Writing for Breitbart as an EC?

[aldol16]

---

Members do not see this ad.

As I said before, one would hope that the committee would have had some sort of training on biases to know that A doesn't always imply B. You're capable of making that distinction, I'm capable of making that distinction, why are you so quick to say that an adcom member wouldn't be able to make that distinction?

Impressions matter and are not quantifiable. Humans want to be fair but our implicit biases are hard to get rid of even when we know that it's there. Many experiments have showed just that with white-black relations.

 

[finnabeadoc]

.

 

[fourandtwo]

Whether we kill chickens for food or a wolf kills a chicken for food, they are going to die. Chickens don't generally die from old age and get to reminisce about their wonderful chicken lives. Personally, i'd rather get decapitated than get eaten alive by another animal.

I also think that a big percentage of vegans/ vegetarians do it for environmental purposes. Agriculture, particularly raising cattle, is one of the largest, if not THE largest environmental issue.

Others do it for personal health reasons.

By the way I am a non-vegetarian environmental consultant.

 

[aldol16]

From what's presented, OP's friend apparently wrote articles and did some administrative work. That's a bit more involved than just doing software work or interning out of interest. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I would be comfortable listing Breitbart on my AMCAS since it's not something to be proud of (although personally, I wouldn't work at Breitbart at all).

Maybe you have the luxury of choice but if a broke college student's only job offer is Breitbart, they're gonna take it. Surviving is more important than any potential implications in the future.

Administrative work and articles is vague. Again, you assume that every article on there is the work of a nutjob. Why do you think this? There are well-reasoned conservative pieces on there - rare, but they exist. Just because they're conservative doesn't mean that they're lunatics.

For the others on here, quashing conservative viewpoints also isn't helpful. Not all conservatives believe that ACA should be repealed or drastically altered to the current Senate version. If the whole point of programs aimed at increasing diversity in medicine is to improve patient outcomes since patients prefer physicians who are like them, whether that's racial, SES, or politically. A conservative patient is going to prefer a conservative physician who may not be so eager to suggest abortion as an option. It's the same logic.

 

[Lawpy]

Maybe you have the luxury of choice but if a broke college student's only job offer is Breitbart, they're gonna take it. Surviving is more important than any potential implications in the future.

Administrative work and articles is vague. Again, you assume that every article on there is the work of a nutjob. Why do you think this? There are well-reasoned conservative pieces on there - rare, but they exist. Just because they're conservative doesn't mean that they're lunatics.

For the others on here, quashing conservative viewpoints also isn't helpful. Not all conservatives believe that ACA should be repealed or drastically altered to the current Senate version. If the whole point of programs aimed at increasing diversity in medicine is to improve patient outcomes since patients prefer physicians who are like them, whether that's racial, SES, or politically. A conservative patient is going to prefer a conservative physician who may not be so eager to suggest abortion as an option. It's the same logic.

But it depends on level of involvement. OP's friend was pretty much deeply involved with the work at Breitbart if they were writing articles and doing administrative work, as opposed to doing simply software/tech support work. Writing articles for Breitbart given its general reputation can actually reveal personal viewpoints on the matter, and OP's friend is in fact opening themselves to criticism and scrutiny by the adcoms. Now adcoms should approach things neutrally but personal biases are involved when making admissions decisions. It's basically more trouble than it's worth and OP's friend isn't approaching the application cycle neutrally.

It's better to keep political opinions separate from application cycles.

 

[aldol16]

But it depends on level of involvement. OP's friend was pretty much deeply involved with the work at Breitbart if they were writing articles and doing administrative work, as opposed to doing simply software/tech support work. Writing articles for Breitbart given its general reputation can actually reveal personal viewpoints on the matter, and OP's friend is in fact opening themselves to criticism and scrutiny by the adcoms. Now adcoms should approach things neutrally but personal biases are involved when making admissions decisions. It's basically more trouble than it's worth and OP's friend isn't approaching the application cycle neutrally.

It's better to keep political opinions separate from application cycles.

I agree that because of human psychology, it's better not to mention it at all given Breitbart's reputation. But that is not my point. My point is that it shouldn't be a problem but it is because liberals have gotten to the point where anybody right-leaning is toxic. It's ironic - the hallmark of a liberal mind is to be open to other, reasoned viewpoints. There is absolutely no evidence here that OP's friend was writing inflammatory, alt-right articles. If he or she was, then I would question OP's friend's character.

Look at how people on here have responded to my simple example of interning in Mitch McConnell's office. Just from that, they were able to deduce that this person was against the ACA and wanted Obamacare dead! If you can read that from my simple scenario, then you should probably be a fortune-teller!

 

[freak7]

My point is that it shouldn't be a problem but it is because liberals have gotten to the point where anybody right-leaning is toxic. It's ironic - the hallmark of a liberal mind is to be open to other, reasoned viewpoints.

You're generalizing an attitude over a very large group of people which I do not believe to be a fair assessment of the whole.

 

[Lawpy]

I agree that because of human psychology, it's better not to mention it at all given Breitbart's reputation. But that is not my point. My point is that it shouldn't be a problem but it is because liberals have gotten to the point where anybody right-leaning is toxic. It's ironic - the hallmark of a liberal mind is to be open to other, reasoned viewpoints. There is absolutely no evidence here that OP's friend was writing inflammatory, alt-right articles. If he or she was, then I would question OP's friend's character.

The reasoning schools would use (though flawed) is because OP's friend wrote articles for a media known for inflammatory, alt-right views, OP's friend has inflammatory/alt-right ideas and should be rejected. Bad reasoning but nothing stops schools from using it. And writing articles is more involved activity than software/technical work so schools are more justified in their views.

 

[mariagefreres]

It's common sense not to mention religion and politics in applications. Then again, conservatives don't have much sense anyways.

 

[aldol16]

You're generalizing an attitude over a very large group of people which I do not believe to be a fair assessment of the whole.

I should say some liberals. I do not think this is true of all liberals, just like I do not think alt-right is a valid viewpoint of all conservatives.

 

[aldol16]

The reasoning schools would use (though flawed) is because OP's friend wrote articles for a media known for inflammatory, alt-right views, OP's friend has inflammatory/alt-right ideas and should be rejected. Bad reasoning but nothing stops schools from using it. And writing articles is more involved activity than software/technical work so schools are more justified in their views.

I understand this is the reasoning they would use. You're preaching to the choir. But just because an activity is "more involved" (whatever that's supposed to mean) doesn't mean that schools are more justified in their views. That's an error on your part. Just because I'm black and hang out in a rowdy area doesn't make you more justified in stopping me. The only thing that can justify such a viewpoint is if the articles written expressed those alt-right views.

 

[Lawpy]

It's common sense not to mention religion and politics in applications. Then again, conservatives don't have much sense anyways.

Ok thanks for proving @aldol16 point.

 

[mariagefreres]

Ok thanks for proving @aldol16 point.

He's too dense to understand why politics should be left out of medical school applications. Everyone knows to leave out polarizing topics regardless of whether you lean left or right. And conservatives do lack sense, I stand by that.

 

[Lawpy]

I understand this is the reasoning they would use. You're preaching to the choir. But just because an activity is "more involved" (whatever that's supposed to mean) doesn't mean that schools are more justified in their views. That's an error on your part. Just because I'm black and hang out in a rowdy area doesn't make you more justified in stopping me. The only thing that can justify such a viewpoint is if the articles written expressed those alt-right views.

Involvement was referring to political stances involved. It's hard to measure someone's political views if they are doing technical work. It's a lot easier to measure these political views if they are writing articles for a media like Breitbart given it's general reputation. Schools shouldn't be jumping to conclusion either way but they have more room to do so if someone is more actively involved.

 

[aldol16]

Involvement was referring to political stances involved. It's hard to measure someone's political views if they are doing technical work. It's a lot easier to measure these political views if they are writing articles for a media like Breitbart given it's general reputation. Schools shouldn't be jumping to conclusion either way but they have more room to do so if someone is more actively involved.

Again, it does not justify their actions. It makes it easier for them to make the excuse - but the excuse does not justify the act. The only thing that justifies the act is if the purpose of said act is actually true. That is, if they actually were expressing views contrary to the mission of the school.

 

[Light at end of tunnel]

Mate, don't. Play it safe. That has the potential of being seen as a Klan member as an EC. Well, maybe not that extreme, but its still very dangerous lol.

Klan?

 

[aldol16]

He's too dense to understand why politics should be left out of medical school applications. Everyone knows to leave out polarizing topics regardless of whether you lean left or right. And conservatives do lack sense, I stand by that.

I guess you're too dense then to understand what I'm saying. Everyone knows to leave out polarizing topics - you won't see me telling OP to mention it. But that doesn't mean this is what should be the case.

 

[freak7]

It's common sense not to mention religion and politics in applications.

Disagree, sometimes your religion or politics inform the rest of your application and paint a picture of you as a whole. Sure it can be somewhat risky to put them on your app but it can show your commitment to a long-term goal etc. For instance: I put on my app that I was elected to be a delegate for a candidate during the presidential primary. I put it on there because I thought it was an experience that I didn't anticipate many applicants had and it showed my commitment to the stuff I mentioned in my PS. I did not list the candidate by name, but I did have to say which party I was caucusing for solely because that was literally the name of the event.

Then again, conservatives don't have much sense anyways.

That's just inflammatory and unnecessary.

 

[Lawpy]

Again, it does not justify their actions. It makes it easier for them to make the excuse - but the excuse does not justify the act. The only thing that justifies the act is if the purpose of said act is actually true. That is, if they actually were expressing views contrary to the mission of the school.

Schools are free to interpret articles written for Breitbart to be contrary to their mission statement without actually having to read them. It's different from writing articles for other conservative media like the Wall Street Journal because of the overall reputation involved. So while someone working at Breitbart may have done so because they're broke, schools can freely dismiss their decision to do so to be a bad one.

 

[mariagefreres]

I guess you're too dense then to understand what I'm saying. Everyone knows to leave out polarizing topics - you won't see me telling OP to mention it. But that doesn't mean this is what should be the case.

Right, it shouldn't be the case but that's exactly why you DON'T put it down. If you do, I don't blame adcoms for judging you, that's at their discretion.

 

[aldol16]

Schools are free to interpret articles written for Breitbart to be contrary to their mission statement without actually having to read them. It's different from writing articles for other conservative media like the Wall Street Journal because of the overall reputation involved. So while someone working at Breitbart may have done so because they're broke, schools can freely dismiss their decision to do so to be a bad one.

Again, you keep listing what actions a school can take. We don't disagree about that. A school can look at a sentence in your PS that says "I met Donald Trump" and throw your app in the rejection pile without reading it. They can do that. But that doesn't mean they are justified in doing so. Both sides stereotype. Stereotyping is never justified.

 

[freak7]

Stereotyping is never justified.

Except when you're in the market to buy a new stereo.

 

[aldol16]

Right, it shouldn't be the case but that's exactly why you DON'T put it down. If you do, I don't blame adcoms for judging you, that's at their discretion.

I don't have to put it down. I already got in - and did so while expressing some of my conservative viewpoints in the interview. You don't express polarizing viewpoints because some liberals don't like it. That's not how liberals should behave but some do. Do you have trouble distinguishing what is and what should be? Who is President? Who should be President based on the popular vote? Who is the newest SCOTUS justice? Who should be? Or should we just not discuss the "shoulds" at all? Because I'm happy to not discuss what should be the case - once you're ready to as well.

 

[mariagefreres]

I don't have to put it down. I already got in - and did so while expressing some of my conservative viewpoints in the interview. Do you have trouble distinguishing what is and what should be? Who is President? Who should be President based on the popular vote? Or should we just not fixate on the "shoulds" at all?

It doesn't matter what it is or what it should be. People are allowed to judge you however they want. This is the whole point of presenting yourself a particular way on an application. Sure, you're conservative but I highly doubt you went into detail about why these beliefs matter to you and how they're going to impact the care you provide. Why? Because you know it's not something certain people want to hear. You're free to do what you want (and other applicants) but you can't and won't be able to stop people from making judgments about you both in medicine and life. This is why it's best just to avoid these topics altogether within this context. You're so triggered by liberals. Get over it.

 

[aldol16]

It doesn't matter what it is or what it should be. People are allowed to judge you however they want. This is the whole point of presenting yourself a particular way on an application. Sure, you're conservative but I highly doubt you went into detail about why these beliefs matter to you and how they're going to impact the care you provide. Why? Because you know it's not something certain people want to hear. You're free to do what you want (and other applicants) but you can't and won't be able to stop people from making judgments about you both in medicine and life. This is why it's best just to avoid these topics altogether within this context. You're so triggered by liberals. Get over it.

As long as you adhere to the bolded, I think we can agree.

I explained my viewpoints and I was indeed asked how they would impact provision of care in the future. My response was that my viewpoints are my own and my opinions will be based on medical evidence, not dogma. I respect a patient's choice to have their own beliefs - it's also my choice to believe what I do (within scientific bounds, of course - I think that due to my PhD credentials, they were more willing to believe that I actually hold science in a high regard and am not a climate change denier). Then I added that diversity in beliefs is also very important in medicine because just like how people prefer doctors of their own racial or SES status, they would also prefer doctors who share similar beliefs as them - there's less of a barrier to communication. A staunchly religious family isn't going to like a doctor who wants to impose his or her views on contraception and/or abortion on them. They would rather have a physician who understands their views and tries to work with them. This is all about the patient, not the doctor.

Worked out fine - I didn't have to tiptoe around anything. Mainly because I don't hold any extreme views. It seems that you're more triggered by conservatives since you like making blanket statements about them. I simply assert that some liberals don't like opposing viewpoints.

 

[mariagefreres]

As long as you adhere to the bolded, I think we can agree.

I explained my viewpoints and I was indeed asked how they would impact provision of care in the future. My response was that my viewpoints are my own and my opinions will be based on medical evidence, not dogma. I respect a patient's choice to have their own beliefs - it's also my choice to believe what I do (within scientific bounds, of course - I think that due to my PhD credentials, they were more willing to believe that I actually hold science in a high regard and am not a climate change denier). Then I added that diversity in beliefs is also very important in medicine because just like how people prefer doctors of their own racial or SES status, they would also prefer doctors who share similar beliefs as them - there's less of a barrier to communication.

Worked out fine - I didn't have to tiptoe around anything. Mainly because I don't hold any extreme views. It seems that you're more triggered by conservative since you like making blanket statements about them. I simply assert that some liberals don't like opposing viewpoints.

I'm not "triggered" necessarily but concerned about how one-sided most conservatives I meet are. This will obviously effect the care they provide and the patient populations they care for. As you stated and realize that diversity in beliefs is important, we can agree to disagree on the differences we have and move on.

 

[aldol16]

I'm not "triggered" necessarily but concerned about how one-sided most conservatives I meet are. This will obviously effect the care they provide and the patient populations they care for. As long as you state that diversity in beliefs is important, we can agree to disagree on the differences we have and move on.

Okay, but how is "conservatives don't have much sense anyway" not one-sided? I do believe that diversity of beliefs is important. But not all beliefs are valid. For instance, any belief that denies the humanity or speech of the other side of the debate is invalid because it's self-defeating. If I think all morality stems from the Bible and therefore atheists cannot have morality, that's not a valid belief because it denies, unjustifiably, a class of people's humanity. Similarly, saying that "conservatives don't have much sense anyway" doesn't engage with any conservative viewpoints - it only denies their speech. Since they don't have sense, nothing they say matters. That's one-sided if I've ever seen a one-sided belief.

 

[Lawpy]

Again, you keep listing what actions a school can take. We don't disagree about that. A school can look at a sentence in your PS that says "I met Donald Trump" and throw your app in the rejection pile without reading it. They can do that. But that doesn't mean they are justified in doing so. Both sides stereotype. Stereotyping is never justified.

Stereotyping isn't justified but schools can justify their actions based on the political involvement of applicants and how neutral they are in conveying and understanding views.

 

[mariagefreres]

Okay, but how is "conservatives don't have much sense anyway" not one-sided? I do believe that diversity of beliefs is important. But not all beliefs are valid. For instance, any belief that denies the humanity or speech of the other side of the debate is invalid because it's self-defeating. If I think all morality stems from the Bible and therefore atheists cannot have morality, that's not a valid belief because it denies, unjustifiably, a class of people's humanity. Similarly, saying that "conservatives don't have much sense anyway" doesn't engage with any conservative viewpoints - it only denies their speech. Since they don't have sense, nothing they say matters. That's one-sided if I've ever seen a one-sided belief.

Yes, it's a blanket statement about the group in general. Similar to the statements you made about liberals earlier and then corrected it once someone pointed it out to you. Not each individual is like this, but enough to where the stereotypes exist. Regardless, medicine is about the patient in the end. Our goal as medical students and physicians is to value them from their perspective and backgrounds; not ours. No one is denying your speech, if you perceive it that way, that's on you.

 

[aldol16]

Stereotyping isn't justified but schools can justify their actions based on the political involvement of applicants and how neutral they are in conveying and understanding views.

I agree. The mere fact of writing for Breitbart proves neither political involvement nor neutrality. Have you seen the tech or sports sections on Breitbart? Schools can stereotype and leap to conclusions. But that's not justified. Now, if an applicant volunteered as an aide for Prez Trump's election fraud commission and wrote about how the entire system is rigged, then you would have justification.

 

[7331poas]

"I met Donald Trump" and throw your app in the rejection pile without reading it. They can do that. But that doesn't mean they are justified in doing so. Both sides stereotype. Stereotyping is never justified.

Meeting donald trump and writing for Brietbart are very different things. Presumably this "friend" is not writing pro-left articles for this particular publication.

lets say an adcom looked up this applicant and saw they wrote an article advocating to cut healthcare access to underserved groups. And this medical school and hospital are heavily committed to these groups. Is it wrong to deny this applicant?

Common sense tells me no. Because the applicant clearly has no intent on serving the population (that is too poor to afford insurance)

 

[aldol16]

Yes, it's a blanket statement about the group in general. Similar to the statements you made about liberals earlier and then corrected it once someone pointed it out to you. Not each individual is like this, but enough to where the stereotypes exist. Regardless, medicine is about the patient in the end. Our goal as medical students and physicians is to value them from their perspective and backgrounds; not ours. No one is denying your speech, if you perceive it that way, that's on you.

My original comment clearly did not characterize all liberals as narrow-minded. I said even the staunchest liberals can be narrow-minded. From the start, it was implicit that I was talking about some liberals - I wouldn't pretend to characterize a whole class of people, as that's exactly what I'm arguing against doing. People who joined the discussion later on didn't refer back to the OC and so there's your confusion.

I mean, as long as you think that "conservatives don't make much sense anyway" isn't denying the validity of an entire class of people's speech, we don't have much to discuss.

 

[aldol16]

Meeting donald trump and writing for Brietbart are very different things. Presumably this "friend" is not writing pro-left articles for this particular publication.

lets say an adcom looked up this applicant and saw they wrote an article advocating to cut healthcare access to underserved groups. And this medical school and hospital are heavily committed to these groups. Is it wrong to deny this applicant?

Common sense tells me no. Because the applicant clearly has no intent on serving the population (that is too poor to afford insurance)

I agree! But this is all hypothetical. As we have seen, most people, let alone adcoms, can stop at the "He/she wrote for Breitbart" stage and immediately jump to conclusions. Some people will stop there. Some might take the initiative to find some articles this person wrote and read them. If they did in fact write such articles as you say, the school is perfectly justified in rejecting. But it is not justified in rejecting at the "He/she wrote for Breitbart" stage.

Here, take a look at some of these and see if you can tease out any political alt-right views from them:

Facebook Announces 'Paywall' News Subscription Service - Breitbart
Chinese Government Partially Blocks Facebook's WhatsApp Messaging App - Breitbart
NFL Looking to Start Split Screen Commercial Breaks
Michael Vick Issues Clarification After Receiving Backlash for Telling Kaepernick to ‘Get a Haircut’ - Breitbart

 

[freak7]

I agree! But this is all hypothetical. As we have seen, most people, let alone adcoms, can stop at the "He/she wrote for Breitbart" stage and immediately jump to conclusions. Some people will stop there. Some might take the initiative to find some articles this person wrote and read them. If they did in fact write such articles as you say, the school is perfectly justified in rejecting. But it is not justified in rejecting at the "He/she wrote for Breitbart" stage.

Here, take a look at some of these and see if you can tease out any political alt-right views from them:

Facebook Announces 'Paywall' News Subscription Service - Breitbart
Chinese Government Partially Blocks Facebook's WhatsApp Messaging App - Breitbart
NFL Looking to Start Split Screen Commercial Breaks
Michael Vick Issues Clarification After Receiving Backlash for Telling Kaepernick to ‘Get a Haircut’ - Breitbart

That split screen one looked so promising until the last paragraph. I really dislike when a publication's way of contextualizing the story comes with a side of editorializing.

 

[raiderette]

If your friend mentions that he wrote for Brietbart, he should be prepared for someone to Google the articles. Does he stand by his journalistic effort and do his words make him sound like someone who will treat all patients with respect regardless of age, race, gender, immigration status and ability to pay?

 

[WildWing]

The OP's question has been answered and this thread is devolving into off-topic political debates. We do have a Socio-polticial forum for established members where we welcome this type of debate.

Closing thread.