Separating medical students into racial affinity groups supports the "antiracist and anti-oppression curriculum," argues an article in the New England Journal of Medicine.
University of California San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine faculty and administrators see medical school as "retraumatizing" BIPOC (Black Indigenous People of Color) students, writes Gabrielle M. Etzel in Campus Reform.
UCSF has groups for Black/African American students, other "people of color" and Whites.
“In a space without White people, BIPOC participants can bring their whole selves, heal from racial trauma together, and identify strategies for addressing structural racism,” the article states.
. . . White “participants can learn to be thoughtful allies who are less dominating in integrated spaces, to elevate the voices and leadership of BIPOC colleagues, and to iteratively reevaluate their own internalized racism and sense of superiority that can obstruct antiracist commitment and action.”
Will they be better doctors? Will they be prepared to treat people of different racial and ethnic groups?
"The DEI (Diversity Equity Inclusion) agenda — which promotes people and policies based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation rather than merit — is undermining health care," writes Stanley Goldfarb, an emeritus medical professor, in The Free Press. He has started a nonprofit called Do No Harm with others "to combat discriminatory practices in medicine."
Let me introduce you to King/Drew Hospital (RIP): https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-kingdrewpulitzer-sg-storygallery.html
King/Drew was supposed to be a hospital by African Americans for African Americans. As such, it was staffed mostly by Blacks at all levels and had a mostly Black patient base. One of the main problems, was that when there were problems, regulators were afraid to say so; because they feared being accused of picking on a Black hospital. Politicians, nominally in control of the public hospital, had the same problem. With all the problems, do politicians actually oversee the place, crack down on the dangerous conditions, and be accused of racism, or do they let it all slide. Problems included such basics as improperly sterilized instruments, medications not given, patients…
I thought that being diverse was good, because of bringing different viewpoints to the table. What's the next step? Separate medical schools for women?
In the 1960's and early 1970's, I actually PREFERRED black doctors, as they had made it as an MD in spite of the roadblocks. I figured that they had to be pretty good.
But since about 1975, I've actually avoided black "affirmative action" docs. Sadly, that means I'm avoiding the GOOD black MD's as well as the affirmative action selectees. All things being equal (or unknown), I now prefer Asian male doctors, as they are the ones most discriminated against in med schools. Only the best of the best get an MD. Second choice? Asian women. Third? Jewish men. These guys offer a bonus -- Jewish humor.
I don't think that question is nearly as important to them as producing more black doctors.