Affirmative Action & Quotas can’t be criticized. Thus “Diversity is strength” is unfalsifiable #1! 

Affirmative action diversity admissions and hires must never be criticized. Affirmative Action & Quotas can never end: No matter how costly, unjust, damaging, or deadly1,

“Affirmative action is that form of discrimination that discriminates against people because they are member of a more successful ethnic or racial group” [The Affirmative Action Hoax]2.(Video3)

Cardiologist Norman C. Wang’s peer reviewed article dishonestly got retracted: it describes the dishonesty of half a century, how quotas became permanent and mandatory; how affirmative action used dishonest trickery to achieve desired racial quotas, dishonestly  circumventing court rulings or popular referendums outlawing racial quotas. Details below.

“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 “Watsoned4 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
Originally publishedhttps://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.015959Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020;9

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.


Mar 19, 2011 – Lecture presented by Steve Farron at the fourth annual conference of the Property and Freedom Society, held in May 2009 at the Hotel Karia … http://propertyandfreedom.org 
“Affirmative action is that form of discrimination that discriminates against people because they are member of a more successful ethnic or racial group”.

Affirmative Action Hoax: Diversity, the Importance of Character, and Other Lies Kindle Edition

What is called “affirmative action” is one of the greatest of contemporary hoaxes. First passed off as compensation for discrimination, then as a means to achieve “diversity,” it is nothing less than official, government-mandated discrimination against whites.

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

According to the NYT story featured by Steve Sailer below

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.




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.



American Heart Association retracts, denounces anti-affirmative action article after heavy backlash

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

7 days ago – AntiAffirmative Action Paper Blasted on Twitter Now Retracted … the American Heart Association “became aware of serious concerns after publication. … denies that the uproar against this article represents “cancel culture.”.

AHA, Editors, and Cardiologists Ask: How Did ‘Racist’ Paper …

Aug 5, 2020 – A new “white paper” arguing against affirmative action has drawn … On Twitter, the AHA denounced the views expressed in the paper, …

Wang paper is wrong: Diversity, equity and inclusiveness in …

Aug 5, 2020 – The paper, by Norman C. Wang, MD, MS (Diversity, Inclusion, and… … and medical school admissions and against affirmative action initiatives, … the American Heart Association (AHAdenounces the views expressed in the …

AAMC Response to the American Heart Association’s Statement

The AAMC issued the following statement in support of the AHA’s response to a … Association (AHAdenouncing the views expressed in the article by Norman C. … school admissions and argued against affirmative action initiatives, asserting, …

A retraction and a retraction request as Twitter users call out …

6 days ago – This paper is clear proof that sexism, racism, and sheer stupidity are alive and well in science. … or discriminated against and I wanted to bring this to your attention. … of the cardiology workforce” and asserts that affirmative action programs … [T]he American Heart Association (AHAdenounces the views …

Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: Evolution of Race and … – Altmetric

American Heart Association retracts, denounces antiaffirmative action article after heavy backlash. Cardiovascular Business, 07 Aug 2020. The AHA also …

Anti-Affirmative Action Paper Blows Up on Twitter | MedPage …

ug 3, 2020 – The journal doesn’t fall under the direct editorial control of the AHA, noted its immediate past-president, Robert Harrington, MD. Even so, “I want to …

FOOTNOTES

    1. 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”
    2. 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.

The Affirmative Action Hoax | Steve Farron – VK

The Affirmative Action Hoax | Steve Farron – YouTube

  • The Affirmative Action Hoax – Steve Farron [Youtube]


    1. James Watson’s Inquisition #2:
      James D. Watson, perhaps the most distinguished living American scientist, has now been kicked to the curb by the Cold Spring Harbor genetics laboratory he rescued and rebuilt over the last 40 years for making politically (but not scientifically) incorrect statements about African IQs.
    2. James Watson Racist:
      Nobel James Watson Top 20 most influential Americans of all times, top 100 Person of all times, was socially and scientifically destroyed for a well meaning comment about race differences.

    1. Disparate Impact
      allows for claims of racial discrimination when a racially neutral policy or procedure leads to racially disproportionate results even if that policy or procedure was established without discriminatory intent. If minorities fail tests at a higher rate than whites, it’s the test that’s wrong


  • Universities Should Be Punished for Giving Black Students Lower Grades [Amren]
  • Leave a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Top
    %d bloggers like this: