In 2023, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, ruling that race-based college admissions policies were unconstitutional. The 6–3 decision was seen as the end of affirmative action in higher education. But recent evidence shows that many American medical schools are quietly finding ways to continue using race as a factor in admissions. Critics say this is not only a violation of the Court’s ruling but also a dangerous and discriminatory practice that favors ideology over merit.
Data Shows Racial Preferences Persist
A new report by the watchdog group Do No Harm analyzed 2024 admissions data from 23 public medical schools. The findings were clear: “Accepted Asian and white applicants had higher MCAT scores than accepted Black applicants at all but one school,” the report stated. Even more troubling, “At 13 schools, the average MCAT score of rejected Asian or white applicants was higher than that of accepted Black applicants.”
At the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, for example, 21.6% of Black applicants who scored between 500 and 517 on the MCAT were admitted. In contrast, only 3.5% of white applicants and 2.2% of Asian applicants with the same scores were admitted. Eastern Virginia Medical School showed an even starker divide: 16.5% of Black applicants in that score range were admitted, compared to just 4.3% of white applicants and 2.1% of Asian applicants.
Ian Kingsbury, director of research at Do No Harm, said, “The data we collected strongly suggests that medical schools continue to engage in racially discriminatory admissions, even after the Supreme Court ruled against that practice in 2023.” He added, “The fight for truly race-neutral admissions goes on.”
Circumventing the Court’s Decision
While the ruling bans racial preferences in admissions, schools are finding ways around it by leaning on personal essays. In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts warned, “Universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.” But that appears to be exactly what many institutions are doing.
Some schools encourage applicants to describe how their racial background has shaped their lives. This tactic effectively allows race to be used indirectly in admissions decisions. Art Coleman, a lawyer who advises schools on education policy, said, “The Supreme Court’s decision is not eliminating all consideration of race in admissions. In fact, it is giving us a very clear road map on how to think about how an individual’s racial experience, perspective, and goals can be considered.”
Critics say this is nothing more than a legal smokescreen. “What universities are doing is racial gerrymandering,” Kingsbury said. “They’re doing through narrative essays what they were banned from doing directly.”
Affirmative Action by Another Name
Supporters of race-conscious admissions say these policies are necessary to address health disparities and increase diversity in the physician workforce. Dr. Billy Thomas, a professor of neonatology and pediatrics at the University of Arkansas, explained, “In the last decade, it has been shown that the more diverse a group is, the better the decision-making process and outcomes.” He added that diversity in medicine leads to “improved individual and population health and a reduction in health disparities.”
But critics argue that lowering standards to admit students based on race does not serve anyone, especially patients. One historical example often cited is Dr. Patrick Chavis, a Black physician who was admitted to medical school under an affirmative action program and celebrated as a success story. In 1996, Sen. Ted Kennedy called him a “perfect example” of how affirmative action works. But a year later, Chavis’s medical license was suspended due to serious malpractice issues. The California Medical Board cited his “inability to perform some of the most basic duties required of a physician.” His license was permanently revoked in 1998, and he died in 2002.
The Do No Harm report noted that Black students admitted in 2024 had an average MCAT score of 508.3. In comparison, Asian students averaged 514.0 and white students averaged 512.1. Despite this, Black students were admitted at much higher rates than their peers in the same score ranges. Among applicants who scored between 512 and 517, 17% of Black applicants were accepted, compared to only 7.9% of white applicants and 6.9% of Asian applicants.
“These numbers are not random,” said Kingsbury. “They reflect a system that prioritizes racial diversity over academic achievement.” He added that in many cases, medical schools are “operating regimes that are plainly unlawful.”
While some schools have been accused of ignoring the Court’s decision, others have scaled back their diversity efforts out of fear of legal consequences. A survey of over 1,600 medical students found that 24% reported that diversity and inclusion programs at their schools had already been cut. Another 67% feared more cuts were on the way.
Mary Owen, associate dean of Native American Health at the University of Minnesota, called the reaction to the Court’s decision “overzealous.” She said, “Even a slowdown for a moment affects these programs.” She warned that without diversity efforts, underrepresented students will be discouraged from applying.
A System That Harms Everyone
Opponents of affirmative action say that racial preferences harm not only the students who are denied admission but also those who are admitted without being fully prepared. Legal scholar Stuart Taylor Jr. explained in a brief to the Court that large racial preferences can actually hurt students by steering them into programs where they are more likely to struggle. “When we consider the higher education system as a whole,” he wrote, “it is clear that the vast majority of schools would be as racially integrated, or more racially integrated, under a system of no preferences than under a system of large preferences.”
Some argue that affirmative action is racist by definition. “It replaces individual achievement with group identity,” said Kingsbury. “That is not fairness. That is favoritism.”
The Future of Medical Admissions
The Department of Education has opened investigations into multiple universities suspected of using race illegally in admissions. The Trump administration recently announced a fourth probe into George Mason University, expanding its campaign to eliminate racial bias in higher education. “No one should be denied access to opportunity or resources because of their race, color, or national origin,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.
Medical schools are now under pressure to prove they are following the law. But some continue to resist. “To those who are anti-DEI, I’d love to hear what their solutions are,” said Dr. Don Warne, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Indigenous Health. Others, like Dr. James Hildreth of Meharry Medical College, dismiss claims that medicine is becoming a true meritocracy. “I don’t have patience for that nonsense,” he said.
Yet many believe that the only fair and legal solution is to admit students based on merit alone. In a field where lives are at stake, they argue, there is no room for political favoritism. “We don’t need more race-based admissions,” said Kingsbury. “We need doctors who are the best prepared, not the best connected.”
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the battle over race in medical school admissions is far from over. And the future of healthcare in America may depend on the outcome.
