A major medical publication argues for segregated classes in med school

Only once over its history in America did the left choose the moral side in an argument: It opposed segregation. It did this, not for a moral reason, although it made a pretense of morality, but because leftists understood that race was America’s Achilles’ heel. Now, for the same reason—undermining America on racial grounds—leftists are arguing for segregated education in medical schools. And as before, they’re pretending to advance this position on moral grounds.

The New England Medical Journal, which is America’s premier medical journal, published a short essay last week in which seven (!) people with letters after their names (M.S.W., M.D. M.S., B.A., etc.) argued that, for the good of leftism…er, for the good of racial advancement in America, teaching at medical schools must be broken into include “racial affinity group caucuses (RAGCs).” It was no surprise to me, a person who grew up in San Francisco, attended UC Berkeley, and raised children in Marin, that all these highly credentialed people are affiliated with the University of California at both Berkeley and San Francisco.

Image by freepik.

It was also predictable that the article has no data. It is simply an avalanche of academic leftist-speak:

“…racially disparate health outcomes….”

“…dismantle the systems that perpetuate these inequities….”

“…inequitable systems….”

“…racial affinity group caucusing engages participants in critical introspection through the lens of their own racialized experience….”

The term “caucusing” is one that “Indigenous scholars believe derives from an Algonquin term meaning a group gathering for wise counsel….”

Medical education is “Founded on legacies of colonialism and racism,” it “centered White learners,” and it “perpetuate[s] structural racism….”

The curricula have “centered White learners and ignore the differential impact of content on BIPOC learners (Black, Indigenous, or people of color) with personal experiences of racism that are nuanced and have been informed by interactions and observations over their lifetimes.”

The following two paragraphs, if leftist buzzwords were sold by the pound, would bankrupt the average buyer:

RAGCs for Black learners provide a setting that centers Black experiences as the norm and celebrates diverse Black perspectives. This environment buffers participants from (often daily) experiences of micro- and macroaggressions, structural inequities, and isolating siloes in predominantly White institutions. RAGCs also allow Black learners to explore their experience of racism and contextualize their understanding of antiracism without the burden of educating or taking care of non-Black colleagues, and without facing the otherwise-common denial, gaslighting (undermining another person by causing them to doubt their own perceptions and experience), and White fragility. RAGCs are conducive to in-depth exploration of internalized racism, and they allow for individual and collective expression of everything from joy to rage without fear of repercussion.

RAGCs for people of color similarly provide participants opportunities to build community, deepen their understanding of and healing from racism, and express a full range of emotions. BIPOC affinity groups acknowledge the intersectional and evolving nature of personal, racial, and cultural identities and honor each participant’s multidimensionality. With this foundation, BIPOC learners are better equipped to interrogate the impact of racism, including how their own communities perpetuate colorism, colonialism, xenophobia, and anti-Black racism.

The essay continues in the same vein for several more paragraphs, but you get the gist.

If this insanity is embraced, we’ll soon have to ask for our doctors by race.

“Hello, I’m a 60-year-old white female. May I please have an appointment with a white-trained doctor?”

“I’m sorry, ma’am. This clinic only has black-trained doctors. You’ll need to find somewhere else for your care.”

Once, leftists argued that “separate but equal” was an impossible standard to meet when it came to education in the 1950s. In 2023, they’re arguing that “separate but equitable” is entirely different and, when it comes to medical care in America, it’s the only way to go. They have effectively nullified Brown v. Board of Education.

I predict that, because of the attack on scientific norms as being “white,” the RAGCs, if implemented, will endlessly grow in scope and eventually churn out two very different types of doctors, with two very different types of medical outcomes. This cannot end well.

UPDATE: It's been pointed out to me that I wrote this essay so broadly it appears as if the segregation affects every class. That's not the case. These are breakout sessions. But to the extent that they tell the students that "white centered" education is bad, that their learning styles are different, and that they and their future patients are oppressed, this will inevitably color what they take from their training -- and it also inevitably means that the schools that have these programs will apply different standards to them. Still, I've updated the essay for clarity.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com