Split Thread DEI in the US

[wareyin]

It's good to hear from people who admit that they don't know the difference between things that have been repeatedly explained in this thread. Why, the opinion of someone who can't be bothered to read the thread AND admits he doesn't know what he is talking about when he gives this vague story of a conversation he had 51 years ago tells me I don't even need to pay any attention to it.

Beyond that, using a story from 1975 to critique modern DEI is intellectually lazy. That was an era when the environment in medical schools was notoriously hostile toward women. Attributing those failures to a lack of merit while ignoring the systemic alienation and lack of support they faced at the time just shows you do not understand the history any better than you understand the terminology.

 

[Trausti]

I am not sure of any difference between DEI and affirmative action, but I suspect this applies to both.

I would think the difference is that with DEI there is racial animus against White people (especially males). Affirmative Action was about set asides and quotas, not a religion where being White is an irredeemable original sin.

 

[arthwollipot]

I am not sure of any difference between DEI and affirmative action, but I suspect this applies to both.

Affirmative action can be a part of DEI, but it doesn't have to be.

I would think the difference is that with DEI there is racial animus against White people (especially males). Affirmative Action was about set asides and quotas, not a religion where being White is an irredeemable original sin.

You're just wrong.

Affirmative action means that you go out of your way to offer opportunities to people who were never getting them before.

 

[Trausti]

You're just wrong.

Affirmative action means that you go out of your way to offer opportunities to people who were never getting them before.

No. Affirmative action means set asides based on race or sex without any consideration of individual circumstances.

 

[arthwollipot]

No. Affirmative action means set asides based on race or sex without any consideration of individual circumstances.

No, that's wrong. That's a lie told to you by rightist propagandists.

Why aren't you angry about being lied to? You're being treated like a fool - a tool in the culture war. That should upset you.

 

[Trausti]

No, that's wrong. That's a lie told to you by rightist propagandists.

Why aren't you angry about being lied to? You're being treated like a fool - a tool in the culture war. That should upset you.

I'm not wrong. The winning factor is always the person's race. The one who has been lied to is you. There's no other explanation for this:

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm not wrong. The winning factor is always the person's race. The one who has been lied to is you. There's no other explanation for this:

The explanation for that is that historically minorities have been under-represented in the medical profession due to discrimination. Now that they are no longer discriminated against, they are able to enter into these schools like they were always supposed to.

This graph is from 2016 - the beginning of Trump's first presidency and ten years ago. Do you have any more up-to-date data? Does it show the reversion back to the pre-affirmative action numbers, where white people dominated and minorities were almost nonexistent?

 

[Trausti]

The explanation for that is that historically minorities have been under-represented in the medical profession due to discrimination.

Maybe it's worth recalling that Affirmative Action in the US was blessed by the 1978 Bakke decision. SCOTUS then said it was okay to deny admission to the qualified White medical school applicant, Allen Bakke, in favor of lesser qualified non-White candidates to promote diversity. Bakke was unable to become a doctor. The non-White applicant who was chosen over him at that time, Patrick Chavis, did become a doctor. His medical license was later revoked due to gross incompetence (he was quite terrible). SCOTUS has since changed its view.

 

[Trausti]

This graph is from 2016 - the beginning of Trump's first presidency and ten years ago. Do you have any more up-to-date data? Does it show the reversion back to the pre-affirmative action numbers, where white people dominated and minorities were almost nonexistent?

I believe that since the 2023 SCOTUS opinion, the numbers are different, yes.

 

[arthwollipot]

Maybe it's worth recalling that Affirmative Action in the US was blessed by the 1978 Bakke decision. SCOTUS then said it was okay to deny admission to the qualified White medical school applicant, Allen Bakke, in favor of lesser qualified non-White candidates to promote diversity. Bakke was unable to become a doctor. The non-White applicant who was chosen over him at that time, Patrick Chavis, did become he doctor. His medical license was later revoked due to gross incompetence (he was quite terrible). SCOTUS has since changed its view.

I've read about the decision, and two things stand out to me:

1. Bakke was rejected because of age, not because he was white. Medical schools practiced age discrimination at the time, and though he was qualified, he was 33 when he applied, which was above the limit at at least two institutions.
2. Chavis had a successful 15-year career as an Ob/Gyn and only declined in competence after changing specialities to cosmetic surgery. He was not underqualified when he was admitted.

I don't think this case is the slam-dunk you present it as.

 

[Trausti]

I've read about the decision, and two things stand out to me:

1. Bakke was rejected because of age, not because he was white. Medical schools practiced age discrimination at the time, and though he was qualified, he was 33 when he applied, which was above the limit at at least two institutions.
2. Chavis had a successful 15-year career as an Ob/Gyn and only declined in competence after changing specialities to cosmetic surgery. He was not underqualified when he was admitted.

I don't think this case is the slam-dunk you present it as.

If that were true, then he wouldn't have needed special admission.

 

[arthwollipot]

If that were true, then he wouldn't have needed special admission.

He didn't. He just needed an opportunity to open up.

 

[Walter]

It's good to hear from people who admit that they don't know the difference between things that have been repeatedly explained in this thread. Why, the opinion of someone who can't be bothered to read the thread AND admits he doesn't know what he is talking about when he gives this vague story of a conversation he had 51 years ago tells me I don't even need to pay any attention to it.

Beyond that, using a story from 1975 to critique modern DEI is intellectually lazy. That was an era when the environment in medical schools was notoriously hostile toward women. Attributing those failures to a lack of merit while ignoring the systemic alienation and lack of support they faced at the time just shows you do not understand the history any better than you understand the terminology.

Wonderful response. I suspect the effects are similar even if defined differently, but that would be intellectually lazy.

I suspect my friend had a vague understanding of the history of medicine, her father being an ophthalmologist.

Was my friend's anger justified? I think it was.

How do you respond to the fact that she had no choice but to be a member of the failing demographic? If based on merit, there would have been no demographics. The percentage of females would have been lower, but all qualified.

 

[arthwollipot]

Beyond that, using a story from 1975 to critique modern DEI is intellectually lazy. That was an era when the environment in medical schools was notoriously hostile toward women. Attributing those failures to a lack of merit while ignoring the systemic alienation and lack of support they faced at the time just shows you do not understand the history any better than you understand the terminology.

Additionally, the 1970s were a time when the basic concepts of affirmative action were only just beginning to flicker into peoples' minds. Of course there were hiccups and missteps.

 

[wareyin]

Wonderful response. I suspect the effects are similar even if defined differently, but that would be intellectually lazy.

I suspect my friend had a vague understanding of the history of medicine, her father being an ophthalmologist.

Was my friend's anger justified? I think it was.

How do you respond to the fact that she had no choice but to be a member of the failing demographic? If based on merit, there would have been no demographics. The percentage of females would have been lower, but all qualified.

You are relaying a hearsay story from 50 years ago that predates DEI by decades. Why should anyone respond to an ancient anecdote from someone who admits they do not even understand the concepts being discussed?

In 1975, medical schools were notoriously hostile to women. Those students were likely set up to fail by the institution itself rather than a lack of merit. Your assumption that a meritocracy would naturally result in fewer women just reveals your own bias. Using this third hand story to judge modern professional standards is exactly the kind of intellectual laziness you claim to avoid.

 

[dirtywick]

once i had a conversation with someone about ghosts. pretty quick into it they were asking me to disprove this one time they saw a loaf of bread fly across the room. i didn’t really know how to respond to them asking me to disprove this memory they had and it didn’t really go anywhere

i think about that conversation sometimes

 

[arthwollipot]

once i had a conversation with someone about ghosts. pretty quick into it they were asking me to disprove this one time they saw a loaf of bread fly across the room. i didn’t really know how to respond to them asking me to disprove this memory they had and it didn’t really go anywhere

i think about that conversation sometimes

Skeptoid: What Accounts for Ghost Encounters?

HTH.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I'm not wrong. The winning factor is always the person's race. The one who has been lied to is you. There's no other explanation for this:

Wrong! Your graph explains nothing.

More fundamental is your misconception that entrants should be chosen only on 'merit'. The unpalatable fact is that America is fundamentally racist. In this environment the word 'merit' itself has racist overtones. But even if it didn't, the idea that we should choose doctors only according to their 'abilities' is flat out wrong. What we actually need are competent doctors who will be in tune with their patients.

The US - being as fundamentally racist as it is - needs more Black doctors, not 'better' doctors. In 2019 56% of active physicians were White, 17% were Asian, 6% were Hispanic and 5% were Black. But Blacks make up 13% of the population. There should be twice as many Black doctors just so that patients can get doctors they are comfortable with who understand them. If you think that's racist then you don't appreciate the reality of racism in America.

 

[Planigale]

I am not sure of any difference between DEI and affirmative action, but I suspect this applies to both.

In the spring of 1975, I was talking to a good friend from college who was a first year medical student. Eight students failed first semester Biochemistry. All females.

She was angry about three things.
1. The faculty had to teach remedial Biochemistry.
2. There were thousands of qualified individuals all over the country who could have filled those seats.
3. She obviously had no choice but to be included in that demographic.

Failing biochemistry doesn't make you a bad doctor! Out of all the courses I did biochemistry was probably of least use. The question is whether they were failed because they were female? In the 1970's only a small minority of students 10 - 30% would have been female. So this was likely a significant proportion of the female students. In the 1970's females would have had to be better than the average male to get into medical school.

Medical schools have always had to teach remedial courses, you had to get the rugby internationals and the rowers through somehow!

 

[Trausti]

Wrong! Your graph explains nothing.

More fundamental is your misconception that entrants should be chosen only on 'merit'.

Yeah, that's just crazy of me. The last think I want of my doctor is to be competent. I may die, but at least I die for diversity!

The unpalatable fact is that America is fundamentally racist. In this environment the word 'merit' itself has racist overtones.

Right, on. Merit is totally racist.

But even if it didn't, the idea that we should choose doctors only according to their 'abilities' is flat out wrong.

When I get surgery, I make sure my surgeon has at least three medical board complaints and is uninsurable.

What we actually need are competent doctors who will be in tune with their patients.

Wait, I thought merit was bad?

The US - being as fundamentally racist as it is - needs more Black doctors, not 'better' doctors. In 2019 56% of active physicians were White, 17% were Asian, 6% were Hispanic and 5% were Black. But Blacks make up 13% of the population. There should be twice as many Black doctors just so that patients can get doctors they are comfortable with who understand them. If you think that's racist then you don't appreciate the reality of racism in America.

That's not evidence of racism. Get your MCAT scores up. But what's always ridiculous about the above argument is that there's never a concern where non-Black people are underrepresented.