Progressive and left-wing bias in American centers of higher education is a fact so universally recognized it is barely worth mentioning. It has been equally evident to those who follow such things that the ideological capture of academicians has included the leadership of American medical schools. Even after the US Supreme Court ruled that Harvard could not discriminate against student applicants on the basis of race, there are still many other ways to discriminate and keep the playing field uneven.

The American College of Radiology is one of the top three national radiologic organizations, the other two being the Radiological Society of North America and the American Roentgen Ray Society. The ACR is somewhat more focused on management, leadership, education, and political activism on behalf of the specialty. Its premier publication is the Journal of the American College of Radiology (JACR).

In June, a team of researchers publishing in the JACR found a strong and consistent bias among radiology resident admission committees in favor of progressive activists and against Christians and conservatives.

Writing for the National Review, Ian Kingsbury asks, “Are Young Republicans Allowed to be Radiologists?” There, he writes:

A worrying new study suggests that young doctors with known conservative inclinations would fare worse in residency placement.

Research methodology

This study recruited 244 radiology faculty across 30 US academic and private radiology residency programs. Hypothetical applicants were defined according to eight parameters (medical school, gender, race/ethnicity, USMLE scores Step 1 and Step 2, class rank, clerkship honors, publications, and extracurricular activities [EA]). The applicant profiles were presented in pairs, and the subject was asked to judge, “Which applicant would you choose to invite for an interview?” This approach is known as a “discrete choice experiment” (DCE) and is useful for comparing the relative importance of specific variables in the decision-making process.

Findings

The investigators found a high level of bias in favor of applicants engaged in progressive activism, with a strong negative bias against conservatives or Christians. Using “fly fishing in Patagonia” as a neutral benchmark, candidates involved with “LGBTQ Pride Alliance” led the parade, being 60% more likely to be invited for an interview. “Christians on Campus” were 25% less likely to be considered, while “Young Republicans” were most disfavored, being 41% less likely to be considered:

Politics and culture EAs were not ranked highly by preference but were very influential in decisions: “LGBTQ Pride Alliance” (positive influence) and “Young Republicans” (negative influence) were the most influential of all EAs tested.

The bias was pervasive and consistent. “Bible Study” ranked well below their preference for “Climate Justice Coalition” or “Volunteer, Elizabeth Warren for President.” Among the other parameters, subjects showed a preference for higher-ranked medical schools, females over males, Black or Hispanic over White or Asian American, higher class ranking, higher USMLE scores, clerkship honors, and a history of publication.

On the face of it, academic ability was the strongest overall predictor of applicant success. Students who scored highest in the USMLE Step 2 (a nationwide credentialing exam) were five times more likely to be invited than those in the bottom. That may not be as meaningful as it appears. The hypothetical candidates were shown having one out of only four possible scores: 213, 229, 248, or 267. For 2022-2023, that would mean: 1) more than two SD below the mean, 2) more than one SD below the mean, 3) the mean (248), or 4) a little more than one SD above the mean. Or to put it more simply, those testing in the top 16% were five times more likely to be invited than those in the bottom 2%. One should only hope so.

Much of the discrimination stemmed from the dominance of liberals among the faculty. The researchers attempted to classify their subjects into “red” or “blue” according to how they ranked various ideologically focused EAs. Only 23% of participants were classified as “red”. Among the “red” subjects, no EAs related to politics or culture achieved statistical significance. Overall, they were more favorably disposed toward Christian and conservative activities. Viewed separately, the “blue” subjects showed even greater negative bias against those same groups.

The bottom line

To their credit, the authors of the study do not present their findings as an unvarnished positive. They remind readers that diversity includes thought and culture, not simply race and sexual identity:

The value of institutional diversity is well known and includes not only diversity of race, ethnicity, and sex but also of thought, culture, and ethical value systems.

The impact of EAs, including the progressive ones, was relatively small compared to the importance of medical school, test scores, and class standing. But that’s small consolation when a young Republican realizes she faces a sizeable disadvantage against an academically equal applicant with a record of progressive activism.

In their conclusion, the study authors recommend that programs should ensure a diversity of viewpoints on selection committees, faculty should reflect upon their own biases, and compensate as necessary. Their advice to applicants was not so encouraging:

Residency applicants should be aware they are sending signals with EAs listed on their application and realize that those signals may leave their applications vulnerable to bias.

The unstated message to applicants is that if your extracurricular activities are Christian or Republican, you are likely to be discriminated against.

[The organization “Do No Harm,” chaired by Stanley Goldfarb MD, has played a leading role in calling out the infiltration of progressive race and gender ideology into the US medical system, and taking legal action when warranted. It serves as a good repository of information on the issues for those who might wish to be better informed].

The admission scene has become quite polarized between the traditional minority who say it should be meritocratic and the dominant gatekeepers wishing to bestow preference upon certain racial and sexual minorities. Both sides claim that their goal is to graduate better physicians. But if that is the objective, they will fail. The best physicians are, and always have been, those who are humble, conscientious, compassionate, and altruistic. Screen applicants for those hallmarks of character, and you are guaranteed to graduate the best possible doctors. It’s a novel concept. Someone ought to try it.