Always remember that when the medical, scientific, or bioethics “experts” opine on matters of political or cultural controversy, they are almost always coming from a hard-a-port ideological perspective. Consider: The Lancet, the world’s oldest medical journal, just published a news story on the Harvard affirmative-action case. The ruling is awful, the story makes very clear:
Leading medical and scientific organisations have criticised the June 29 US Supreme Court decision severely limiting how colleges and universities consider an applicant’s race in the admissions process. A 6 to 3 majority abandoned 45 years of legal precedent protecting affirmative action, which is widely expected not only to reduce the number of Black and Latinx college students but also roll back their representation in medicine, law, science, and other postgraduate programmes, diversity advocates say.
Only the hardest political progressives use the culturally appropriating term, “Latinx.” The story is mere virtue signaling to the progressive base because it doesn’t try to explain how “health equity,” the practice of medicine, and the delivery of quality health care is harmed in any way. It doesn’t explore the reasons the majority decided the way it did, nor show other ways a diverse student body can be engaged. It just grouses that legacy admissions weren’t litigated against.
The leaders of ideological medicine are suitably aghast:
“This ruling is bad for health care, bad for medicine, and undermines the health of our nation”, said American Medical Association President Jesse Ehrenfeld. “A physician workforce that reflects the diversity of the nation is key to eliminating racial inequities.” The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said that the “decision demonstrates a lack of understanding of the critical benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in educational settings and a failure to recognize the urgent need to address health inequities”. AAMC’s amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in support of affirmative action was joined by the American Medical Association and 44 other organisations representing medical groups and educational institutions.
“I was grief stricken” about the decision, said Shirley Malcom, Director of STEMM Equity Achievement Change initiative at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). “You have to put aside your grief, and bring up the kind of righteous indignation that has brought me through 50 years”, said Malcom, who faced discrimination growing up in Alabama and eventually earned a PhD in ecology and a Master’s in zoology.
I guess discrimination against Asians and whites in which Harvard blatantly engaged doesn’t count.
Could the reporter find anyone willing to speak in support of the ruling? I know they are out there. Anyone? Nope.