The University of California, Davis School of Medicine is under scrutiny by the U.S. Department of Justice for allegedly employing a scoring system, dubbed the "Davis Scale," designed to increase the enrollment of underrepresented minority students. This system reportedly provided advantages to applicants based on factors such as lower family income, less educated parents, and upbringing in underserved areas.
Internal documents and simulations suggest the scale was specifically tested to boost Black and Hispanic enrollment. Administrators allegedly tracked racial percentages, celebrating an increase in "underrepresented in medicine" students to levels mirroring California's demographics. Associate Dean Mark Henderson is quoted as describing the policy as "class-based affirmative action," and acknowledging that "class struggles have a huge overlap with race — that’s how we skirted the issue."
This approach has drawn criticism, with opponents arguing that it constitutes an indirect method of achieving racial diversity that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts's opinion in the Students for Fair Admissions decision stated, "what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows." Legal experts suggest that if the intent and design of the policy were to produce specific racial outcomes, its defense would be weakened.
Beyond the legal implications, concerns have been raised about the impact of such policies on students. The argument posits that admitting students with weaker academic preparation, indicated by lower GPAs and MCAT scores, can lead to academic struggles and a "mismatch" effect. This can result in longer times to graduation, lower performance on licensing exams, and higher rates of failure to complete medical school.
Decades of evidence, including outcomes in California after Proposition 209 banned racial preferences, suggest that students from underrepresented backgrounds may succeed at higher rates when admitted to programs where their academic preparation aligns with their peers. Critics argue that lowering academic standards does not uplift individuals but rather creates a disparity in preparedness.
Furthermore, the practice raises the issue of stigma, potentially casting doubt on the achievements of students admitted through such measures, regardless of their actual capabilities. This, described as the "soft bigotry of lowered expectations," is seen as detrimental to both students and the medical profession's standards.
The overarching argument from critics is that true diversity in medicine should be achieved by preparing underrepresented students to compete at the highest levels, rather than lowering standards or engineering specific demographic outcomes. The focus, according to this view, should be on improving educational preparation long before students reach medical school.