Affirmative action diversity admissions and hires must never be criticized. Affirmative Action & Quotas can never end: No matter how costly, unjust, damaging, or deadly1,
“Though shalt not speak negatively about ‘minorities’ in order not to stir up ‘prejudices'” does not allow to #TrueFreeSpeech. Affirmative action results can not be questioned.
Affirmative action must never be sincerely called as the discrimination it is. Never honestly call it “inverse discrimination”. #RacistFacts about affirmative action failures must never be honestly spoken.
PC Gag Orders’ dishonesties are recursively self protecting! The absolute taboo third rail would be to propose IQ differences as parsimonious explanation for all contentious racial issues: White 100, east Asian 106, Ashkenazi Jews 115, African Americans 85, Africans elsewhere in the 70’ies. Even Wang and Farron would not dare say that(?). Racism taboo and PC Gag orders lead to false theorizing whose terrible results must not be mentioned. Thus false policies remain unchallenged and unchanged.
Scientists must not arrive at “racist” conclusions, under punishment of getting “Watsoned“4 It is not permissible to quote scientific facts about race differences in IQ or crime, or capacity for deferred gratification. Otherwise all affirmative action, and especially disparate impact theory5 would be proven moot6
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce in the United States of America From 1969 to 2019
- is retracted by
- This article is commented on by the following:
Since 1969, racial and ethnic preferences have existed throughout the American medical academy. The primary purpose has been to increase the number of blacks and Hispanics within the physician workforce as they were deemed to be “underrepresented in medicine.” To this day, the goal continues to be population parity or proportional representation. These affirmative action programs were traditionally voluntary, created and implemented at the state or institutional level, limited to the premedical and medical school stages, and intended to be temporary. Despite these efforts, numerical targets for underrepresented minorities set by the Association of American Medical Colleges have consistently fallen short. Failures have largely been attributable to the limited qualified applicant pool and legal challenges to the use of race and ethnicity in admissions to institutions of higher education. In response, programs under the appellation of diversity, inclusion, and equity have recently been created to increase the number of blacks and Hispanics as medical school students, internal medicine trainees, cardiovascular disease trainees, and cardiovascular disease faculty. These new diversity programs are mandatory, created and implemented at the national level, imposed throughout all stages of academic medicine and cardiology, and intended to be permanent. The purpose of this white paper is to provide an overview of policies that have been created to impact the racial and ethnic composition of the cardiology workforce, to consider the evolution of racial and ethnic preferences in legal and medical spheres, to critically assess current paradigms, and to consider potential solutions to anticipated challenges.
NOT The Replication Crisis—The PC CRISIS: American Heart Association Withdraws Paper “Concluding INCORRECTLY That Black And Hispanic Trainees In Medicine Are Less Qualified.” But They Are
This retraction is not due to the replication crisis. A paper showing blacks and Hispanics are less qualified than Asians and whites would replicate pretty good. Affirmative action acts for blacks and Hispanics, against Asians and whites.
Anti-affirmative action activist Vijay Chokal-Ingam proved this: when he was Asian, he wasn’t good enough to get into med school. But as a dark-skinned native-born American, he could pass for an African-American, and bingo! The medical school doors opened, and the trumpets sounded on the other side.[…]
So of course blacks and Hispanics are less qualified than whites and Asians—the affirmative action system requires it. If you’re white or Asian and working side by side with an affirmative action-eligible trainee, he’s not as qualified as you are, because if he were, he’d be training at a better hospital or school.
Only if you’re at Harvard is the affirmative action-eligible guy next to you as qualified as you are.
Not quite: The super qualified minorities that qualify for Harvard are at Harvard, yes. But Harvard still has affirmative action students.
- Affirmative action fail: mismatch hurts Black & Hispanic students too
- Subprime crisis’ cause: mandatory affirmative housing loans
- Universities Should Be Punished for CORRECTLY Giving Black Students lower grades …|Sincerity.net 7
Wang paper is wrong: Diversity, equity and inclusiveness in medicine and cardiology are important and necessary
Update: August 6, 2020: The American Heart Association and the JAHA Editor-in-Chief retracted the paper in question having determined the action is in the best interest of the public and the research community. The author does not agree to the retraction. JAHA will publish a rebuttal. More information is available on the official retraction notice. […]
The Wang paper has rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions. As an organization focused on the relentless pursuit of longer, healthier lives for everyone everywhere, the American Heart Association (AHA) denounces the views expressed in the article and regrets its role in enabling those views to be promoted. Those views are a misrepresentation of the facts and are contrary to our organization’s core values and historic commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion in medicine and science.
The American Heart Association remains committed to equity, diversity and inclusion as foundationally essential to its mission. The Association invests in helping to build a diverse health care and scientific research community and actively works to eliminate barriers and increase opportunities in science for people from historically-excluded communities and those impacted by race, ethnicity and class disparities.
The American Heart Association takes the concerns about the Wang paper seriously. We have launched a formal investigation to better understand how a paper that is completely incompatible with the Association’s core values was published. While the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) and the other AHA scientific journals are editorially independent of the Association, we take our responsibility to ensure factual accuracy seriously. The independent editors of JAHA and the American Heart Association are reviewing the journal’s peer-review and publication processes to ensure future submissions containing deliberate misinformation or misrepresentation are never published. The journal can and will do better.
The Association believes much more – not less – needs to be done to increase diversity, equity and inclusion in science, medicine and cardiology. The volunteer and staff leaders of the American Heart Association remain resolved to improve the actions and investments across the organization as well as within the editorially autonomous journals that bear the Association’s trusted name.
The American Heart Association (AHA) has retracted a research article first published in May after its views on affirmative action and diversity received a significant amount of criticism. One of the article’s biggest critics, it seems, was the author’s own institution.
The article was written by Norman C. Wang, MD, MS, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and published in the Journal of the American Heart Association. Wang wrote at length about affirmative action, detailing why he believed such policies have led to unqualified individuals being admitted to medical schools and cardiovascular training programs.
Many critics have called out Wang’s article for being “racist.” In the statement announcing its retraction, the AHA said it received word from UPMC officials that the article “contains many misconceptions and misquotes and that together those inaccuracies, misstatements and selective misreading of source materials strip the paper of its scientific validity.”
According to the statement, the Journal of the American Heart Association’s editor-in-chief “deeply regrets” publishing the article.
The AHA also released a longer statement about the situation, calling for “more—not less—to be done to increase diversity, equity and inclusion in science, medicine and cardiology.”
“The Wang paper has rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” according to the newer statement. “As an organization focused on the relentless pursuit of longer, healthier lives for everyone everywhere, the AHA denounces the views expressed in the article and regrets its role in enabling those views to be promoted. Those views are a misrepresentation of the facts and are contrary to our organization’s core values and historic commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion in medicine and science.”
The AHA “remains committed to equity, diversity and inclusion as foundationally essential to its mission,” the organization added, and “takes the concerns about the Wang paper seriously.”
The original text
The original 15-page article is still available on the AHA website. Wang concluded his analysis by saying “racial and ethnic preferences for undergraduate and medical admissions should be gradually rolled back with a target end year of 2028.”
“Evolution to strategies that are neutral to race and ethnicity is essential,” Wang wrote. “Ultimately, all who aspire to a profession in medicine and cardiology must be assessed as individuals on the basis of their personal merits, not their racial and ethnic identities.”
Wang does not agree with the decision to retract his research article.
Anti-Affirmative Action Paper Blasted on Twitter Now Retracted
- Affirmative action – reverse racism:
Today’s priviliged treatment for “minorities” to make up for alleged injustices in the past with the intent to close performance “gaps”
- Dangerous police: affirmative action kills:
Because of their skin color, or other minority status, people with lesser intelligence, lesser self control or with criminal records are admitted who would not qualify by normal admission standards. That causes trouble.
- Affirmative action – reverse racism: