Affirmative discrimination - nonadmission of African American students to the University of California in San Diego medical school - Speaking of Education - Column

Black Issues in Higher Education, August 21, 1997 by Julianne Malveaux

One hundred and ninety-six African American students applied for medical school admission at the University of California at San Diego. Not a single one was admitted. At Boalt Hall, the University of California Law School at the Berkeley campus, only fourteen students were admitted, and just one - entering after deferring admission from last year - will attend.

The so-called color blindness that some were so excited about when Proposition 209 passed in November is now coming home to roost as surely as the chickens Malcolm X referred to in 1963. The consequences are so dire that even some proponents of Proposition 209 have got to review them with some dismay.

Admissions policies in California and Texas create a hostile environment for African American and other students of color. This is, perhaps, why so few of those admitted are willing to attend these universities. Further, it seems that admissions committees, in attempting to be "race neutral" have taken everything except race into consideration, moving beyond the legitimate criteria of grades and the very questionable criteria of standardized test scores, to look at things like volunteer work and socio-economic background.

Without suggesting that these factors should have no weight, let me simply note that the lens through which admissions officers interpret the admission process matters. In other words, if they are instructed by their regents to be neutral (read hostile) to race, but sympathetic to alumni status, VIP status, and certain types of volunteer work, then they will.

I am amused and amazed at the reliance that some have on standardized tests. Even the College Board would admit that these tests are not predictive of professional success or performance, only of first year success. But there seems to be a strong bias built into these tests, and there also seem to be real questions about what the test measures. I, frankly, would rather not see a physician who has so specialized in multiple choice-think that she excels on standardized tests but not diagnosis. I'd hazard to guess that people who have been undiagnosed with ailments for long periods of time might feel the same way, wondering if rote learning is any substitute for patient attention.

In the case of the University of California at San Diego, the admission process flies in the face of the medical needs of our nation's most diverse state. There are, reportedly, a glut of physicians in California, but the state's African Americans and Mexican Americans remain "medically under-served." What is the meaning of this mismatch in a state so eager to embrace the notion of "race neutrality" or "color blindness?" Apparently some doctors prefer not to treat some patients - or they haven't been properly trained, haven't had to answer the right questions on their MCAT tests, or something. Still, African Americans and Latino doctors are more likely than others to return to their communities and reach the medically under-served with their practices.

This ought to be a compelling reason to admit a diversity of students into California medical schools. Instead of an exploration of the return to segregation at the University of California-San Diego, some proponents of Proposition 209 are almost celebrating "nondiscrimination." But the embrace of flawed admissions standards is nothing more than affirmative discrimination.

If the Regents of the University of California were really interested in both serving the medical - and other professional - needs of the state while preserving merit in the admissions process, they might have studied the process and proposed significant changes in the admissions policy - including the elimination of preferences for alumni and donors, who can buy their way into elite graduate and professional schools.

They might have studied the efficacy of standardized tests, and the possibility that other factors may matter in deciding whether an applicant will be a good doctor or not. After all, any tuition a student pays covers only part of medical school education. Those who are admitted receive a hefty state subsidy for their education. There is apparently no race-neutrality in the awarding of subsidies to medical applicants. The signs seem as big as the ones that adorned Southern water faucets a generation ago - signs that say "White" and "Colored", or implicitly, "no Blacks need apply".

There are income distribution implications for this affirmative discrimination, the new apartheid in college and professional school admissions. Why should taxpayers of color pay for state educational institutions that discriminate against their youngsters? This is an income transfer program of the worst kind. The data suggests that African American and Latino communities are medically under-served, yet African American and Latino taxpayers must subsidize the medical education for those who would not serve their communities! The tax and income distributions implications of affirmative discrimination have not been fully explored - but they must be.