward, and/ any further written guidance from the SCOTUS. This would guide the institutions in terms of the scaleability and reproducibility of these new race-neutral criteria, that would be adopted by all educational institutions. It is reported that this could also involve the K-12 admissions process.

All-in-all, this would be a landmark decision that would impact all students and educational institutions in the nation. Everyone just needs to wait patiently until it comes out in June 2023/ or maybe in May 2023 if a media leak happens ( like in the case of Roe v Wade decision)!

1681067871532.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Like what?
Like how California schools have. Affirmative Action is actually banned for Californian public universities, but as long as a plaintiff can't prove an explicit racial quota they are still able to use proxies like income and regional background (like where in the state the applicant grew up/which high school they went to) to get the racial breakdown they want in their entering classes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Like how California schools have. Affirmative Action is actually banned for Californian public universities, but as long as a plaintiff can't prove an explicit racial quota they are still able to use proxies like income and regional background (like where in the state the applicant grew up/which high school they went to) to get the racial breakdown they want in their entering classes.
No matter how hard people deny this, it's absolutely true. I attend one of the CA flagships for UG, and they've explicitly stated they use Pell Grant data on top of accepting students from a diverse range of HS to ensure diversity of the incoming class
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I believe Texas UG schools took the route of taking people in the top 10% of any high school in TX. That allowed for admitting URM students who went to high schools that had a high number of students of color.

So, possibly med schools could admit top students from historically Black colleges and similar.

Bridge programs will be another solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Again, I do not want this to descend into a debate about the merits of affirmative action, but studies have proven that people feel more comfortable and open with doctors who share similar backgrounds with them. That includes ethnic and racial backgrounds. It would be a detriment to public health to not have a diverse physician workforce. That includes SES status as well. This isn't like college admissions.
I'm sorry but this feels like a terribly terribly bad faith to me. If a low education white individual came into the ER and said "I ain't want no colored doctor", are you honestly telling me most staff would be respectful and considerate of his wishes?

Its one thing to offer opportunity to kids who have overcome adversity all their lives and are probably just as good as the others on a level playing field, but I think an implication of "white doctors are bad for black patients" is a supremely evil belief system to have and it isn't healthy for medicine or society in general.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm sorry but this feels like a terribly terribly bad faith to me. If a low education white individual came into the ER and said "I ain't want no colored doctor", are you honestly telling me most staff would be respectful and considerate of his wishes?

Its one thing to offer opportunity to kids who have overcome adversity all their lives and are probably just as good as the others on a level playing field, but I think an implication of "white doctors are bad for black patients" is a supremely evil belief system to have and it isn't healthy for medicine or society in general.
No one said white doctors are bad for black patients. Diversity improving patient outcomes is backed up by many studies.

Regarding your hypothetical, that’s not what anyone is saying either. Why deny something to a patient that would make them more comfortable? By your logic, should we stop making women patients feel comfortable by providing them with women OB/GYNs when requested? Patient comfort is an important part of treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top