The U.S. Supreme Court is taking two cases that could prevent medical schools’ current practice of
considering race/ethnicity in admissions decisions: Students for Fair Admission Inc. v. President and
Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admission Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al.
The first considers if Harvard’s admissions processes penalize Asian Americans and in turn violate
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The second North Carolina case asks if the Supreme Court should
overturn a 2003 decision, Grutter v. Bollinger, which allows race to be used as a component of
admissions decisions.
In response to the Supreme Court’s review of the upcoming cases, the AMA and AAMC, along with
40 other organizations, submitted an amicus brief urging the court to “take no action that would
disrupt the admissions processes the nation’s health-professional schools have carefully crafted in
reliance on this court’s longstanding precedents.” The brief notes the key role that diversity in
medical school admissions plays in reducing health disparities by increasing the number of minority
practitioners, who are more likely to serve in minority communities, and also by increasing the
effectiveness of all physicians through a more diverse learning and training environment. The brief
points to scientific research and studies showing the benefits of diversity, saying that “Preventing
medical educators from continuing to consider diversity in admissions … would literally cost lives
and diminish the quality of many others.” The brief also suggests the possibility that overruling the
use of race in admissions decisions may, “...potentially trigger a spiral of severe and self-reinforcing
decreases in diversity in the health care professions. States that have banned race-conscious
admissions have seen the number of minority medical school students drop by roughly 37% as a
result.”
Visit our blog for more medical school news and trend reports.
considering race/ethnicity in admissions decisions: Students for Fair Admission Inc. v. President and
Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admission Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al.
The first considers if Harvard’s admissions processes penalize Asian Americans and in turn violate
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The second North Carolina case asks if the Supreme Court should
overturn a 2003 decision, Grutter v. Bollinger, which allows race to be used as a component of
admissions decisions.
In response to the Supreme Court’s review of the upcoming cases, the AMA and AAMC, along with
40 other organizations, submitted an amicus brief urging the court to “take no action that would
disrupt the admissions processes the nation’s health-professional schools have carefully crafted in
reliance on this court’s longstanding precedents.” The brief notes the key role that diversity in
medical school admissions plays in reducing health disparities by increasing the number of minority
practitioners, who are more likely to serve in minority communities, and also by increasing the
effectiveness of all physicians through a more diverse learning and training environment. The brief
points to scientific research and studies showing the benefits of diversity, saying that “Preventing
medical educators from continuing to consider diversity in admissions … would literally cost lives
and diminish the quality of many others.” The brief also suggests the possibility that overruling the
use of race in admissions decisions may, “...potentially trigger a spiral of severe and self-reinforcing
decreases in diversity in the health care professions. States that have banned race-conscious
admissions have seen the number of minority medical school students drop by roughly 37% as a
result.”
Visit our blog for more medical school news and trend reports.
