SCOTUS Case - Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

[487806]

---

Members do not see this ad.

It is a sociopolitical issue.

I know and that belongs in the sociopolitical forum, located below the lounge.

 

[lobo.solo]

I know and that belongs in the sociopolitical forum, located below the lounge.

It's always been a sociopolitical issue and that hasn't deter people to discuss it in this forums for years. Besides it is related to the future of us premeds and how it will impact health care in this country. Whether or not health disparities continue to grow and/or underserved populations continue to be underserved.

 

[Lexdiamondz]

Good thing quotas are being eliminated. Showing any preference (whether race, gender, sexual orientation etc.) isn't equal protection. There is no where in the Constitution that mandates diversity, so AA (which was enacted through an executive order) isn't constitutional. And no. People cannot be discriminated against on the basis of any innate characteristic. That is also a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

They're not showing a "preference" for anything if those groups which are currently underrepresented are still underrepresented. Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate how Affirmative Action discriminates against anybody.

Here's this. Why not evaluate and hire people based on merit and leave the innate characteristics out of the question? Isn't that what the Civil Rights Movement was all about? Let's avoid sidestepping this into the sociopolitical argument.

I'd love to do that...except that's rarely what happens even when you take affirmative action out of the question.

 

[lobo.solo]

You must not hang out around college confidential...those guys rage about legacy admits to no end.

And they have the right to do so. It's interesting that people on SDN don't complaint about that, but whine about URMs.

 

[Lexdiamondz]

And they have the right to do so. It's interesting that people on SDN don't complaint about that, but whine about URMs.

The funny thing is, URM's with below-average states are such a small percentage of the overall number of medical school matriculants than even if you got rid of every Black and Hispanic matriculant irrespective of GPA, their chances of acceptance wouldn't increase significantly.

 

[Quadratic]

If you are using race-based affirmative action to refer to the equal opportunity standards that federal contractors are required to follow, that's not what I am talking about.

I find it difficult to believe that one could walk away with the impression that I'm linking "race-based" affirmative action to anything at all. That is why I'm asking YOU to define it for us.

I am using affirmative action to refer to a university's policy of preferring certain races over others for the purposes of admissions.

Which makes little sense, especially for someone with "interests" in law. Even more disturbing are earlier posts that suggest a different argument and seem to oppose your most recent position:

I think we misunderstood each other. I agree in full with paragraph 1. In paragraph 2, I wouldn't exactly call the effect minimal (particularly with respect to undergrad admissions). But even if the absolute numbers are low, it's more the principle of state-sanctioned race-based discrimination that I have an issue with.

I think it's clear that you are being duplicitous at this point, not just in vernacular but with actual intention. Even if we reduce your argument solely to University policies that involve racial preferences, you are assuming that across American academic institutions, these internal regulations are the norm rather than the exception. Couch potatoes who watch small claims court shows know that this is insufficient. Unfortunately your method to garner evidence, detailed below, will fail due in large part to the facts that the application pool for ORMs is far larger than that of the URMs.

But the answer is simple: If the acceptance rate of URM's is significantly higher than the acceptance rate of non-URM's, after controlling for MCAT and GPA, then you can be confident that AA is being used. There is no reason to expect that the qualitative characteristics of non-URM's exceed those of URM's or vice versa. Therefore, any significant difference that exists means URM's are being given preference.

Coincidentally, a major beneficiary of smaller pool sizes are sub-average ORMs whom, based on the conventional SDN wisdom, are more likely to be granted an acceptance if he/she applies early than counterparts with similar scores that apply later. The advice is grounded in the idea that there are fewer of them are in the pipeline at early time-points in the process coupled with the notion that institutions, even Ivies, choose at least a few sub-average ORM students for each class to show that they aren't all about numbers (important for when the GPA/MCAT range is requested).

Do you deny that this exists?

We have seen examples of University policy which, presumably in an attempt to fulfill the federal law, failed to adhere to the spirit of the original mandates. To "deny" that these examples exist is foolish. Strictly speaking, this is in no way semantically akin to "race-based" affirmative action despite your attempts to suggest otherwise.

 

[Calculon]

I find it difficult to believe that one could walk away with the impression that I'm linking "race-based" affirmative action to anything at all. That is why I'm asking YOU to define it for us.



Which makes little sense, especially for someone with "interests" in law. Even more disturbing are earlier posts that suggest a different argument and seem to oppose your most recent position:



I think it's clear that you are being duplicitous at this point, not just in vernacular but with actual intention. Even if we reduce your argument solely to University policies that involve racial preferences, you are assuming that across American academic institutions, these internal regulations are the norm rather than the exception. Couch potatoes who watch small claims court shows know that this is insufficient. Unfortunately your method to garner evidence, detailed below, will fail due in large part to the facts that the application pool for ORMs is far larger than that of the URMs.



Coincidentally, a major beneficiary of smaller pool sizes are sub-average ORMs whom, based on the conventional SDN wisdom, are more likely to be granted an acceptance if he/she applies early than counterparts with similar scores that apply later. The advice is grounded in the idea that there are fewer of them are in the pipeline at early time-points in the process coupled with the notion that institutions, even Ivies, choose at least a few sub-average ORM students for each class to show that they aren't all about numbers (important for when the GPA/MCAT range is requested).



We have seen examples of University policy which, presumably in an attempt to fulfill the federal law, failed to adhere to the spirit of the original mandates. To "deny" that these examples exist is foolish. Strictly speaking, this is in no way semantically akin to "race-based" affirmative action despite your attempts to suggest otherwise.

I have clearly defined it for you. In addition, given that this is the STUDENT doctor network, I think it was pretty clear that I was talking about STUDENTS (especially since I said "including universities" in my original post. I didn't invent the term - if you want further clarification of what race-based affirmative action means, then google it (as I have already provided you with the link).

Have you read the previous 3 pages of this thread? If so, you would have noticed that many of your peers have admitted that universities prefer certain races over others (to some extent) for the purposes of admissions.

You do realize that public universities are agents of the state, right? For the purposes of determining constitutionality, there's no difference between the state and a public university. That's why the equal protection clause is relevant here. That's why SCOTUS is taking 2 cases on this issue. They don't grant cert to cases just for kicks.

Based on conventional SDN wisdom?? That's your source? You have absolutely NO evidence for this. It's absurd that you're trying to make it look like sub-average ORM's have an advantage. Anyway, it's completely irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. This is not about the supposed advantages of sub-average ORM's. This is about racial discrimination. The number of spots that can be granted is scarce; whenever you give preference to one group in a scarce environment, another group is discriminated against.

In any event, if you had looked back earlier in the thread, you would have seen that this method was supposed to be used in a hypothetical world - where AA has already been struck down. If we're talking about the real and present, there is no need for such a method. If you look at the AAMC Table 25, the evidence is clear: After controlling for GPA and MCAT, URM's are significantly more likely than whites and asians to be accepted. There's your racial preference. If you still deny this, read the headline of this LA times article. There are many others that you can find with a simple google search (even proponents of AA admit racial preferences exist).

Your naivete is very telling, as is your repeated failure to answer my question. How is the MCRI unconstitutional? How does race-based discrimination for the purposes of admissions survive strict scrutiny? How can you possibly reconcile race-based discrimination and the Equal Protection clause?

 

[as1212559]

ITT: Tons of butthurt suburban Volvo racists.



Let's begin!

Yes the weekly URM thread!

ITT: Lots of premeds with too much time on their hands and

We have 2 going right now!

I always wonder how many SDN personalities opinions will change when they enter the professional world.

I always wonder how many will change if they ever take a wrong turn out of Wysteria Lane and end up across the tracks.

And I'm sure there will be court cases on whatever those factors are also. That's a debate for another day.

No there wont, because med schools can choose to reject or accepts based on whatever qualitative measures they please.

Agreed. Adcoms can reject anyone for any reason.

😕 I hope you are being sarcastic.

No, he isn't. Let's talk after you apply.

What would these "other qualitative characteristics" be? If you're referring to individualized characteristics (like great essays, unique life experiences, etc.), that wouldn't work because, if it were solely due those kinds of reasons, then there shouldn't be a significant difference between acceptance rates of URM's and non-URM's, after controlling for stats.

I'm not sure what the med school's explanation would be. I can't think of any reason (other than race) that could legitimately explain the acceptance rate differences between URM's and non-URM's. Essentially, the med school would be forced to lie and make up an excuse for the difference. Whatever the reason, it's not like SCOTUS would simply take them at their word, and that's why I believe that such a "hide the real reason" strategy wouldn't work.

Life experiences.
Diversity (and no, not the racial kind).
Connection to schools mission statement.
Better music (not srs, but semi srs because ADCOMs can do whatever they want)

Good for you. Pick on people if that makes you feel better. The irony is that you're proving yourself to be what you called me.

Okay. 55 post pre-med or several thousand post med student who has been dumping invaluable advice on this forum forever? I wonder who the 0/10 troll really is.




You're all butthurt. No matter what SCOTUS does, med schools will still be able to fill their classes however they want. More importantly, it doesn't affect you at all. Because as we've stated countless times on SDN....the only person keeping you out of med school is you.

 

[Calculon]

ITT: Tons of butthurt suburban Volvo racists.



Let's begin!



We have 2 going right now!

I always wonder how many will change if they ever take a wrong turn out of Wysteria Lane and end up across the tracks.

No there wont, because med schools can choose to reject or accepts based on whatever qualitative measures they please.


No, he isn't. Let's talk after you apply.

Life experiences.
Diversity (and no, not the racial kind).
Connection to schools mission statement.
Better music (not srs, but semi srs because ADCOMs can do whatever they want)

Okay. 55 post pre-med or several thousand post med student who has been dumping invaluable advice on this forum forever? I wonder who the 0/10 troll really is.




You're all butthurt. No matter what SCOTUS does, med schools will still be able to fill their classes however they want. More importantly, it doesn't affect you at all. Because as we've stated countless times on SDN....the only person keeping you out of med school is you.

I have applied and been accepted. Please actually read the thread before posting inane and insulting comments. All of these points have been addressed.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

Med schools have plenty of other arbitrary and subjective criteria they can use to mask off-the-books AA.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717

Which is what the UCs in CA do with undergrad admissions even though CA "got rid of AA."

 

[rodmichael82]

So, Earth people are kidnapped, taken to Mars, enslaved for few hundred years but are not taught how to read or write the Martian language or to use advanced Martian technology. Then one day, the Earthlings are "freed", which consists mainly of being turned out of the homes of their Martian masters with no food, no money, no way to get back to Earth even if they wanted to go and no training in anything except being personal servants to Martians. Even then the Martians pass laws that prohibit the equal rights of Earthlings by discriminating and passing segregation laws. Just how long would we expect it to take for these Earthlings to "adjust" and "be successful" in Martian society under those conditions?


Earth people= African Americans, Martians= Caucasians. The truth hurts now doesn't it?

 

[Lexdiamondz]

So, Earth people are kidnapped, taken to Mars, enslaved for few hundred years but are not taught how to read or write the Martian language or to use advanced Martian technology. Then one day, the Earthlings are "freed", which consists mainly of being turned out of the homes of their Martian masters with no food, no money, no way to get back to Earth even if they wanted to go and no training in anything except being personal servants to Martians. Even then the Martians pass laws that prohibit the equal rights of Earthlings by discriminating and passing segregation laws. Just how long would we expect it to take for these Earthlings to "adjust" and "be successful" in Martian society under those conditions?


Earth people= African Americans, Martians= Caucasians. The truth hurts now doesn't it?

Dont even bother with the analogies...the significance is lost on these people.

 

[rodmichael82]

I thought it was interesting how he never once mentioned Asians, who were subject to discrimination and racism just as much as Blacks or Latinos in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. Furthermore, he ignores the waves of inherently disadvantaged Asian refugees who came to the United States in the later parts of the 20th century.

Why is it fair that an upper middle class black kid gets affirmative action, but a boy from a poor Hmong refugee family doesn't?

1) First you need to address the racism that Asians faced from other Asians even till this day.
Japanese massacred hundreds of thousands of Chinese in China (Nanking massacre). The oppression of asians occurred prior to Asians coming to the US by their OWN.

2) Asians never faced slavery. There are different effects from discrimination and slavery+discrimination. Asians were never loaded up on ships, shackled and enslaved in America.

I absolutely love how Asians want to compare themselves to African American. NOT EVEN CLOSE BUDDY read up on your history.

I want to ask you now:-

So, Earth people are kidnapped, taken to Mars, enslaved for few hundred years but are not taught how to read or write the Martian language or to use advanced Martian technology. Then one day, the Earthlings are "freed", which consists mainly of being turned out of the homes of their Martian masters with no food, no money, no way to get back to Earth even if they wanted to go and no training in anything except being personal servants to Martians. Even then the Martians pass laws that prohibit the equal rights of Earthlings by discriminating and passing segregation laws. Just how long would we expect it to take for these Earthlings to "adjust" and "be successful" in Martian society under those conditions?


Earth people= African Americans, Martians= Caucasians. The truth hurts now doesn't it?

 

[Calculon]

1) First you need to address the racism that Asians faced from other Asians even till this day.
Japanese massacred hundreds of thousands of Chinese in China (Nanking massacre). The oppression of asians occurred prior to Asians coming to the US by their OWN.

2) Asians never faced slavery. There are different effects from discrimination and slavery+discrimination. Asians were never loaded up on ships, shackled and enslaved in America.

I absolutely love how Asians want to compare themselves to African American. NOT EVEN CLOSE BUDDY read up on your history.

I want to ask you now:-

So, Earth people are kidnapped, taken to Mars, enslaved for few hundred years but are not taught how to read or write the Martian language or to use advanced Martian technology. Then one day, the Earthlings are "freed", which consists mainly of being turned out of the homes of their Martian masters with no food, no money, no way to get back to Earth even if they wanted to go and no training in anything except being personal servants to Martians. Even then the Martians pass laws that prohibit the equal rights of Earthlings by discriminating and passing segregation laws. Just how long would we expect it to take for these Earthlings to "adjust" and "be successful" in Martian society under those conditions?


Earth people= African Americans, Martians= Caucasians. The truth hurts now doesn't it?

So immigrants such as Asians who came here after slavery and had nothing to do with instituting slavery should be punished?

I love how you assume that the poster was is an Asian, and further, how all Asians love to compare themselves to blacks. Yes, slavery was a tragedy. A horrible mistake in history. But there's nothing we can do about that now. All we can do is look at the discrimination that exists TODAY. Asians face much discrimination, as do gays and religious minorities. Why is that none of these other groups matter?

In any case, I started this thread not to discuss the moral aspects of affirmative action but rather to discuss the legal ramifications of SCOTUS's consideration of the MCRI. So I pose this question again: How is the MCRI unconstitutional? And how can you reconcile race-based discrimination with the equal protection clause?

 

[rodmichael82]

So immigrants such as Asians who came here after slavery and had nothing to do with instituting slavery should be punished?

I love how you assume that the poster was is an Asian, and further, how all Asians love to compare themselves to blacks. Yes, slavery was a tragedy. A horrible mistake in history. But there's nothing we can do about that now. All we can do is look at the discrimination that exists TODAY. Asians face much discrimination, as do gays and religious minorities. Why is that none of these other groups matter?

In any case, I started this thread not to discuss the moral aspects of affirmative action but rather to discuss the legal ramifications of SCOTUS's consideration of the MCRI. So I pose this question again: How is the MCRI unconstitutional? And how can you reconcile race-based discrimination with the equal protection clause?

How about you answer my question before trolling?

 

[Calculon]

How about you answer my question before trolling?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

Dont even bother with the analogies...the significance is lost on these people.

Exactly, there are people on SDN who actually believe African-Americans have a lower IQ due to genetics. These same people don't understand why schools want URMs.

 

[Calculon]

Exactly, there are people on SDN who actually believe African-Americans have a lower IQ due to genetics. These same people don't understand why schools want URMs.

I believe that's the 2nd time we've been accused of racism in this thread. Or is it the 3rd? Ah, who's counting anymore anyway?

 

[rodmichael82]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

A troll is someone fulfilling the weekly quota of URM threads. There's tons of threads on this BS so STOP TROLLING.

 

[Calculon]

A troll is someone fulfilling the weekly quota of URM threads. There's tons of threads on this BS so STOP TROLLING.

U mad bro?

Look, if you don't want to contribute to this thread, then don't post. It's that simple. I asked a legitimate question. If you don't think it's legitimate, then perhaps you should file a brief with SCOTUS.

 

[rodmichael82]

So immigrants such as Asians who came here after slavery and had nothing to do with instituting slavery should be punished?

I love how you assume that the poster was is an Asian, and further, how all Asians love to compare themselves to blacks. Yes, slavery was a tragedy. A horrible mistake in history. But there's nothing we can do about that now. All we can do is look at the discrimination that exists TODAY. Asians face much discrimination, as do gays and religious minorities. Why is that none of these other groups matter?

In any case, I started this thread not to discuss the moral aspects of affirmative action but rather to discuss the legal ramifications of SCOTUS's consideration of the MCRI. So I pose this question again: How is the MCRI unconstitutional? And how can you reconcile race-based discrimination with the equal protection clause?

Since you're too big of a coward to answer the question I will answer the question for you.

Q) So, Earth people are kidnapped, taken to Mars, enslaved for few hundred years but are not taught how to read or write the Martian language or to use advanced Martian technology. Then one day, the Earthlings are "freed", which consists mainly of being turned out of the homes of their Martian masters with no food, no money, no way to get back to Earth even if they wanted to go and no training in anything except being personal servants to Martians. Even then the Martians pass laws that prohibit the equal rights of Earthlings by discriminating and passing segregation laws. Just how long would we expect it to take for these Earthlings to "adjust" and "be successful" in Martian society under those conditions?

A) It will take a very long time. That is why we need affirmative action. Affirmative action is used to help under-represented minorities. Asians at one point qualified and benefited a lot from it. Socioeconomic success has led many colleges to no longer consider Asian Americans as an "underrepresented" minority group. That does not mean you should completely eliminate it and end the hope of other groups that still need help.

 

[Calculon]

Since you're too big of a coward to answer the question I will answer the question for you.

Q) So, Earth people are kidnapped, taken to Mars, enslaved for few hundred years but are not taught how to read or write the Martian language or to use advanced Martian technology. Then one day, the Earthlings are "freed", which consists mainly of being turned out of the homes of their Martian masters with no food, no money, no way to get back to Earth even if they wanted to go and no training in anything except being personal servants to Martians. Even then the Martians pass laws that prohibit the equal rights of Earthlings by discriminating and passing segregation laws. Just how long would we expect it to take for these Earthlings to "adjust" and "be successful" in Martian society under those conditions?

A) It will take a very long time. That is why we need affirmative action. Affirmative action was used to initially help under-represented minorities. Asians at one point qualified and benefited a lot from it. Socioeconomic success has led many colleges to no longer consider Asian Americans as an "underrepresented" minority group. That does not mean you should completely eliminate it and end the hope of other groups that still need help.

So I'm a coward for not answering your biased question? And did you answer either of mine? By your own logic, what does that make you?

Why do other groups who have been discriminated against (and some of whom are also underrepresented) not receive any preferential treatment?

How does race-based discrimination not violate the equal protection clause with a standard of strict scrutiny?

 

[Girly X]

🙄

 

[prado]

U mad bro?

Look, if you don't want to contribute to this thread, then don't post. It's that simple. I asked a legitimate question. If you don't think it's legitimate, then perhaps you should file a brief with SCOTUS.

Just about every single one of your 60+ posts, since you've joined, are in URM-related threads. It's obvious what your agenda is.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

I believe that's the 2nd time we've been accused of racism in this thread. Or is it the 3rd? Ah, who's counting anymore anyway?

You seem to be counting.

 

[Calculon]

Just about every single one of your 60+ posts, since you've joined, are in URM-related threads. It's obvious what your agenda is.

Classic ad hominem attack. What I do is irrelevant; instead of attacking me, why don't you respond to my arguments?

 

[Calculon]

You seem to be counting.

"Another problem is people who indiscriminately accuse others of racism or sexism. Illogical thinkers throw names and slurs around because they have no arguments with which to rebut their opponents. Rational people have to keep hammering their points home."

That's what Dr. Ben Carson said. I find it exceptionally relevant here.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

"Another problem is people who indiscriminately accuse others of racism or sexism. Illogical thinkers throw names and slurs around because they have no arguments with which to rebut their opponents. Rational people have to keep hammering their points home."

That's what Dr. Ben Carson said. I find it exceptionally relevant here.

Nobody accused anybody of anything.

 

[Calculon]

Nobody accused anybody of anything.

When you said:

"Exactly, there are people on SDN who actually believe African-Americans have a lower IQ due to genetics. These same people don't understand why schools want URMs."

Were you just casually mentioning that at this point in the thread with no purpose in mind? Nice backtracking.

So far, I've been accused of being a pompous, cowardly racist with reading comprehension problems. Is that really the best you guys can come up with?

Answer these questions: How is the MCRI unconstitutional? How can you justify race-based discrimination in light of the equal protection clause?

 

[487806]

When you said:

"Exactly, there are people on SDN who actually believe African-Americans have a lower IQ due to genetics. These same people don't understand why schools want URMs."

Were you just casually mentioning that at this point in the thread with no purpose in mind? Nice backtracking.

So far, I've been accused of being a pompous, cowardly racist with reading comprehension problems. Is that really the best you guys can come with?

Answer this question: How is the MCRI unconstitutional?

Answer: it isn't.

 

[Calculon]

Answer: it isn't.

Yes, but judging by the vitriol that I've been subjected to on this thread, there are 2 possibilities:

1. They don't think it is.
2. They know it really isn't, but don't want to admit it. (which personally I find more likely, since no one has offered even a basic justification)

 

[Arbor Vitae]

When you said:

"Exactly, there are people on SDN who actually believe African-Americans have a lower IQ due to genetics. These same people don't understand why schools want URMs."

Were you just casually mentioning that at this point in the thread with no purpose in mind? Nice backtracking.

So far, I've been accused of being a pompous, cowardly racist with reading comprehension problems. Is that really the best you guys can come up with?

Answer these questions: How is the MCRI unconstitutional? How can you justify race-based discrimination in light of the equal protection clause?

I meant exactly what I said. There are some people on here who believe that, and I know because I've talked about it with them. Did I even mention you?

 

[rodmichael82]

So I'm a coward for not answering your biased question? And did you answer either of mine? By your own logic, what does that make you?

Why do other groups who have been discriminated against (and some of whom are also underrepresented) not receive any preferential treatment?

How does race-based discrimination not violate the equal protection clause with a standard of strict scrutiny?

It all boils down to the meaning of under-represented minority. Let's look at the patient population today.

White or European American :- 72.4 %
Black or African American:- 12.6 %
Asian American:- 4.8 %
American Indian or Alaska Native:- 0.9 %
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander:- 0.2 %


Now let's look at the physician graduates from US MD medical school demographics.

White:- 75 %
Black or African American:- 6.3 %
Asian American 12.8 %
American Indian:- 0.5 %

https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Diversity in the Physician Workforce Facts and Figures 2010.pdf

Do you not see the problem here?
The ORM are classified as ORM and URM are classified as URM.
The fact of the matter is that to END health care disparities of such kind it is important to recruit "under-represented minorities". African Americans tend to have lower grades OVERALL based on their background. Yes there are rich African Americans, middle class. I know we have Lebron James out there and Kobe bryant but not every African is in that situation so I'm talking about in the general scheme of things. No one in their right mind can say that centuries of slavery and discrimination will not impact an entire race for at least the same amount of time?
It is important that we put that into consideration.

People keep whining about URM and all the disadvantages that it gives. What about the legacies? the big donors? the unqualified whites and asians that get into medical school (there's a bunch in my class even more than the URM). I attend a school that is in middle of a city which is almost 70 % African American yet out class has < 5 % African American medical students and that's thanks to affirmative action. What are we supposed to do tell patients that hey even though you're mostly black we don't have enough African american physicians.

African American patients and patients in general feel more comfortable with physicians of their own kind. I've worked in tons of clinics and seen it multiple times. Hell why should African Americans trust every single white doctor? Do you think they forgot about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? NO.

 

[Calculon]

I meant exactly what I said. There are some people on here who believe that, and I know because I've talked about it with them. Did I even mention you?

Your vagueness is a pretty bad defense. In any event, others on this thread have said or implied that I was a racist.

 

[Calculon]

It all boils down to the meaning of under-represented minority. Let's look at the patient population today.

White or European American 223,553,265 72.4 %
Black or African American 38,929,319 12.6 %
Asian American 14,674,252 4.8 %
American Indian or Alaska Native 2,932,248 0.9 %
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 540,013 0.2 %
Some other race 19,107,368 6.2 %
Two or more races 9,009,073 2.9 %

Now let's look at the physician graduates from US MD medical school demographics.

White:- 75 %
Black or African American:- 6.3 %
Asian American 12.8 %
American Indian:- 0.5 %

https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Diversity in the Physician Workforce Facts and Figures 2010.pdf

Do you not see the problem here?
The ORM are classified as ORM and URM are classified as URM.
The fact of the matter is that to END health care disparities of such kind it is important to recruit "under-represented minorities". African Americans tend to have lower grades OVERALL based on the culture, background. No one in their right mind can say that 200 years of slavery will not impact an entire race for at least the same amount of time?
It is important that we put that into consideration.

People keep whining about URM and all the disadvantages that it gives. What about the legacies? the big donors? the unqualified whites and asians that get into medical school (there's a bunch in my class even more than the URM). I attend a school that is in middle of a city which is almost 70 % African American yet out class has < 5 % African American medical students and that's thanks to affirmative action. What are we supposed to do tell patients that hey even though you're mostly black we don't have enough African american physicians.

African American patients and patients in general feel more comfortable with physicians of their own kind. I've worked in tons of clinics and seen it multiple times. Hell why should African Americans trust every single white doctor? Do you think they forgot about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? NO.

I don't doubt that african americans are underrepresented in medicine. But your assertion that affirmative action will END health disparities is laughable. We have affirmative action in most med schools in the U.S. today, and we still have terrible health disparities. Even if did, affirmative action is very restrictive because it eliminates potential spots for other applicants. There are other ways, such as efforts to recruit minority students (by advertising and outreach programs, NOT racial preferences), scholarship funding, incentives for physicians to work in rural and underserved areas, class-based affirmative action, etc. Race-based affirmative action is not the only program that can help in this area by a longshot. But it is one of the most restrictive and discriminatory. That fact alone means it does not survive strict scrutiny.

Btw, your entire argument falls apart when we talk about undergrad and other graduate programs. There are no patients to serve in these programs.

Once again, how is the MCRI unconstitutional? How can you justify racial discrimination in light of the equal protection clause?

p.s.

If you would like to me start a thread about legacy admissions, I'd be happy to do so. In fact, start it yourself and I'll contribute.

 

[rodmichael82]

I don't doubt that african americans are underrepresented in medicine. But your assertion that affirmative action will END health disparities is laughable. We have affirmative action in most med schools in the U.S. today, and we still have terrible health disparities. Even if did, affirmative action is very restrictive because it eliminates potential spots for other applicants. There are other ways, such as efforts to recruit minority students (by advertising and outreach programs, NOT racial preferences), scholarship funding, incentives for physicians to work in rural and underserved areas, class-based affirmative action, etc. Race-based affirmative action is not the only program that can help in this area by a longshot. But it is one of the most restrictive and discriminatory. That fact alone means it does not survive strict scrutiny.

Btw, your entire argument falls apart when we talk about undergrad and other graduate programs. There are no patients to serve in these programs.

Once again, how is the MCRI unconstitutional? How can you justify racial discrimination in light of the equal protection clause?

p.s.

If you would like to me start a thread about legacy admissions, I'd be happy to do so. In fact, start it yourself and I'll contribute.

I just realized that almost every single post you've made on SDN is based on race, affirmative action and stuff like that. I'm a medical student and as much as I would love to entertain a premed on SDN, I can't. Let me know when you have something else to contribute to this forum than troll threads. I would suggest you write letters to law makers regarding affirmative action instead of starting unnecessary drama on here. This is a forum based on helping individuals with medical school not an affirmative action frontier. Seriously dude grow the F up.

 

[Calculon]

I just realized that almost every single post you've made on SDN is based on race, affirmative action and stuff like that. I'm a medical student and as much as I would love to entertain a premed on SDN, I can't. Let me know when you have something else to contribute to this forum than troll threads. I would suggest you write letters to law makers regarding affirmative action instead of starting unnecessary drama on here. This is a forum based on helping individuals with medical school not an affirmative action frontier. Seriously dude grow the F up.

Copied and pasted from above (kind of getting tired of saying the same thing):

Classic ad hominem attack. What I do is irrelevant; instead of attacking me, why don't you respond to my arguments?

Don't get angry just because you cannot answer ANY of the questions that I have posed.

 

[rodmichael82]

Copied and pasted from above (kind of getting tired of saying the same thing):

Classic ad hominem attack. What I do is irrelevant; instead of attacking me, why don't you respond to my arguments?

Don't get angry just because you cannot answer ANY of the questions that I have posed.

Cool story bro. How about you get into med school and then we can talk

 

[Calculon]

Cool story bro. How about you get into med school and then we can talk

I have. If you had read the thread, you'd know that I was asked that twice already. It's pretty irrelevant anyway. Respond to my arguments instead of attacking me.

 

[La Presse]

Copied and pasted from above (kind of getting tired of saying the same thing):

Classic ad hominem attack. What I do is irrelevant; instead of attacking me, why don't you respond to my arguments?

Don't get angry just because you cannot answer ANY of the questions that I have posed.

It's wonderful that you love arguing about 'race-based affirmative action,' but I have read this thread carefully. You don't seem to be responding well to those who oppose you, especially with cogent logic, only those that are adamant about contributing anything substantial in your eyes and those that call you out on your bigotry. Interesting.

 

[487806]

It's wonderful that you love arguing about 'race-based affirmative action,' but I have read this thread carefully. You don't seem to be responding well to those who oppose you, especially with cogent logic, only those that are adamant about contributing anything substantial in your eyes and those that call you out on your bigotry. Interesting.

I forgot what the main argument was. I was talking about Proposal 2 and the constitutional validity. Apparently, the thread was shifted to URMs in medicine, which I really don't have a problem... I guess I'll step aside now, and read the thread again.

 

[Calculon]

It's wonderful that you love arguing about 'race-based affirmative action,' but I have read this thread carefully. You don't seem to be responding well to those who oppose you, especially with cogent logic, only those that are adamant about contributing anything substantial in your eyes and those that call you out on your bigotry. Interesting.

Another copy/paste:

"Another problem is people who indiscriminately accuse others of racism or sexism. Illogical thinkers throw names and slurs around because they have no arguments with which to rebut their opponents. Rational people have to keep hammering their points home."

That's what Dr. Ben Carson said. I find it exceptionally relevant here.

Add "bigot" to the list of names I have been called. Will the personal attacks ever stop? Don't get mad because you don't have an argument that stands up to even the most basic scrutiny.

Not sure why you put "race-based affirmative action" in quotation marks. Google it. Stop acting like I made up the term (Even proponents of AA use it!!)

No one has said anything substantial or answered any of my questions.

 

[Calculon]

I forgot what the main argument was. I was talking about Proposal 2 and the constitutional validity. Apparently, the thread was shifted to URMs in medicine, which I really don't have a problem... I guess I'll step aside now, and read the thread again.

Thanks Agent B. This is what I was trying to talk about from the start, but I've been dragged into this with personal attacks and distractions.

I must have asked the question I asked in my original post dozens of times by now. In the 190+ posts in this thread, please let me know if any one of them attempts to answer the question.

 

[Quadratic]

I have clearly defined it for you. In addition, given that this is the STUDENT doctor network, I think it was pretty clear that I was talking about STUDENTS (especially since I said "including universities" in my original post. I didn't invent the term - if you want further clarification of what race-based affirmative action means, then google it (as I have already provided you with the link).

Weak argument. If you stay around SDN or any forum long enough, you'd know that arguments not pertaining to the original intentions of the message board arise frequently. Even weaker is the fact that you fail to actually check out the links that are present within the google search! There is a variety of documents ranging from legal reviews that examine the interplay of international law of federally mandated AA to propaganda stemming from The Century Foundation closely resembling arguments that you are putting forth. It actually provides little clarification at all. You've since stated your supposed intentions, and even though it is not consistent with what you have previously post (see my last post) we will operate on that position going forward.

Have you read the previous 3 pages of this thread? If so, you would have noticed that many of your peers have admitted that universities prefer certain races over others (to some extent) for the purposes of admissions.

Even if every poster in this thread beside you were certified by SDN to be an ADCOM and stated that racial preferences exist in the admissions process at their undergraduate or medical school, that would not be enough to legally implicate the entirety of American academia. Additionally, this line of reason seems to collide directly with the following:

Based on conventional SDN wisdom?? That's your source? You have absolutely NO evidence for this.

I will admit that do not have any statistics to support my argument, only inference from the fact that the application pool grows significantly during the Fall months, that sub-average ORMs are accepted into medical school, and also opinions from medical school steering committee members, administrators, and yes SDN affiliates. Incidentally, this is more than what we can currently say for your presentation which rests solely on less than ten known cases of possible inconsistencies with federal law. Yet it is your opinion that these and the opinions of my "peers" is enough to warrant legal implication of hundreds of institutions. Furthermore, you have assumed that these practices are currently widespread enough to directly account for the relationships observed in the AAMC facts, an assumption without basis in anything substantial.

It's absurd that you're trying to make it look like sub-average ORM's have an advantage.

My argument is that sub-average ORMs that apply early have an advantage over their counterparts with similar stats that apply later. If you insist on formatting this conversation into a talk radio paradigm where you can misrepresent my actual arguments, then I will stop responding to your posts.

Anyway, it's completely irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. This is not about the supposed advantages of sub-average ORM's. This is about racial discrimination. The number of spots that can be granted is scarce; whenever you give preference to one group in a scarce environment, another group is discriminated against.

Not just in a scarce group, but in any setting. Do you have any substantial amount of confessions former ADCOMs, any certifiable testimony or sources selected broadly across the US that can testify to racial preferences practices in the admissions process? Do you have anything other than talking points?

You do realize that public universities are agents of the state, right? For the purposes of determining constitutionality, there's no difference between the state and a public university. That's why the equal protection clause is relevant here. That's why SCOTUS is taking 2 cases on this issue. They don't grant cert to cases just for kicks.

What exactly is this in response to? I've never mentioned anything about public universities. What's being presented before the Supreme Court represents policies by public universities that possibly conflict with both federally mandated AA and the equal protection clause. Striking down these policies holds no implication for the policies of other public institutions unless they too are explicitly inconsistent with the law.

In any event, if you had looked back earlier in the thread, you would have seen that this method was supposed to be used in a hypothetical world - where AA has already been struck down.

So "AA" or what you supposedly mean, university policies that employ racial preferences have been stricken down. Yet you advocate in step 3 that the SCOTUS orders universities to stop using "AA". This really doesn't make any sense. In order for SCOTUS to make such an order, it would have to specifically cite explicit policies from University documentation that violate the ruling. Yet there is no evidence of these policies existing across the board.

If we're talking about the real and present, there is no need for such a method. If you look at the AAMC Table 25, the evidence is clear: After controlling for GPA and MCAT, URM's are significantly more likely than whites and asians to be accepted. There's your racial preference.

You failed to acknowledge my previous point concerning application pool size. URMs have higher acceptance rates than ORMs at qualifying numbers because there are fewer of them that apply and qualify overall. If there were a true racial preference, one would expect this trend to be consistent regardless of the number of qualifying applicants, which is almost certainly untrue in medical school admissions.

Even within a hypothetical scenario, do you really believe that the information provided in the table is enough for the supreme court to implement step 3? This makes your following statement both ironic and laughable

Your naivete is very telling,

Carrying on...

How is the MCRI unconstitutional? How does race-based discrimination for the purposes of admissions survive strict scrutiny? How can you possibly reconcile race-based discrimination and the Equal Protection clause?

1) The ballot itself is not unconstitutional, but of significant interests are the determinants for "preferential treatment"? If it's merely what you've claimed above, the initiative is in severe trouble.

2) Strict scrutiny from whom? University officials or the legal system? It's clear that there are differing views within the legal system, which is certain, specific University policies have reached the SCOTUS.

3) If you can actually prove that the race-based discrimination exists, there's no justifiable way to do so.

 

[La Presse]

Another copy/paste:

"Another problem is people who indiscriminately accuse others of racism or sexism. Illogical thinkers throw names and slurs around because they have no arguments with which to rebut their opponents. Rational people have to keep hammering their points home."

That's what Dr. Ben Carson said. I find it exceptionally relevant here.

Add "bigot" to the list of names I have been called. Will the personal attacks ever stop? Don't get mad because you don't have an argument that stands up to even the most basic scrutiny.

Not sure why you put "race-based affirmative action" in quotation marks. Google it. Stop acting like I made up the term (Even proponents of AA use it!!)

No one has said anything substantial or answered any of my questions.

False. It's kind of annoying. You say something provocative and someone regurgitates the typical defending argument. What more are you looking for? We have already explained to you about the goal of superior patient care in undeserved communities, which is the primary goal of recruiting minorities. Even though you claim that policies like this are 'unconstitutional' as per the Equal Protection Clause, can you say that the minorities are unqualified to be there? Nope. These people do well in medical school and become practicing clinicians, academic faculty, or physician-scientists., match into very competitive residencies and undergo the rigorous training involved to be a physician. Not every minority has subpar scores. I certainly don't. 😉

Happy Easter by the way--if you believe in that kind of stuff. 🙂

 

[Calculon]

Quadratic:

If you can't understand my original post, that's your problem. I asked what would be the impact on public universities. This whole thread was supposed to be about the legality of affirmative action policies at universities and the legality of Proposal 2. But various posters have dragged this into a moral URM debate.

The sub-average ORM argument you made is at best unsupported. At worst, it is false. But more importantly, it is irrelevant. We're talking about race-based discrimination, not sub-average ORM's.

Again, that whole step 1-4 thing was hypothetical (in a world where AA was already stricken down). I didn't even initially write the 4 steps, another poster did.

When you say, "URMs have higher acceptance rates than ORMs at qualifying numbers because there are fewer of them that apply and qualify overall", that doesn't make any sense. The absolute numbers will be different but the RATES should be the same if no racial preferences are being given. That's clearly not the case in Table 25.

Table 25 is strong evidence of racial preferences by university admission policies. Unless you believe that URM's are so much better with qualitative factors (essays, EC's, etc.), there is no reason why the acceptance rate for URM's should be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the acceptance rate for ORM's, after controlling for GPA/MCAT. It's clear that the reason is affirmative action policies that establish racial preferences.

Why is the MCRI unconstitutional? Saying that it's "in severe trouble" is not an answer. On what specific grounds is it unconstitutional?

Do you know what strict scrutiny is? I'm using the formal legal definition of that term, not a casual one. Discrimination based on race (a suspect class) is subject to strict scrutiny.

 

[Calculon]

False. It's kind of annoying. You say something provocative and someone regurgitates the typical defending argument. What more are you looking for? We have already explained to you about the goal of superior patient care in undeserved communities, which is the primary goal of recruiting minorities. Even though you claim that policies like this are 'unconstitutional' as per the Equal Protection Clause, can you say that the minorities are unqualified to be there? Nope. These people do well in medical school and become practicing clinicians, academic faculty, or physician-scientists., match into very competitive residencies and undergo the rigorous training involved to be a physician. Not every minority has subpar scores. I certainly don't. 😉

Happy Easter by the way--if you believe in that kind of stuff. 🙂

That's not the point.

"Superior patient care in underserved communnities" has NOT been achieved by race-based affirmative action. Not even close. There are other ways of achieving the same result as I mentioned above. Even if it race-based affirmative action had that result, it is unconstitutionally restrictive, as it discriminates against all those applicants who were not given such preference on the basis of race. If you want to discriminate based on race, you have to meet strict scrutiny. That test has not been met.

Again, your argument falls apart when it comes to undergrad and other graduate admissions. There are no patients. What is the compelling government interest here?

Happy Easter to you, too.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

Your vagueness is a pretty bad defense. In any event, others on this thread have said or implied that I was a racist.

Since when was I defending myself? I replied to somebody else initially.

 

[Quadratic]

If you can't understand my original post, that's your problem. I asked what would be the impact on public universities. This whole thread was supposed to be about the legality of affirmative action policies at universities and the legality of Proposal 2. But various posters have dragged this into a moral URM debate.

It's difficult to follow threads that are supposedly legally inclined but yet the initiator refuses to use legally correct terminology. You have made ridiculous assertions throughout this thread, even asserting that states have sanctioned racial discrimination. This thread is really about you using talking points and misrepresentations under the guise of legal formality.

The sub-average ORM argument you made is false, but more importantly, irrelevant.

Amazingly, you present no counter-evidence or counter-example to determine that the argument is "false." Is this your idea of logical discussion?

We're talking about race-based discrimination, not sub-average ORM's.

We're also talking about medical school admissions practices, to which my argument is indeed related. What I am illuminating the reality that medical school admissions committees are not only compartmentalizing URMs from ORMs, but also sub-average ORMs from average to above average ORMs, rural ORMs from city ORMs, applicants with specific interests (global health, community health, etc) vs. those without specific interests, etc. My hypothesis is that smaller pool sizes and early application times benefit sub-average ORMs, just as it is likely that smaller pool sizes benefit URMs.

When you say, "URMs have higher acceptance rates than ORMs at qualifying numbers because there are fewer of them that apply and qualify overall", that doesn't make any sense. The absolute numbers will be different but the RATES should be the same if no racial preferences are being given. That's clearly not the case in Table 25.

Again, this information does not prove the existence of racial preference. Racial preference is independent of the number of applicants from each racial group. There is no indication, from historical preference or otherwise, that this sort of relationship exists or will hold given higher number of applicants (and assuming that the GPA/MCAT distribution remains faithful).

It's clear that the reason is affirmative action policies that establish racial preferences.

Another statement that doesn't make sense. We are all under the impression that "AA" in your usage referred directly to racial-preferences in admissions?

Why is the MCRI unconstitutional? Saying that it's "in severe trouble" is not an answer. On what specific grounds is it unconstitutional?

The grounds for determining constitutionality IMO depend on the specific determinants for racial preference. The cleverness of using a ballot is that important terms like "preference" need not be defined. The downside is that there now exists biases in how those terms are interpreted, which have serious consequences. For example, you are convinced that preferential treatment exists in admissions even though you have not really substantiated it.

Do you know what strict scrutiny is? I'm using the formal legal definition of that term, not a casual one.

Given your propensity to inter-change one legal terms with non-legal policies, I assume very little when analyzing your posts. Given that we know understand your POV on "strict scrutiny", I believe that I have answered sufficiently in previous posts. The fact that it has reached SCOTUS implies that it's viability is in question.

 

[Calculon]

It's difficult to follow threads that are supposedly legally inclined but yet the initiator refuses to use legally correct terminology. You have made ridiculous assertions throughout this thread, even asserting that states have sanctioned racial discrimination. This thread is really about you using talking points and misrepresentations under the guise of legal formality.



Amazingly, you present no counter-evidence or counter-example to determine that the argument is "false." Is this your idea of logical discussion?



We're also talking about medical school admissions practices, to which my argument is indeed related. What I am illuminating the reality that medical school admissions committees are not only compartmentalizing URMs from ORMs, but also sub-average ORMs from average to above average ORMs, rural ORMs from city ORMs, applicants with specific interests (global health, community health, etc) vs. those without specific interests, etc. My hypothesis is that smaller pool sizes and early application times sub-average ORMs, just as it is likely that smaller pool sizes benefit URMs.



Again, this information does not prove the existence of racial preference. Racial preference is independent of the number of applicants from each racial group. There is no indication, from historical preference or otherwise, that this sort of relationship exists or will hold given higher number of applicants (and assuming that the GPA/MCAT distribution remains faithful).



Another statement that doesn't make sense. We are all under the impression that "AA" in your usage referred directly to racial-preferences in admissions?



The grounds for constitutionality IMO depend on the specific determinants for racial preference. The cleverness of using a ballot is that important terms like "preference" need not be defined. The downside is that there now exists biases in how those terms are interpreted, which have serious consequences. For example, you are convinced that preferential treatment exists in admissions even though you have not really substantiated it.



Given your propensity to inter-change one legal terms with non-legal policies, I assume very little when analyzing your posts. Given that we know understand your POV on "strict scrutiny", I believe that I have answered sufficiently in previous posts. The fact that it has reached SCOTUS implies that it's viability is in question.

Once again, do you realize that public universities and the state are synonymous for the purposes of determining constitutionality of an affirmative action policy? They're the SAME thing.

I didn't care to rebut your "sub-average ORM" argument" because it was irrelevant. In addition, you supported your claim with NO evidence. Why should I be expected to provide any in return? Everyone has the same opportunity to get their apps in early. No one can choose their particular race. That's why race is a suspect class, and no one cares about application time. Again, you've offered no evidence. It's racial discrimination. Period.

The rates are what matter. Not absolute numbers. Let's put it this way. Let's say a fairly average GPA and MCAT would be 3.40-3.59 and 30-32, respectively. A black applicant with these stats would have a 93.2% chance of being accepted. In contrast, an Asian applicant with the same stats would have...wait for it....only a 48% chance of being accepted! Over a 40% pt difference. And you're going to tell me that the black applicants had such amazing EC's relative to Asian applicants that would justify this. No, that's not reasonable. There is a clear racial preference here. You have offered no evidence for your small applicant pool theory. In the absence of any clear competing evidence, we must go by the rates published by the AAMC.

I have substantiated racial preference in admissions. Many news articles discuss this, which you can find by the google search I suggested earlier. You seem to be the only one denying that racial preferences are being given.

I have been extremely constant with the usage of the terminology and with my argument. You don't seem to understand the definition of strict scrutiny (you have provided no such evidence for it in earlier posts, as you have suggested). You must PROVE that there is a compelling governmental interest. You must PROVE that the affirmative action policy is narrowly tailored. And you must PROVE that the affirmative action policy is the least restrictive means of achieving said compelling governmental interest. You have failed to provide each of these necessary components.

I am extremely tired of trying to convince those that respond only with personal attacks and offer neither substantial argument nor legal justification.

This will be my final post on this thread for now. Personally, I believe there's a reason that SCOTUS is hearing 2 affirmative action cases (Fisher and Schuette) in the span of a year. I will revisit this thread when the Supreme Court rules on this issue and hopefully puts state-sanctioned race-based discrimination to an end for good. I hope then that you will understand the logic of why affirmative action is unconstitutional.

Have a happy Easter.