Do No Harm Sounds Alarm on Medical Schools' Defiance of Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action

A new study by Do No Harm, a group of medical professionals opposed to identity politics in medical education, reveals that medical schools are devising workarounds to continue racially conscious admissions despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

A new study by Do No Harm, a group of physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals, has sounded the alarm that medical schools across the country are "skirting" the Supreme Court's ruling requiring admissions programs to abandon race as a factor.

The study, titled "Skirting SCOTUS: How Medical Schools Will Continue to Practice Racially Conscious Admissions," unveils findings that despite the high court's decision in the landmark affirmative action case last summer, "many in the healthcare establishment nevertheless remain ideologically committed to the principle of racial favoritism and reject the virtue of race blindness."

The Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard prohibited the use of race as a factor in college admissions. However, the Do No Harm study suggests that many medical schools are seeking ways to devise workarounds to continue racial preferences under the guise of "holistic admissions."

"Efforts to game admissions with an eye toward bolstering racial diversity commonly occur under the moniker of 'holistic admissions,'" the study reads. "In theory, holistic admissions should mean de-emphasizing the metrics that primarily determine admission to medical school (e.g., GPA and MCAT scores) and placing greater focus on other academic qualifications, personality traits, or professional accolades," it continues.

"In practice, 'holistic' admissions often represent a rebranding or workaround of affirmative action," the study says.

The study cites leading medical organizations that have expressed dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court's decision and their intent, in Do No Harm's view, to "circumvent it."

Among the organizations cited is the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which released a statement saying, "The AAMC believes that a diverse and inclusive biomedical research workforce with individuals from historically excluded and underrepresented groups in biomedical research is critical to gathering the range of perspectives needed to identify and solve the complex scientific problems of today and tomorrow."

"We will work together to adapt following today's court decision without compromising these goals," the AAMC said.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, board chair of Do No Harm, said schools appear intent on finding "ways around" the high court's decision. "They feel that diversity is such an important value in healthcare that they need to ignore the Supreme Court and go their own way," he said.

The study notes that when affirmative action was legal, universities could "engage in explicit racial preference without legal consequence" and that Asian applicants were negatively affected.

"Even though MCAT scores and GPA were integral to the admissions process, the penalties and bonuses assigned to members of racial groups became so extreme that Black applicants with average MCAT scores and GPAs were four times as likely to be admitted to medical school as academically equivalent Asian applicants," the study says, noting that Black students accepted to medical school have academic qualifications that mirror Asian applicants rejected from medical school.

Goldfarb expressed concern that schools' decisions to continue racial preferences could "come back to haunt them" and that they could "end up getting sued."

The AAMC and American College of Physicians did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Fox News Digital.