Search News


Browse Archives

News

Harvard Med Alters Admissions Process

March 22, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A Harvard Medical School subcommittee that screened minority applicants has seen its last admissions season.

For three decades, the subcommittee reviewed applications from black, Hispanic and Native American students before they went to the main admissions committee for a final decision. With the 2003 Supreme Court decisions -- which upheld the use of race in admissions at the University of Michigan, but barred the university from awarding concrete points based on race -- looming large, the Harvard med school took the advice of some of its lawyers and did away with the separate minority subcommittee.

The Supreme Court rulings allow an institution to consider race as one quality of an individual and one factor in admitting students, but barred the use of numerical quotas and imposed other restrictions on the use of race. Since the decisions, colleges around the country have been reassessing their admissions policies to determine whether and how they jibe with the court's rulings, and altering them when appropriate.

The Harvard Medical School minority subcommittee was made up of about 15 people and screened only minority applicants. The subcommittee sometimes rejected minority applicants by itself, but could not accept students. The subcommittee’s only real power lay in deciding which applicants to pass along to the main admissions committee. “The subcommittee was a kind of screening device that would send only the best applicants to the main committee,” said Dr. Alvin F. Poussaint, the school's associate dean for student affairs and former chair of the subcommittee when it was first formed.

Roger Clegg, general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity, which has fought affirmative action in the courts and on the public policy front, said that, in his view, Harvard got good legal advice. “What the Supreme Court has said is that diversity can have educational benefits,” Clegg said. “But when you look at diversity, you’re not supposed to promote one kind of diversity above all others. If you have a committee defined only in terms of one kind of diversity, I think that does make the school vulnerable to a lawsuit.”  

Poussaint said that the purpose of the subcommittee was to have “a team of people who are used to evaluating these applicants from all different backgrounds. It’s for efficiency, and [someone on the subcommittee] might know that Xavier [University],” a historically black university, “produces some of the top premeds. Some people on the main committee may never have heard of Xavier.”

Poussaint added that the University decided after the Supreme Court decision that it would be better not to have an admissions process at the medical school that differed from the rest of the university. “Even though it’s not illegal, they wanted it all to look the same,” Poussaint said.

Theodore M. Shaw, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said that Harvard made a good decision in removing the subcommittee. “Even though the intent in setting up the subcommittee was not to create separate pools of applicants,” he said, “it certainly could be spun that way and attacked by opponents of affirmative action. The one thing you don’t want to do is signal there are separate pools of applications.”

John Lacey, a spokesman for the medical school, said the subcommittee is essentially just being restructured in a way that represents "no reduction in commitment to diversity." He said in an e-mail that "dedicated committee members who are sophisticated about minority admissions" will be distributed among the other committees, and the med school will add "an assistant dean who focuses on underrepresented minority admissions" and a faculty member versed in minority admissions to the main committee. "We are doing this not to reduce our commitment to diversity at HMS but to make our process less vulnerable to challenge in the current legal climate," Lacey said. 

Poussaint pointed out that the legal advice the medical school received was not uniform. “All the counsels didn’t agree,” he said. “Some of them looked at it and felt it was perfectly fine and met all of the standards in terms of the Supreme Court decision. Our candidates were being compared with majority candidates. They all got two interviews and at least one had to be with someone not on the subcommittee.”  

Beginning next admissions season, Poussaint said, the Harvard Medical School will have only four subcommittees, each one specific to a geographic region. Poussaint said that one of the benefits of the subcommittee was that the main committee could rest assured it was looking at top-flight minority candidates. Now, Poussaint added, it will be important to acquaint the other subcommittees and the main committee with the knowledge that the minority subcommittee brought to bear -- including, among other things, familiarity with historically black institutions.

Shaw said that he hopes that “they still continue to give attention to making sure they reach minority applicants. Just because an institution is changing its practice, doesn’t mean it’s abandoning its commitment to diversity.” He added that he hopes institutions aren't getting "stampeded away from their efforts to admit minority students," and that competent admissions officers should know Xavier University anyway.

In the past, only the head of the minority subcommittee, like the head of all the subcommittees, had an admissions vote on the main committee, which has more than 20 people. Poussaint said that nothing even resembling a concrete score was ever given based on race. “If we get students from a poverty background with difficulties growing up but they still manage to go to a good college and do well, we give them a ‘listen, you’ve overcome so much, and achieved so much,’ ” Poussaint said. “We’ll give them an extra boost. You get more of that with minority candidates because more of them are from poverty backgrounds, but that goes for all candidates.”

Poussaint added that it could take a few years to see if the Harvard Medical School will maintain diversity, because fluctuations in the number of minority students admitted from year to year can be large. He said that, with the subcommittee still intact this admissions season, the number of minority applicants accepted was down about 20 percent, to about 35 students.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Harvard Med Alters Admissions Process

  • Posted by Overdue on March 22, 2006 at 8:05am EST
  • Racial discrimination under the guise of affirmative action is ingrained in academic culture and is creating a war of all against all. The supreme court could have cleanly ended it but chose to suspend the 'equal protection of the laws' provision of the 14th amendment for a generation and leave things legally murky. Until full enforcement of the 14th amendment returns the fight will have to be won incrementally, as in this small victory at Harvard Med.

  • Response to Overdue
  • Posted by Sillyone on March 22, 2006 at 10:25am EST
  • There may be no greater evidence of the intellectually barren nature of American higher education than its embrace (or death grip) on Affirmative Action. It is one of those policy decisions that works only if you can get your brain to stop working. Fixed preferential admissions and hiring decisions in a dynamic demographic landscape? Help me to understand how I should explain this to my first generation Polish-American students and my first generation Boatswanian students. Let's call it the Barack Obama paradox - paying social debts never owed to underserving debtors in another deeply flawed social experiment. We can shake our heads at the French students who take to the streets when their entitlements are in jeopardy, yet we can expect the same here when this sacred cow finally comes under the knife.

  • Covering the Crimson Rear
  • Posted by Bryce Myers on March 22, 2006 at 10:25am EST
  • You gotta love how HMS seemingly initiated this change because their policies made them "vulnerable to a lawsuit" and not because of the fact that they're morally reprehensible. And astonishingly insulting to minorities.

    Yet that’s the arrogance that we’ve come to expect... not from Harvard, not from the Ivy League, but from higher education.

  • Racist Double Standards Must Go
  • Posted by Chuck on March 22, 2006 at 10:25am EST
  • So...... let me get this straight - the Harvard Medical School had a separate (but equal?) admissions committee that reviewed only the applications from Black, Hispanic and Native American students.

    And the insufferable racism of such double standards was said to be necessary because...because...... because why?
    Because Black, Hispanic, and Native American students themselves, as individuals, required a special kind of handling or a unique sort of evaluation?

    The hideous, demeaning, paternalistic and heinous nature of such illiberal racist assumptions should be excoriated and satirized at every opportunity.

    It was only after legal counsel reviewed the Supreme Court's rulings in the Michigan litigation - made nearly three years ago! - that the Harvard Medical School itself decided to abolish their racist special committee.

    In other words, there is no reason whatsoever to imagine that the Medical School would ever have done so on their own.

    Can universities really wonder why their odious, ideologically-driven practices are increasingly held up to ridicule?

  • Let’s not freak out here.
  • Posted by Larry on March 22, 2006 at 11:05am EST
  • First of all, the Supreme Court did not decide that non-government entities could or could not give racial preference. Instead, the equal protection challenges in Gratz v. Bollinger dealt with direct challenges under the 14th amendment, not any private discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. Slightly different issues come into play with a private entity. Indeed, I would love to discuss the nuances of what may be the difference on this board, but every time I start doing it, some “academic” accuses me of uttering “legal mumbo jumbo.” Perhaps when there is a real AA lawsuit against a private entity people will be more interested.

    Second, Chuck, there is no indication that this committee applied different standards to minorities than they did to white people. Moreover, the minorities were completely free to opt out of this special selection by not giving their race. So, the only if you assume that this committee gave special preferences to black people can you conclude that someone was hurt, and when you do this the only class that was hurt was the small sliver of white people with lower qualifications than the other white people. While I am sure that most of the applicants are fairly well-qualified, at the undergraduate level this is not the case, and usually the people that whine about affirmative action are white boys that drank in high school (which really disqualifies you from college, in my mind) and still want to go to a “good” school.

    Overdue, There really isn’t any “war” going on. Let’s face it. People do all sorts of things to get into school. If it means playing the “race” card, they do it. If it means playing the “family” card, they do it. If it means selling their grandmother, they probably would do it, too. Especially Harvard Medical School.

    Mr. Myers, Since lawsuits are one of the most popular ways of determining societal preference for certain behavior (if you subscribe to the belief that morals and norms are reflect in laws and applied in lawsuits), then being “vulnerable to lawsuit” and “morally reprehensible” mean almost exactly the same thing.

  • Lost Larry
  • Posted by Shannon on March 22, 2006 at 11:35am EST
  • If one ever doubted how convoluted and overtly (or subtly) racist the whole affirmative action/diversity racket has become, one need only read the tortured, self-effacing blather from "Larry" here.

    Double standards are okay, let's just call them something else.

    If someone points a finger at these pernicious and racist practices, Larry insist that we examine the finger or else he simpers that "everybody" does "all sorts of things" to get into school.

    Enough of this pathetic drivel defending separate committees, double standards, or alibis by the boatload.

    Lost Larry typifies the squealing and posturing that one expects will accompany the demise of affirmative action preferences and its dysfunctional offspring.

    Larry's disingenuous alibis are actually music to my ears, another sign that counting by race or dissembling by ethnicity continues to be opposed and openly repudiated.

  • To Shannon
  • Posted by Larry on March 22, 2006 at 12:20pm EST
  • Shannon, I appreciate your comments, and if I can figure out the substance of them I will take them to heart. I am anxious to know which parts of my argument you disagree with and why. I did not make an alibi of any sort.

  • The State v. Mr. Myers
  • Posted by Mr. Myers on March 22, 2006 at 12:55pm EST
  • You're right, Larry. I see it now--an almost total equivalence between legal codes and moral frameworks.

    Hot dang. I'm going to cheat on my girlfriend tonight and the next night. And then I'm going to develop a seething, irrational hatred for Native Americans and people with funny-sounding last names. After all, neither action can spur a lawsuit.

    Please. Have we devolved so much as a society that we can no longer assert moral absolutes without burying ourselves in the serpentine language of law books?

  • Posted by CJO on March 22, 2006 at 2:30pm EST
  • How many commenters here seem to have it out for both higher education and the law, without apparently really understanding either.

    Many comments I've read over the past months have made clear people's antipathy and lack of understanding of higher ed, but it wasn't until today's totally unwarranted ad hominem attacks on Larry that I realized how many people who write in here seem to carry the age-old grudge against lawyers (and the law)!

    By the way, ad hominem arguments are not appropriate in any case, but the venom with which Larry was treated, particularly by Shannon, is shocking and absolutely unwarranted, especially in such a forum as this.

  • Myers and moral absolutes
  • Posted by Larry on March 22, 2006 at 2:31pm EST
  • Mr. Myers, I don’t know what “serpentine” language you are referring to. My only point was that, in line with natural law theorists, that laws are ultimately derived from individual morals, and therefore, one that breaks a law probably has violated some widely-held moral framework. While, of course, natural law is not the only jurisprudential theory out there it (or variants upon it) are widely subscribed to.

    So, to answer your question: you are free to assert moral absolutes. However, if there is no law (that is, a statute, piece of common law, regulation, etc.) that prohibits it, it is likely that most don’t share your sense of morals.

  • Someone's going to be unhappy
  • Posted by Art D. on March 22, 2006 at 3:55pm EST
  • As the ex-finance of a Harvard Med grad (and ol' Lar's best-bud), let me offer this --

    For every one person accepted at HMS, rejected will be SEVEN pretty good folks, the difference between can sometimes be barely detectable.

    For instance, my ex did NOT have all A's and 99% MCAT -- just 10 documented years in charity work. (BTW: she was rejected by Michigan Med because Michigan focuses on 23-year-olds.)

    So, no matter how fair the process at an HMS, someone may be unhappy with the outcome, there are just not enough openings. Life goes on. (Besides -- what do they call the last MD grad of the year? Doctor).

    U. of Mich. is public. Harvard's private. That's different, big-time. Harvard's not perfect -- but from what I can tell, they try to be as fair as possible. It is what is expected of them. (I can't speak for Michigan -- they appear to have Harvard-envy, IMHO).

    For more on this --

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=350092

  • No Offense = No Knowledge
  • Posted by Chuck on March 23, 2006 at 10:30am EST
  • Despite the simple-minded pretensions and assumptions of posters like "CJO" and "Larry," many citizens really DO understand and deplore what takes place in higher education these days.

    It has nothing to do with any alleged "grudge" against lawyers but reflects a weariness and anger towards those whose prattle insists that we treat individuals differently based on their skin color, gender or surname.

    Larry and CJO just cannot grasp how poisonous and divisive that is nor how it is so widely and reflexively embraced by many academics.

    If folks like them want to defend the indefensible - like racial, ethnic or gender double standards - then they are free to do so and those of us who deplore and oppose such reactionary concepts will remain free to criticize their errant ways in the strongest possible terms.

    Got that?

  • Chuck, please be specific
  • Posted by Larry on March 23, 2006 at 2:00pm EST
  • Chuck, I am curious: what part of my post was simple-minded or displayed an incorrect understanding of higher education. (As I read my post, I seem to have simply stated a few non-controversial positions regarding constitutional law. For example, I do not think that it is too controversial to state that non-state or federal actors are not bound by the US constitution itself, but may be bound by various statutes that legislatures may have passed pursuant to the 14th amendment or a state constitution. ) It is incorrect to say that I actually defended something.

    I am also curious, Chuck, why you think that it is “indefensible” to employ a racial double-standard. Indeed, saying that something is “indefensible” is somewhat of a circular argument with no substance. Many defenses of just about any position are possible. Heck, I can defend slavery, bigamy, genocide, racism, if you ask me. Whether such a defense would be accepted under your worldview is a different story.

    Therefore, Chuck, I would respectfully ask you to provide specifics in your critiques of my arguments, rather than declaring things to be “indefensible.”

    But, as Art says, there really isn’t any way to make anyone happy here. No matter what position Harvard takes someone will be there to call it “indefensible.”

  • Admisisons Process
  • Posted by Leonard Ramirez on March 23, 2006 at 2:00pm EST
  • Special admisisons is the cost that must be paid for the refusal to address unequal education. As long as educational privileges are determined by social class and race, then programs that compensate for race and class inequality are necessary.

    If one wants to create a system of blind justice, one has to ensure that the system is fair at base. This is not the case today. White flight to escape school integration in the 1970s ended the prospects of a unified class and racial system. Today the more you can pay the better the education you can get. This was the unequal outcome of the struggles of the past.

    The consequence of not wanting to dislodge racist and classist funding structures is the necessity for public policy to try to right some of the imbalances until fairness for all is guaranteed. But this must be made into a sound bite understandable and palpable to those who would scream unfair when their real purpose is to secure even greater privilege.

    White supremacy is reasserting itself and a strong voice of opposition must arise to respond to the threat against whatever degree of inclusion was gained since the 1960s.

  • Equal Protection, not Equal Results
  • Posted by Chuck on March 24, 2006 at 5:00pm EST
  • I'll keep this sweet and short.

    Harvard's Medical School wisely decided to eliminate its race-based admissions committee, fearing possible law suits. Its lawyers' advice was sensible and prudent.

    I applauded their decision.

    On the other hand, Larry and Leonard disapprove, citing all sorts of racial alibis and reasons, none of which stand up to legal scrutiny but all of which are basic fare among academics who still embrace racial double standards.

    You two can cite all the gibberish reasons or claims you like. I urge you to do so.

    But the 70s are over and it's time to let 'em go.

    Or was they used to say out West, "the dogs may bark, but the wagons roll on." Adios, amigos......

  • Chuck, I never said that!
  • Posted by Larry on March 25, 2006 at 3:10pm EST
  • Chuck, That is completely incorrect. I never approved or disapproved of Harvard’s decision. I noted that some of the issues were not as clear as the rhetoric on both sides indicates that they are, and a lawsuit might flesh them out.

  • Take it from an actual Harvard Medical student:
  • Posted by Second Year Student at Harvard Medical School on April 4, 2006 at 1:55am EDT
  • Chuck, Shannon, Bryce Myers, "Sillyone", "Overdue"...I offer you all the opportunity to save yourselves some energy and give it up. I will not waste time on personal attacks, but as a current second year student at Harvard Medical School, I assure you your time can be better spent outside of our business. My school is comprised of socioeconomically disadvantaged students from all racial backgrounds and students with million-dollar trust funds; students with parents who never went to college and those whose parents are senators; students who did not have access to a college-education at a private institution and those who went to Exeter & Yale; Latin-American ex-Olympiads; African-Americans with degrees from Oxford, as well as White Americans who scored below them on the MCAT. (And if you think that the students whose parents are Nobel Laureates or professors receive no preferential consideration, you're fooling yourselves). We have a phenomenal teaching and learning environment thriving from socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, and sexual-orientation diversity. We require this multitude of backgrounds and perspectives to better equip ourselves to serve our patients and communities as competent physicians. Students, faculty, and administrators all embrace it and we're all currently working on new ways to continue to maintain this diversity in light of the recent decision made (which was well justified by our Deans to us personally).
    The bottom line is that WE WANT IT…so save your breath ;-)