Cohen Jordan J
Association of American Medical Colleges, 2450 N St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1126, USA.
JAMA. 2003 Mar 5;289(9):1143-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.9.1143.
The US Supreme Court recently accepted on appeal 2 cases from the University of Michigan regarding the constitutionality of race-conscious decision making in higher education admissions. The consequences of the Court's decision will directly affect the future of medicine in the United States. Medical schools have a societal obligation to select and educate the physician workforce of the future. To outlaw the use of affirmative action in the admissions process would cripple the profession's ability to achieve racial and ethnic diversity. Preserving this diversity in medical school admissions programs is important for 4 major reasons (1) adequate representation among students and faculty of the diversity in US society is indispensable for quality medical education; (2) increasing the diversity of the physician workforce will improve access to health care for underserved populations; (3) increasing the diversity of the research workforce can accelerate advances in medical and public health research; and (4) diversity among managers of health care organizations makes good business sense. This article explores these reasons in detail, reviews the history and effectiveness of affirmative action in medical school admissions programs, and explains why alternatives to affirmative action are unworkable.
美国最高法院最近受理了来自密歇根大学的两起上诉案件,这些案件涉及高等教育招生中考虑种族因素的决策是否符合宪法。最高法院的裁决结果将直接影响美国医学的未来。医学院肩负着挑选和培养未来医生队伍的社会义务。在招生过程中取缔平权行动的做法将削弱该行业实现种族和民族多样性的能力。在医学院招生项目中保持这种多样性很重要,主要有以下四个原因:(1)在美国社会的学生和教师中,充分体现这种多样性对于高质量医学教育不可或缺;(2)增加医生队伍的多样性将改善弱势群体获得医疗保健服务的机会;(3)增加研究人员队伍的多样性能够加速医学和公共卫生研究的进展;(4)医疗保健组织管理人员的多样性具有良好的商业意义。本文详细探讨了这些原因,回顾了医学院招生项目中平权行动的历史和成效,并解释了为何平权行动的替代方案不可行。