These affirmative action agents are so smart. They have been rejected, seriously, by imposing their malevolent program of academic selection on the basis of race by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Are they likely to quietly incorporate this decision into their admissions policy and stop implementing this racist scheme?
Don’t bet the farm on it! The left views affirmative action as a moral imperative. His motto is: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” Most likely, they will try to impose racial quotas by other means. I suspect that geographic selection may be their next direction of attack, adopting a program that has been under attack in Arkansas even before this recent Supreme Court decision.
Under Arkansas state law, the University of Arkansas School of Medicine must participate affirmative action on a geographic basis for 70 percent of its first 150 entry positions out of a total of 188 freshmen. The seats are divided equally among the four congressional districts of that state. That is, instead of race, each of these districts will be awarded 25 percent of the enrolled class seats.
Why has state law mandated the implementation of this policy? Many reasons were given during the debate in the Arkansas legislature, but at least one Democratic politician admitted it was an attempt to get more racial diversity in the state’s medical schools.
“There’s always someone better than you or me” Rep. John Walker said during a debate on the law in 2017. Walker, a black Democrat who died in 2019, represented a district with a 27 percent black population, which is about double the state average. “But that’s not the only consideration. There are other factors to consider,” Walker said. “You don’t just judge someone just because they have the best test score,” he continued, adding that it’s important to consider “multiple selection criteria, including geographic.”
Contrary to Walker’s view, affirmative action is no a good program, especially for medical school selection, whether it’s done explicitly through race, or adopts any of these other subterfuges, such as zip codes. This is because doctors are faced with life and death situations, perhaps even daily, if not hourly, and it behooves us as a society to make those decisions the most talented people. In addition, patients will tend to avoid doctors who believe they obtained their licenses based on skin color rather than experience.
A similar scheme would be to accept the top 10% of each university’s graduating class for medical school, even though the best students at some of these institutions are clearly far superior in academic ability than at others. Presumably, the Supreme Court will see through these attempts to escape its decision. In the next case that comes to court along these lines, let’s hope some teeth are implemented to prevent this. for that purpose runs around him.
Do the proponents of this policy not realize that they too, as well as their loved ones, their parents, spouses, children, grandchildren and friends, will one day face inferior medical services, because of this policy? What will be their reaction if these people, even strangers, are killed or maimed as a result? Will they then regret injecting racial politics into healthcare? If they have any decency, this would be their reaction. Obviously, their ability to anticipate the future outcome of their present actions is very poor, otherwise they presumably wouldn’t pursue it.
Will we also apply this policy to pilots and air traffic controllers? Are we really prepared to contemplate unnecessary deaths as a result of inferior skills? But doctors and airline staff are not the only ones whose mistakes are crucially important. They are only the tip of the iceberg in this context. There are also engineers and architects whose inferior buildings, roads and bridges can endanger masses of innocent people. There are chemists and drug manufacturers whose mistakes can create biological havoc.
It is entirely possible that those responsible for affirmative action anticipated these problems. However, they still favor this program. They value the pigmentation of their staff (and also the plumbing in the case of applying affirmative action programs to women) more than the safety and protection of the public. There are appropriate categories for the crimes of these people: complicity in assault and battery and, in the extreme, murder.
In addition, affirmative action programs impose a liability on black physicians, some of whom may be perfectly competent but who cannot be trusted. It’s one thing to hire a black gender studies professor who might have been accepted as a student by a university as an affirmative action beneficiary. It’s another matter to accept the medical care of someone who went to medical school as an affirmative action student.
So this affirmative action policy is so unfair to black doctors who are not the product of affirmative action and are therefore just as competent as any other doctor. It is also unfair to all patients of any hue who could have benefited from additional medical professionals in the absence of this evil anti-life policy.