Woke medical schools are trying to evade the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to stop anti-white, anti-Asian discrimination in admissions and admit unqualified blacks and Hispanics.
The latest report on leftists in academia who will continue illegal discrimination comports with what major universities said after the court ruled against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina in Students for Fair Admissions.
That case involved Asian students who said they were unfairly denied admissions to the two universities.
But it’s one thing for universities to admit college-level unqualified students who might major in education, sociology, and other nonsense degrees. It’s another for medical schools to do so. The numbskulls medical schools admit might graduate and kill someone just as trailblazing affirmative action Dr. Patrick Chavis did.
Medical Schools: Race Matters, We’ll Do What We Want
“Documents obtained through a public records request made by medical advocacy group Do No Harm and obtained by the Washington Examiner show plans by faculty to maintain a diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, focus in admissions while still technically abiding by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard,” the Examiner reported this week:
“There is no evidence that any qualified minority student is being denied entrance to medical school based on their racial characteristics,” Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Do No Harm’s chairman, told the Washington Examiner. “The idea that they need to attract more black applicants to their medical schools is not based on the presence of any barriers to their admission.”
“They neglect that admission to medical school not only involves the school and the prospective student but also the potential patients that that student will care for,” he added. “Those patients need the most qualified individuals that are available for their care.”
But top-quality care isn’t what matters to the leftists who run the medical schools. They immediately began working to circumvent the decision and continue illegal discrimination.
The University of Houston College of Medicine worked with a “legal team” to “advance affirmative action,” the Examiner reported, and “held a joint event with the university’s law school in which they highlighted DEI in healthcare and described avenues left open by the Supreme Court’s ruling to achieve diversity goals.”
The medical-law school pro-discrimination phalanx was less worried about graduating skilled physicians who saved lives and more worried about their push “to reduce health disparities by increasing the diversity of the healthcare workforce,” as university law professor Jessica Mantel wrote in an email:
Mantel included possible topics of discussion, such as “how affirmative action in higher education has promoted greater diversity in the healthcare workforce” and “whether the new affirmative action legal doctrine announced by the Supreme Court permits consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions to higher educational programs preparing the future healthcare workforce.”
Mantel also peddled “racial concordance” in medicine, the dopey idea that patients and doctors should be the same race. Goldfarb, the Examiner continued, called that theory a “false assumption.” In other words, it’s bunk:
He pointed to Do No Harm research concluding that minority patients do not achieve greater health outcomes if their doctor is the same race.
“What black patients need is optimum health care, not racial concordance,” he concluded. “They too want the best physicians to treat them unrelated to their racial characteristics.”
The University of Houston is not alone. At the University of Toledo, the vice president for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion told the medical school dean, Christopher Cooper, that he is “trying to assist and encourage and provide ideas and tools to help increase the diversity of COMLS’s student body, which has now been made much more difficult by the SCOTUS decision.”
Cooper replied that he met with lawyers about it.
The university told the Examiner that it will fully comply with the decision with “concrete steps.”
Black Doctor, Black Deaths
Those who believe that black patients fare better with black doctors might recall the case of the late Dr. Patrick Chavis. In 1973, Chavis was admitted to University of California-Davis medical school through its racial quota program.
SCOTUS struck down that program in 1978 when it heard the famous Bakke case. Bakke was a 35-year-old white man twice denied entry to the school, which had reserved 16 spots for “qualified minorities.” But Bakke’s scores exceeded any of those, and the court ordered the university to admit him.
Chavis went on to an illustrious career of killing women while performing liposuction. One of them was Taramia Cotton. When she complained that she couldn’t breathe during the procedure, Chavis told her, “if you can talk, you can breathe.”
The state medical board that revoked the affirmative action doctor’s license, the Los Angeles Times reported, found that “Chavis made several mistakes in his care of Cotton”:
One was leaving her in his office after surgery, groggy and leaking a “red liquid” from her incisions, to check on another gravely injured liposuction patient recovering alone in his Compton home. According to the board’s decision, Chavis did not even leave instructions with his registered nurse to monitor her pulse and blood pressure.
Cotton’s husband, Jimmy, who accompanied her to the office, tried to put his wife in a wheelchair but she was unable to lift her head. She went into cardiac arrest and stopped breathing despite the nurse’s attempts to revive her.
As for universities that vowed to continue illegally discriminating despite SCOTUS’ decision, Harvard was very clear. “For almost a decade, Harvard has vigorously defended an admissions system that, as two federal courts ruled, fully complied with longstanding precedent,” university officials wrote:
In the weeks and months ahead, drawing on the talent and expertise of our Harvard community, we will determine how to preserve, consistent with the Court’s new precedent, our essential values.
Translation: We’ll do what the heck we want.
One of the signatories on the defiant statement was one Claudine Gay, then dean of the faculty of arts and sciences.
The university appointed her president in December 2022 because she is black. She took office on July 1. She was recently forced to resign after conservative writers revealed her long record of plagiarism. It was the shortest tenure for a president in Harvard’s history.
Despite the academic fraud, she returned to the faculty and kept her $900,000 annual salary.
