|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||||
|
Supreme Court Reaffirms Affirmative Action Policies Institutions Grapple with New HIAA Regulations "Operation Tipoff 2" Bioterrorism Exercise Offers Educational Lessons Family Medicine: Trying to Fill the Ranks Current & Choice: 'Prime Time Innovations in Medical Education: The Arts as a Teacher A Word from the President: Educational Diversity is a Compelling Interest Viewpoint: Loan Help for Researchers
|
|
A Word From the PresidentEducational Diversity is a Compelling Interest
At stake in the two affirmative action cases that reached the Court last year was whether the University of Michigan undergraduate and law school admissions processes violated the Constitution's equal protection clause or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit recipients of federal funds from discriminating on the basis of ethnicity, race, or national origin. In Grutter v. Bollinger, one of the two cases, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the law school, adopting the 1978 opinion of a single Justice (Powell) in the landmark case of University of California Regents v. Bakke. Michigan's law school admissions process was judged constitutional because it involves the holistic examination of each applicant's files, while giving race special consideration only in the context of many other diversity factors. Michigan's undergraduate admissions process, by contrast, was ruled unconstitutional because it relied on a point system that automatically awarded 20 points (out of a total of 100 necessary for admission) to each minority applicant. Fundamental to the favorable Grutter decision was the Court's deference to the school's judgment that it had a compelling interest in ensuring adequate diversity in higher education because of the benefits that flow to the education of all students. For medical educators, the Court thereby provided ample rationale for the use of affirmative action tools to achieve an adequately diverse student body, namely the need for a "critical mass" of minority students to ensure a high-quality medical education. As long as each applicant for admission is reviewed in toto as an individual, and as long as race/ethnicity is but one among many diversity factors considered in decision making, medical school admissions committees may continue for now to exercise their judgment in selecting an appropriate cohort of matriculants. My guess is that most medical schools will find it necessary to use the tool of affirmative action to achieve the degree of diversity they judge necessary to meet their compelling interest in high-quality education. As an important by-product of the Court's decisions, academic medicine's commitment to providing society with an adequately diverse physician workforce need no longer be impeded by concerns about the constitutionality of affirmative action as long as we closely adhere to the court's guidance. In vigorously pursuing our legitimate educational goals, which require adequate numbers of underrepresented minority students, we will, ipso facto, produce over time a more diverse medical profession. At present, in my judgment, most medical schools do not have a "critical mass" of underrepresented minority students to satisfy the educational need for adequate diversity. Excluding our four historically black medical schools (Howard, Meharry, Morehouse, and Drew), the typical medical school currently draws only some 10 percent of its matriculants in aggregate from underrepresented minority communities. One of the most difficult challenges facing medical educators is how to inculcate the knowledge and skills required for culturally competent patient care. Given the rapidity of demographic changes in our society, virtually every future physician will have responsibility for caring for a more diverse group of patients than is the case today. The needed competencies cannot be adequately acquired from books and lectures alone; what's required is emersion in learning environments in which sufficient numbers of students (and faculty) from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds interact on a continuous basis. Admitting a larger number of medical students from underrepresented minority communities has additional benefits, as well. For example, research has consistently shown that minority physicians are more likely to dedicate their careers to the underserved and the uninsured, and that many patients are more satisfied, and are more likely to adhere to recommended treatment, when cared for by physicians of the same race. Although celebration is clearly in order, the Court's apparent vindication of our institutions' admissions practices is not the final word. Indeed, the close vote reminds us that it is not yet time to relax. As everyone knows, affirmative action has been under organized attack for several years. Opponents have been successful in getting race-conscious decision making in higher education outlawed through ballot initiatives in two states, California and Washington. Other states are likely to become the sites of similar ballot measures soon. Indeed, such an effort has already begun in Michigan. In addition, more legal challenges to existing admissions procedures are likely to be filed. Consequently, we must not only continue to tailor our admissions processes carefully to remain within constitutional bounds; we must also continue our advocacy efforts to convince the public that affirmative action is the most effective near-term means for ensuring that a sufficient number of minority students enroll in medical school. Until students from all racial and ethnic backgrounds have indistinguishable educational credentials when applying to medical school, our compelling interest in optimizing the education of all students will demand the use of affirmative action. Justice O'Connor expressed her hope that in 25 years affirmative action in higher education will no longer be needed. Although devoutly to be desired, that hopeful vision will become a reality only if our national priorities reflect the enormous amount of work required to achieve it.
|
||||||
|
||||||||
|
Contact Us © 1995-2008 AAMC Terms and Conditions Privacy Statement |
Earlier
this summer, our community was given an excellent reason to celebrate.
In responding to the latest challenge to affirmative action, the
Supreme Court ruled definitively that institutions of higher education
may continue (except where prohibited by state law or university
policy) to consider race as a factor in admissions.