Diversity In Medical Schools

In recent years, there has been a predicted shortage of physicians in the United States of America by 2025, numbering between 46,000 and 90,000 physicians for a growing United States population 1. However, the more pressing issue will be an even bigger shortage of minority physicians. Minorities are underrepresented in medical facilities as students and faculty. However, one minority especially has been on the decline since 1978. African American males in the medical field have been on a steady downward trend. In 1978, 1,410 African American males applied to medical school, compared to 2014, when 1,337 African American males applied to medical school 2. This downward trend is concerning to many persons both inside and out of the medical field. A recent article published by the

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was argued on October 12, 1977 and decision of the Supreme Court was decided on June 26, 1978. It was questioned if the University of California violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having an affirmative action policy that led to repeated rejection of Bakke’s application for admission to UC medical school at Davis.

Have you ever been to the doctor and don't quite understand what the provider is telling you, or are you a healthcare worker and you don't understand your patients? Should the healthcare provider get diversity training or should they maybe learn new languages? More than ever before, healthcare professionals are subjected to dealing with a number of immense and different cultural diversities. While diversity is often a term used to refer specifically to cultural differences, diversity applies to all the qualities that make people different. Diversity requires more than knowing about individual differences and it key for overcoming cross-cultural barriers in healthcare.

In the years since, interpretations of these laws by the U.S. Supreme Court has defined how affirmative action policies are to be implemented. The Court has held that affirmative action policies are Constitutional wherever it can be shown that ""¦ there has been a clear history of racial discrimination" (United Press International). In 1978, the Court ruling in Regents of University of California v. Bakke defined the concept of 'reverse discrimination' by holding that slots for medical school admissions could not be set aside for minorities, because it could result in admitting less qualified candidates based on racial quotas. In 2003, in Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court defined the concept of 'individualized consideration' when it declared that an undergraduate affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan was unconstitutional because it focused on the race of applicants rather than their

Is affirmative action in higher education needed? This question provokes a myriad of emotions. Is affirmative action antiquated and unneeded in 21st century America? Or are the racial boundaries of this country’s ancestors still in effect? America’s Declaration of Independence states, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” yet quotas, check marks, and plus factors give minority students advantages in the admission processes of the country’s universities and colleges (NARA).

Companies and educational institutions greatly benefit from the guidelines of affirmative action because they profit from the different ideas, work styles, and contributions unique to each diverse individual. As quoted in Paul Connors’s compilation, Affirmative Action, President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, addresses the importance of a diverse educational system by stating, “The experience of arriving on a campus to live and study with classmates from a diverse range of backgrounds is essential to students' training for this new world, nurturing in them an instinct to reach out instead of clinging to the comforts of what seems natural or familiar” (12-13). A statement by Southeastern Oklahoma State University further supports the idea that success in modern day society stems from diversity saying, “Our country is strong because of the rich diversity of our culture, not in spite of it” (Affirmative Action).

Question: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

“ . . . [Government] contractor[s] will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”

Many colleges have come across the topic of diversity one way or another. In 2003, Abigail Fisher an applicant at the University of Texas, sued the college for failing to acknowledge her right to equal protection under the constitution. In her argument she stated that she felt the college had racially profiled her, which led to the dismissal of her application during the admission process. In the end the supreme court ruled in the favor of the college concluding the rights of Fisher had not been violated (Ortiz 714). This is an example of how diversity has emerged problematically within different systems. The ongoing

Another case involving the affirmative action policies was the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. This is another case of “seat holding” in where the school admission policy was reserving a number of sets for minority applicants. Bakke, a white applicant, was denied twice to the medical school. Minorities were allowed admittance with low-test scores though Bakke had high MCAT scores, GPA, and benchmarks (McBride, 2007). The result of the whole trial was that the California Supreme Court found that the system explicitly discriminated against racial groups and stated, “No applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less, as measured by standards applied without regard to race,” (McBride, 2007). The medical school was then ordered to shut down their quota system.

Bakke (Respondent), a white applicant to Davis Medical School, California sued the University, alleging his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

The equal opportunity that affirmative action provides has also increased the amount of minority applicants applying to each school. It has “resulted in doubling or tripling the number of minority applications to colleges or universities, and have made colleges and universities more representative of their surrounding community” (Messerli). Since the playing field has been evened, it has encouraged more of those who are disadvantaged because of their ethnicity to apply for and get admitted into college. However, the quotas cause schools to admit under qualified students of minor races who don’t meet the limit over highly qualified students who’s race has reached the limit.

When addressing legal issues of diversity in the modern day era, one main topic is brought to discussion, affirmative action. It was put into place by the federal government in the 1960’s and was initially developed to close the gap in relation to the privileged majority and the unprivileged minority in America (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). While it has been controversial since its origin, it remains controversial as critics argue it tries to equalize the impact of so many

March 6th, 1961 Affirmative Action policies in higher education were implemented (Infoplease). Affirmative Action was designed to provide equal access to universities for historically underrepresented minorities. The argument of whether Affirmative Action should be decimated is a simple one. Students who have the academic credentials and earn their way into college deserve to be accepted. For no reason should previously excluded minorities gain unfair leverage in an attempt to “right past wrongs”. But with Affirmative Action banned in only eight states, we are left with two questions; how exactly Affirmative Action affects the culture within universities to have it seen as an unjust policy, and can diversity continue to survive without this program.