Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that using racial preferences in college admissions is unconstitutional. But if you thought that meant attempts to distort merit in service of the “diversity” deity were over, then think again.
On Monday, the New York Times reported that “to build a diverse class of students, the medical school at the University of California, Davis ranks applicants by the disadvantages they have faced.” It is called an “adversity score,” and it “has helped turn U.C. Davis into one of the most diverse medical schools in the country” in recent years.
THE SUPREME COURT SAVED THE CONSTITUTION FROM BIDEN
But it should be obvious why this is a terrible idea: Nobody benefits from receiving the most “disadvantaged” doctor possible when seeking care. People come to doctors when they need a problem solved. To select applicants on any other basis than their prospective ability to solve those problems is a disservice to both better-suited applicants and their future patients.
This is not to say people from disadvantaged backgrounds cannot make amazing doctors just like anybody else. Of course they can. My point is that one who is not necessarily equipped to be an amazing doctor should not be admitted to medical school simply because he came from a disadvantaged background. It is one thing for an undergraduate program to use a “holistic” admissions process in which certain nontraditional parts of an application are considered in order to create a well-rounded campus environment. But medical school is entirely different because the stakes are so much higher.
The New York Times fails even to mention objections to the “adversity scores” coming from this angle. It only mentions “skeptics [who] question whether such rankings — or any kind of socioeconomic affirmative action — will be enough to replace race-conscious affirmative action.” In the world of the New York Times, the only possible reason one would disagree with this policy is that it does not go far enough to force-feed “diversity” quotas into every area of life.
But this perspective is completely out of line with the position of the average person. Even the notoriously liberal readers of the New York Times eviscerated the article in the comments. The top “readers pick” comment reads: “Wow, so my child may be penalized in the future because her parents worked hard before they had her to ensure she has a good and stable life? Ranking by disadvantages is so odd. I'm not looking to have the most disadvantaged doctor, just the most capable and hard-working one.” It received almost 2,000 recommendations.
Another reader, in a comment with more than 850 recommendations, wrote, “If I'm seeing a doctor, I don't care what adversity that doctor has faced, or who their parents were, or anything other than how good they are at their job. I'll take the straight white son of a billionaire, or the trans black child of penniless refugees, or literally whoever can actually help me with my medical issues.”
This is clearly correct, but universities have become such hotbeds of delusional thinking in recent decades that it would actually be a controversial thing to say in many places. There is a reason why nearly every selective university in the country put out a statement lamenting the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling even though 82% believe that race should play no factor in admissions decisions: They are operating on the basis of completely different values and premises than the rest of the country.
Consequently, we have seen the emergence of an all-out war on merit. It is the motivating factor behind removing test requirements for universities and graduate schools, removing gifted classes from K-12 schools, and, now, admitting students to medical school on the basis of disadvantage rather than qualifications.
But a society can only survive so long while embracing openly anti-meritocratic values. We must recognize this and change course before it spreads further and becomes too late.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Jack Elbaum is a summer 2023 Washington Examiner fellow.