Key Legal Cases Shaping Diversity Policies

The Supreme Court is looking at two big affirmative action cases. These are against the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Harvard University. The cases claim the schools use race wrong in picking students, basically discriminating.¹ If the courts rule against these practices, it could change things a lot. Most medical schools depend on considering race in choosing students. This helps them get a racially mixed student group.¹ But, if the Supreme Court goes the other way, health care might become less diverse. And we might not make as much progress fixing the big unfairness in medicine.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court is set to rule on two landmark affirmative action cases against UNC and Harvard, which could significantly impact diversity in medical schools and the healthcare industry.
• Legal complaints say looking at race in the admissions process at these schools is unfair. They think it breaks the law by not treating everyone equally, under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI.
• If the Supreme Court bans using race as a deciding factor, there could be fewer future health care workers from different backgrounds. This might make it harder to fix long-standing issues in health care.
• There aren’t enough doctors from different races mainly because of a history of keeping them out. Tests like the MCAT play a big part in making sure this continues. It’s like a locked door that keeps some people out of medical school.
• Places that stopped using affirmative action saw fewer minority students in medical school. This could happen everywhere if the Supreme Court makes a certain decision.

The Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling: A Shift in Diversity Approach

The Supreme Court is looking at Affirmative Action in cases against UNC and Harvard. These lawsuits say the schools use race to decide admissions, breaking laws against discrimination. The UNC case focuses on the Equal Protection Clause, a law that stops states from treating people unfairly. The Harvard case mentions Title VI, a law against racial bias in programs that use government money.² If the Court decides against these schools, it could affect many other places, even medical schools. They might have to stop using race to make their student bodies diverse. This could make it harder to make healthcare equal for everyone.²

The Landmark Cases: UNC and Harvard Lawsuits

The UNC and Harvard lawsuits challenge using race in admissions. They question if this is fair under the law and how it affects education’s diversity.² They want the Court to look at if it’s right to pick students based on their race. This has been a key way to bring more diversity to colleges and universities.³

The Legal Arguments: Equal Protection and Title VI

In the UNC case, the focus is on the Equal Protection Clause. It aims to make sure states don’t favor some people over others. The Harvard lawsuit uses Title VI. This law stops unfair treatment in programs that get money from the government.² Both arguments are broad, touching many schools, including medical ones. They have used these types of policies to add more variety to their students.²

The Potential Impact on Medical School Admissions

If the Supreme Court makes a decision against these schools, it could seriously change how diverse medical schools are.² It might mean they can’t look at a student’s race when they pick who gets in. This could affect healthcare a lot. We might see more gaps in healthcare, and it might be harder to treat different groups of people fairly.²

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: The First Blow

In 1978, the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke marked a big moment for affirmative action. Allan Bakke contested being rejected twice from UC Davis School of Medicine. He argued against the school’s practice, where 16 positions were set aside for students from different races.⁴ The Supreme Court agreed that this was too much of a racial focus. Still, they said that considering an applicant’s race as a bonus was fine in admissions.⁴ This decision opened the door for more debates on the topic. Over the next 30 years, it led to a careful review of how race is used in admitting students to colleges and medical schools.

The UC Davis Racial Quota System

UC Davis had a plan to give 16 out of every 100 spots to qualified minority students.⁴ This plan was what the Bakke case was all about.

The Court’s Ruling: No Racial Quotas, but Race as a “Plus Factor”

The Supreme Court decided against UC Davis’ 16-spot plan. They said it went against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.⁴ Yet, they also stated that race could indeed be one of the factors. But, this use had to be very careful and not extreme like the 16-spot rule.⁴ Mr. Bakke was finally granted admission to UC Davis School of Medicine.⁴

Grutter v. Bollinger: Upholding Holistic Review

In 2003, the case⁵⁶Grutter v. Bollinger⁵⁶ made a big decision. It said looking at someone’s race can be part of a complete application review. But, setting strict limits on how many students of each race can join a school is wrong.⁶The court agreed that schools like the Law School can think about race when choosing students. This is to make sure everyone there learns from being around people with different backgrounds.⁶ Because of this, many schools have started looking at all parts of a person’s life, not just their grades and test scores. The American Medical Colleges support this change.

The Transition to Holistic Admissions Processes

⁶Now, schools look at everything about an applicant, from their grades to what they write about in their personal statement. This includes the Law School, which reads through personal stories and recommendations to understand how each applicant can add to the school’s mix of people.⁵ They also think about how well someone might do in classes, based on their past scores and grades.⁵

The Association of American Medical Colleges’ Support

The AAMC supports a full picture of each student applying, not just their test scores.⁶Schools have taken example from a key case, Bakke, where considering race was first allowed. This has helped keep medical schools varied in who they admit, even with challenges to programs that consider race.⁶⁵

The Underrepresentation of Racial Minorities in Medicine

The Historical Exclusion and Systemic Inequities

Medical schools try to be more diverse. But there aren’t enough Black and Hispanic doctors. In 2015, there were short about 114,000 Black and 81,000 Hispanic doctors. This is compared to the U.S. population’s proportions.¹ The problem started long ago. Minorities were not allowed to go to medical school or join groups like the AMA. Even now, not all have equal chances for good education and healthcare. This keeps them from becoming doctors.¹

The MCAT’s Role in Perpetuating Disparities

The MCAT could be stopping more diverse doctors from getting in. In 2022, Black and American Indian/Alaska Native medical students scored lower on MCATs than White students. They scored almost a full point lower on average.¹ This is often because they don’t have the same access to good schools and healthcare. So, the test doesn’t show all they can do.

Also, banning affirmative action hurts how diverse med schools are. States that stopped affirmative action had fewer minorities in med school. But, other states saw a small increase in diversity.¹ What this means is that without considering race, we might lose progress. Affirmative action helps get more diverse students in medical schools. Without it, we could see fewer minorities becoming doctors.¹

The lack of diversity in medicine is a big problem. As the Supreme Court looks at affirmative action, we’re worried about the future. Having more diverse doctors helps everyone get better healthcare. But if affirmative action stops, we might not see as many minorities in medical jobs. We’re at a critical turning point for diversity in healthcare.¹⁷

The Impact of Affirmative Action Bans on Medical School Diversity

Studies show that getting rid of affirmative action in some places lowered the number of minority students in medical schools. A research in 2022 found that these states had 4.8% fewer minority students. Meanwhile, other states saw a 0.7% increase in minority students.⁸ Stopping race-based policies could harm the effort to get more minorities into healthcare. This may keep healthcare gaps and make it harder to understand diverse patients.

The ban on affirmative action had a big effect. Six states saw a 17% drop in minority students joining medical schools for the first time.⁷ This made it harder for the medical field to tackle the country’s health problems. In 2012, only a few Latino and African American students got into medical schools, even though their numbers in the U.S. were higher.⁷

Places like California, Florida, Texas, and Washington lost Latino and African American students at top public schools.⁷ The number of these students dropped by 29% and 20% at these schools, respectively. There was also a decrease in the number of minority graduate students.⁷

This change didn’t just affect undergrad studies. It also hit graduate programs. Engineering, natural sciences, and social sciences saw drops in minority students.⁷ The number of diverse grad students in the humanities also went down.⁷

Key Legal Cases Shaping Diversity Policies

Two big cases are happening now in the Supreme Court. They’re against the University of North Carolina (UNC) and Harvard University. These cases challenge using race in admitting students.⁹ The UNC case talks about the Equal Protection Clause. The Harvard case looks at Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which stops discrimination in programs getting federal money. These cases could change how schools, even medical ones, use race in admissions.

The Equal Protection Clause and Title VI Challenges

These cases were started by a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). They’re led by Edward Blum. He’s using Asian American people’s stories to show why he thinks affirmative action is wrong. But, proving any discrimination doesn’t really stop affirmative action from doing good overall.⁹

The Strategic Positioning of Asian Americans in Lawsuits

In the UNC case, they say the Equal Protection Clause is violated. Harvard’s case shows Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is broken. This can affect many colleges, even medical ones, that consider race in admissions.⁹

The Supreme Court’s Potential Color-Blind Approach

Many legal experts think the Supreme Court will soon end affirmative action in education. They may say any decision based on race is wrong – even if it helps a group or the whole society. The Court’s 2007 case Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District marked a turning point. Chief Justice Roberts said then, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”² This “color-blind” view ignores the deep-seated racism that still hurts racial minorities. It also keeps benefiting White people. If this view spreads to medicine, it could make it harder for hospitals to get diverse staff and improve care for everyone.

The Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District Precedent

In 2007, the Supreme Court made a decision in the Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District case. This decision started to shape a “color-blind” way of dealing with racism. It might have a big impact on future decisions about helping ethnic minorities. If the Court continues this way, it could be harder for hospitals and doctors to fight racial bias and make healthcare fair for all.

The Entrenchment of Whiteness and Systemic Racism

The Supreme Court thinking about a color-blind approach risks keeping things good for White people. It could also keep systemic racism alive in areas like healthcare. By ignoring the race troubles and barriers that still exist, this approach would slow down efforts to bring more diversity and fairness to healthcare.

The Tension Between Law and Medical Accreditation Standards

The Supreme Court might stop medical schools from considering a student’s race in admissions.¹ This is a problem because the LCME (Liaison Committee on Medical Education) says medical schools need to include people from varied backgrounds.¹⁰ The LCME expectation clashes with a possible Supreme Court decision that could ban race from admissions. So, medical schools could find themselves stuck between following LCME rules and the Supreme Court’s laws. This challenge shows how hard it is to keep healthcare diverse while dealing with changing rules.

The LCME Standard 3.3 and Diversity Requirements

¹⁰ The LCME tells medical schools they should pick diversity goals that fit what they believe and where they are.¹⁰ Meeting these standards has helped make the student body more diverse in the U.S.¹⁰ Part of this is having the right plans and actions for getting and keeping a diverse group of students and teachers.

The Potential Conflict with Supreme Court Rulings

¹ By 2015, there weren’t enough Black and Hispanic doctors compared to what the U.S. needed.¹ In 2018, even though 12.8% of the U.S. was Black, only 5.4% of doctors were.¹ On average, Black and Native American medical school applicants scored lower on the MCAT® than White applicants.¹ A study showed that states banning affirmative action saw fewer minority students in their medical schools. This tension shows a big challenge in making sure healthcare is diverse under new laws.

The Rise of DEI-Related Lawsuits in the Corporate Sector

ESG issues like DEI have become big topics in the U.S. And with this, the number of DEI-related lawsuits against corporate diversity policies has surged.⁹ For example, the NCPPR, with $6,000 in Starbucks stock, sued Starbucks’s leaders. They claimed these leaders broke their duty via the company’s diversity rules.⁹ Though the case was thrown out on August 11, 2023, the NCPPR can’t bring it back.⁹ Yet, other lawsuits like the ones against Amazon and Target are still in play.⁹

The Republican Attorneys General’s Warning on Race-Based Hiring

Firstly, a group of Republican AGs sent a letter to many big companies in July 2023. They warned against using race in hiring.⁹ This action shows how closely the legal world is watching the DEI work of big companies. It’s also a reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision against some affirmative action policies.⁹

Strengthening and Defending Corporate DEI Initiatives

Despite facing hurdles like political pressures and legal issues, it’s crucial for companies to continue their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programmes. They should do so by presenting a strong business case for diversity. This includes using research that links corporate diversity to better financial results.

¹¹

Making the Business Case for Diversity

Studies reveal that DEI initiatives that boost collaboration and innovation lead to better solutions. These solutions are creative and meet wider company goals, increasing earnings in the legal field.¹¹ Showing the clear benefits of a diverse and inclusive workforce helps companies make a strong case for their DEI programmes. This is key to their success, even amid legal challenges.

Ensuring Legal Compliance and Employee Training

It’s vital for companies to make sure their DEI efforts are legally compliant. They should offer employees training in lawful employment practices. Achieving this requires teams from areas like sustainability, HR, and legal to work together.¹¹ This unified effort helps companies follow laws while staying true to their goal of a diverse and inclusive workplace.

The Collaboration Between Departments

Implementing DEI initiatives effectively needs teams to work together across the company. This method ensures solutions are comprehensive and address the full scope of diversity and inclusion. Such teamwork not only makes DEI efforts legally sound but also ensures they fit with the company’s broader strategies.¹¹

The Consulting Services and Digital Solutions for DEI Programs

Organizations are facing new challenges in the area of DEI. They look for help in navigating the laws and meeting the demands of a more focused public eye. The “How Consulting Services Support ESG-Aligned Social Performance” article shows how professional services firms can assist. They can aid in the development and improvement of DEI programs.⁹

In addition, there are “Smart Innovators” offering digital solutions that track DEI data. These tools give companies a way to collect and analyze information. Through this, they can better understand how to make their DEI efforts successful while staying within the law.¹²

By using expert advice and cutting-edge digital tools, organizations can enhance their DEI work. This method not only enhances the defense of their diversity work but allows them to find new ways to make positive changes. This includes getting rid of biases and staying ahead in their industries.¹²

Source Links

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10151613/
2. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/node/84179
3. https://www.capturehighered.com/client-blog/the-supreme-court-rules-against-affirmative-action/
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/affirmative-action-supreme-court.html
5. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZO.html
6. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/
7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4454423/
8. https://www.ama-assn.org/medical-students/medical-school-life/affirmative-action-ends-how-supreme-court-ruling-impacts
9. https://www.verdantix.com/insights/blogs/the-legal-issues-surrounding-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-programmes
10. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/what-role-accreditation-achieving-medical-school-diversity/2021-12
11. https://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/DeStefano_March.pdf
12. https://www.bcg.com/capabilities/diversity-inclusion/overview