Public health advocates argue that patients benefit when they have a doctor who looks like them. By that they mean the United States needs a diversity of doctors who mirror the ethnic makeup of Americans. For instance, after the Supreme Court struck down racial preferences, the Association of American Medical Colleges said it was (per WSJ):
…“deeply disappointed” in the Court’s decision and that “racial and ethnic diversity in educational settings” provided “critical benefits” and a way to address health inequities.
Why does it matter if your doctor looks like you? Supposedly your doctor may have more empathy for a patient whose ethnic background is like their own. A minority patient may trust a doctor who shares their ethnic heritage and heed their advice better. They may be less anxious during a physician visit. If all the above is true, patient satisfaction and health outcomes could potentially improve.
Finding a doctor who looks like me is easy: upper middle-age, white male doctor with a bad haircut who is 20 pounds overweight. That’s a huge group. Not everyone is so lucky, however. More than 100 years ago medical schools were often racially segregated. In 1910 Abraham Flexner, funded by wealthy East Coast elites, released a report critical of the state of American medical colleges. The result was 75% of U.S. medical schools closed due to being substandard. Especially hard hit were medical schools that catered to training minority physicians. Only one medical school for blacks remained open, Howard University.
The Flexner Report began the process of making medical schools into elite institutions mostly training elite white males. The Flexner Report is somewhat controversial. Proponents maintain that it forced the closure of poor-quality medical schools and those that taught pseudoscience. The medical schools that remained were to be grounded in the medical sciences. By contrast, critics of the Flexner Report say a poorly trained minority doctor was better than no doctor at all. In addition, some medical schools that taught curricula not grounded in science would likely have evolved and improved over time as medical science advanced.
Beginning in the 1970s many medical schools began adopting racial quotas to address the racial imbalance among physicians. Racial preferences remain controversial. President Trump took a strong stance against DEI programs in government, academia and elsewhere. Among the targets were medical schools. Yet, DEI programs persist on medical school campuses, according to the Wall Street Journal:
The Supreme Court banned racial preferences in university admissions, but finding ways to maintain them has become a cottage industry in higher education. Medical schools are among the frequent offenders, and a new report shows how schools have maintained different standards for applicants depending on their race.
The nonprofit organization, Do No Harm, analyzed admissions data for 23 medical schools:
At the responding schools, admitted black applicants had lower MCAT scores than admitted white and Asian applicants at 22 out of 23 schools. Admitted Asian students had a mean MCAT score of 514, approximately the 88th percentile. Admitted black students had a mean score of 508.3, approximately the 73rd percentile. The delta also existed for comparative GPAs among the groups.
At two medical school analyzed, a black applicant was 10 and 11 times (respectively) more likely to be admitted than a white or Asian applicant with the same scores.
In the admissions cycles since 2023, little has changed. At many universities, demographic data of admitted students has held steady and in some cases the share of “underrepresented” minorities has increased. Data from 34 schools shows that the racial composition of medical schools hasn’t changed much since the Supreme Court’s decision.
The report by Ian Kingsbury and Naomi Risch concedes that “qualities like empathy and strong interpersonal skills matter when it comes to excellence in medicine,” but they do not substitute for medical and scientific aptitude.
Some biases are not revealed in demographic data. To have a chance of being accepted into medical school prospective students must not only get good grades and score well on the MCAT. They must also engage in extracurricular activities and volunteer work. The type of volunteer work matters. By some accounts, progressive causes are valued more than non-ideological scientific volunteer work. Many feel pressured to self-censor any rhetoric or activities that may deviate from progressive ideology. Prospective medical students must also abstain from making any comments on social media that may turn off left-leading admissions committees. Students report a significant liberal bias on medical school campuses. Once admitted students still feel they must hide any non-woke or non-progressive ideology lest they offend professors whose recommendations they need to later get into coveted residencies.
Conclusion: It is possible to be in favor of diversity in the medical field while opposing compromising medical school admissions and curricula. Racial quotas and diversity targets should not replace high grades, high scores and scientific aptitude. A better way to boost diversity is to expand residencies so a diverse population of medical school graduates can continue their training and someday practice medicine.
Read more at WSJ: Dividing Doctors by Race
Do No Harm: Skirting SCOTUS Part III: How Medical Schools Continue to Practice Racially Conscious Admissions