Connect with us

Activism

COMMENTARY: Harvard’s Numbers Show Drop in Black, Latinx Admissions

Harvard’s admissions notices went out last week, the numbers reveal not so much a problem with Asians, but a problem with Blacks and Latinx applicants. The latest numbers for the incoming Class of 2026 show Asian Americans grew once again to 27.8%, up from 27.2%. African Americans saw a decrease. The new admits were 15.5% of the class, down from 18%. Latinx were at 12.6%, down from 13.3%. Native Americans were at 2.9%, more than twice the previous year’s 1.2%. Native Hawaiians increased from 0.8% from 0.6%.

Published

on

Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. He does a talk show on www.amok.com
Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. His web talk show is on Facebook.com/emilguillermo.media; YouTube; and Twitter@emilamok. See recordings on www.amok.com

By Emil Guillermo

Those in Higher Ed are anticipating the Supreme Court’s review of a lawsuit filed by some Asian Americans specifically recruited by anti-affirmative action legal groups hell-bent on ending racial preferences in college admissions, particularly at Harvard.

The end of affirmative action would make it harder to achieve fairness if one could not identify underrepresented ethnic applicants.

But the way the Supreme Court is composed, it looks like affirmative action is dead. And not just at Harvard, but everywhere.

It also comes at a time when the policy is still necessary.

Harvard’s admissions notices went out last week, the numbers reveal not so much a problem with Asians, but a problem with Blacks and Latinx applicants.

The latest numbers for the incoming Class of 2026 show Asian Americans grew once again to 27.8%, up from 27.2%.

African Americans saw a decrease. The new admits were 15.5% of the class, down from 18%.

Latinx were at 12.6%, down from 13.3%.

Native Americans were at 2.9%, more than twice the previous year’s 1.2%.

Native Hawaiians increased from 0.8% from 0.6%.

Overall, the incoming admits are in keeping with the societal trend of minorities making up the majority, as the entire class is 59.6 percent Black, Indigenous, Persons of Color (BIPOC), and around 40% white.

But just as Harvard becomes more diverse, the school has also become more exclusive with its acceptance rate at a record low 3.19%.

Overall, 61,220 students applied to Harvard, an increase from 57, 435.

That means 1,954 applicants got offers of admission. And 59,266 got rejections.

I provide the numbers to give context. The Asian Americans are the largest percentage among BIPOC and they are suing?

In the meantime, the decreases in the Black and Latinx populations should be more alarming, especially if these are coming when race can be used in admissions. What more if race was banned? Would we get double-digit decreases?

Ted Cruz Is Neither a Woman Nor an Asian

At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, you’ll recall how Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) engaged in some strange hypotheticals about race and gender.

“Under the modern leftist sensibilities, if I decide right now that I’m a woman, then apparently I’m a woman,” said Cruz, who is definitely not a woman, but used it to argue if he could sue for discrimination.

Jackson responded properly that because lawsuits on those issues are “working their way through the courts,” she was not able to comment.

But Cruz pressed on, this time on race discrimination, referencing the case of Asians challenging Harvard’s affirmative action policies. “Could I decide I was an Asian man?” Cruz asked. “Would I have the ability to be an Asian man, and challenge Harvard’s discrimination because I made that decision?”

Once again, absurd. Ted Cruz is not an Asian. He could sue on his own.

And once again Jackson refused to answer because this is a case she might decide on.

But then Cruz got to the real question of whether Jackson, who had served on Harvard’s Board of Overseers, would recuse herself from the upcoming SCOTUS review of the lawsuit brought by Asian American plaintiffs against Harvard’s admissions policies.

And this is where Jackson said she was planning to recuse.

That was the news.

Jackson’s ascent to the court replacing Breyer doesn’t change the political dynamic. 6-3 is still 6-3 when Breyer goes, and Jackson comes in.

Still, announcing the planned recusal was just a stark reminder. The votes just aren’t there to protect affirmative action.

A friend of mine, a former law school dean, began to wonder aloud why Harvard didn’t try to settle the case by amending the admissions policy.

His reasoning is sound. “Over the years, challenges to disparate impact in housing policies that were on their way to the Supreme Court got settled because the civil rights community did not want to risk a major loss at the Supreme Court,” the former law school dean said. “Better to fix one policy and settle with one litigant than to have a Supreme Court decision making an unfavorable law.”

The point is all schools will have to follow the opinion if it does indeed end affirmative action policies.

“Institutionally, they have to be in compliance and not just wait to be sued,” my friend said.

If only Harvard had changed whatever policy prevented even more Asians from getting accepted (the ones who sued), then there would have been no SCOTUS decision, and no nationwide impact.

But now the Supreme Court will hear the case in October and render an opinion by June 2023.

Jackson makes history by being on the court. But there appears to be nothing she can do to save the policy that provided real opportunity for BIPOC students for decades.

Emil Guillermo is a journalist and commentator. His web talk show is on Facebook.com/emilguillermo.media; YouTube; and Twitter@emilamok. See recordings on www.amok.com

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Activism

AI Is Reshaping Black Healthcare: Promise, Peril, and the Push for Improved Results in California

Black Californians experience some of the worst health outcomes in the state due to systemic inequities, limited healthcare access, and exclusion from medical research. 16.7% of Black adults report fair or poor health, versus 11.5% of Whites. Black adults have the highest death rates from prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancer. Statewide, diabetes affects 13.6% of Black adults versus 9.1% of Whites, and 27% of Black adults over 65 have heart disease, compared to 22% of Whites. Life expectancy for Black Californians is about five years shorter than the state average.

Published

on

(Left to right:) Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson. CBM file photo. Dr. Timnit Gebru is DAIR’s founder and executive director. Photo courtesy of Dr. Gebru. Judy Wawira Gichoya, MD, MS, is an associate professor in the Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences at Emory University School of Medicine. Dr. Gichoya serves as co-director in leading the Healthcare AI Innovation and Translational Informatics (HITI) Lab. Trained as both an informatician and an interventional radiologist, Dr. Gichoya’s work is centered around using data science to study health equity. Photo provided by the Emory University Winship Cancer Institute.
(Left to right:) Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson. CBM file photo. Dr. Timnit Gebru is DAIR’s founder and executive director. Photo courtesy of Dr. Gebru. Judy Wawira Gichoya, MD, MS, is an associate professor in the Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences at Emory University School of Medicine. Dr. Gichoya serves as co-director in leading the Healthcare AI Innovation and Translational Informatics (HITI) Lab. Trained as both an informatician and an interventional radiologist, Dr. Gichoya’s work is centered around using data science to study health equity. Photo provided by the Emory University Winship Cancer Institute.

Joe W. Bowers Jr.
California Black Media

Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing how Californians receive medical care – diagnosing diseases, predicting patient needs, streamlining treatments, and even generating medical notes for doctors.

While AI holds promise, it also poses risks, particularly for Black patients. It can provide faster diagnoses and expand access to care, but it may also misdiagnose conditions, delay treatment, or overlook patient’s critical needs. AI’s impact on Black patients depends on how biases in medical data and algorithms are addressed in its development.

“As we progress toward a society with increased use of AI technology, it is critical that the biases and stereotypes that Black Americans have faced are not perpetuated in our future innovations,” said Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson (D – San Diego), a physician and state senator spearheading legislative efforts to address AI bias in healthcare.

Why AI Matters for Black Californians

Black Californians experience some of the worst health outcomes in the state due to systemic inequities, limited healthcare access, and exclusion from medical research. 16.7% of Black adults report fair or poor health, versus 11.5% of Whites. Black adults have the highest death rates from prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancer. Statewide, diabetes affects 13.6% of Black adults versus 9.1% of Whites, and 27% of Black adults over 65 have heart disease, compared to 22% of Whites. Life expectancy for Black Californians is about five years shorter than the state average.

Benefits and Risks of AI in Healthcare

AI processes vast amounts of medical data using computer algorithms designed to identify patient health patterns, helping doctors to diagnose diseases, recommend treatment, and increase patient care efficiency. By analyzing scans, lab results, and patient history, AI can detect diseases

earlier, giving it the potential to improve care for Black patients, who face higher risks of prostate cancer, diabetes, heart disease and hypertension.

Dr. Judy Gichoya, an Interventional radiologist at the Emory University Winship Cancer Institute and AI researcher at Emory’s Healthcare AI Innovation and Translational Informatics (HITI) Lab, sees AI as a tool with great potential but cautions that its effectiveness depends on the diversity of the data it is trained on. She says, “Without diverse datasets, AI could overlook critical signs of diseases, especially in underrepresented populations like Black patients.”

Dr. Timnit Gebru, a computer scientist and AI ethics expert, is the founder and Executive Director of DAIR (Distributed AI Research Institute) in Oakland. She has extensively studied bias in AI systems and their impact on marginalized groups.

Gebru acknowledges that AI has the potential to improve healthcare by enhancing efficiency and expanding access to medical resources. But, like Gichoya she strongly stresses that for AI to be effective and equitable it needs to be subject to rigorous oversight.

AI is already helping doctors personalize cancer treatment by identifying biomarkers and genetic mutations. UCSF and Stanford Health use AI to analyze tumor DNA to match patients with the most effective chemotherapy or immunotherapy.

In diabetes care, AI predicts blood sugar fluctuations, helping doctors adjust treatment. It helps radiologists in early disease detection and identifies sepsis sooner, reducing hospital deaths. In cardiology, AI detects early signs of heart disease, spotting plaque buildup or abnormal heart rhythms before symptoms appear. It also helps predict strokes by analyzing brain scans to determine risk and guide intervention.

Kaiser Permanente uses AI scribes to reduce paperwork and improve patient interactions. Covered California has partnered with Google

Cloud to use AI to streamline document verification and eligibility decisions.

Despite these advancements, AI systems trained on biased medical data can perpetuate inequities for Black patients.

Gebru explains, “If AI learns from historically discriminatory medical decisions—such as undertreating Black patients—it will scale those biases.”

A notable example is in dermatology, where AI frequently misdiagnoses conditions in Black patients because most training datasets are based on lighter-skinned individuals. “Melanoma looks very different on darker skin,” Gebru notes. “It’s not just darker—it often appears differently, like under toenails, a pattern AI trained mostly on lighter skin won’t detect.”

Another risk of AI in healthcare is automation bias, where healthcare providers over-rely on AI, even when it contradicts medical expertise. “Doctors who would have prescribed medications accurately without AI sometimes make mistakes while using automated tools because they over-trust these systems,” Gebru adds.

AI-driven health insurance claim denials are a growing concern. UnitedHealthcare faces a class-action lawsuit for allegedly using an unregulated AI algorithm to deny rehabilitation coverage to elderly and disabled patients.

Beyond bias, AI also poses an environmental threat. AI systems require enormous amounts of energy for computing and massive amounts of water to cool data centers, which exacerbates climate change, an issue that already disproportionately impacts Black communities.

Trump Administration and DEI Impact

The Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) threatens funding for AI bias research in healthcare.

Less federal support could stall progress in making AI systems fairer and more accurate, increasing discrimination risks for Black patients.

California’s Legislative and Regulatory Response

Recognizing AI’s risks in healthcare, California lawmakers and state officials are implementing regulations. Weber Pierson introduced Senate Bill (SB) 503 to ensure that AI algorithms used in healthcare are tested for racial bias before implementation.

“We’ve already seen how biased medical devices like pulse oximeters can fail Black patients,” Weber Pierson explains. “If algorithms used in patient care aren’t inclusive, they’re not going to accurately serve melanated individuals.”

At a press conference introducing SB 503, Weber Pierson stressed that AI must be held accountable. “This bill focuses on ensuring that software used as an accessory to healthcare staff delivers sound, nondiscriminatory decisions that promote equitable outcomes.”

Other legislative efforts include Senate Bill (SB) 1120, by Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park), which stops insurance companies from using AI alone to deny or delay care and Assembly Bill (AB) 3030, by Assemblymember Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), which requires healthcare providers to inform patients when AI is used in their care.

Attorney General Rob Bonta has issued a legal advisory barring AI from unfairly denying healthcare claims, falsifying records, or restricting access to care based on medical history. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 2023 executive order directs state agencies to assess AI’s impact and establish consumer protections, particularly in healthcare.

Actions Black Patients and Families Can Take

As AI becomes more common in healthcare, Black Californians can ensure fair treatment by asking if AI is used, seeking second opinions, and supporting groups addressing algorithmic bias.

They can:

  • Ask their healthcare providers whether AI played a role in their diagnosis or treatment.
  • Request second opinions if an AI-generated diagnosis seems questionable.
  • Advocate for AI policies and legislation promoting fairness and accountability. · Engage with community health organizations like the California Black Health Network (CBHN) that is engaged in ensuring AI is developed in ways to improve health outcomes for Black patients.

Rhonda Smith, CBHN’s executive director, says bias in medical algorithms must be eliminated. “There should never be any race-based adjustment in delivering patient care,” she said.

CBHN supports inclusive research and legislation like SB 503 to ensure AI promotes equity.

Ensuring AI Benefits All Communities

As a legislator, Weber Pierson is pushing for stronger safeguards to ensure AI serves all patients equitably. She says, “Innovation and technology are good, but new challenges arise if we don’t move in a direction inclusive and thoughtful of all people who utilize the healthcare space.”

AI has the potential to revolutionize healthcare, but experts warn it must be developed and regulated with transparency, accountability, and fairness – ensuring it reduces rather than worsens, racial health disparities.

Continue Reading

Activism

ESSAY: Technology and Medicine, a Primary Care Point of View 

The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, restricted millions of people to their homes, which required reliance on the internet for communication and information.  Personal internet searches became essential to understanding information about COVID, human physiology, symptoms, and keeping up with vaccine updates.  However, this increase in independent online research resulted in people accessing more misinformation circulating on the internet. This posed a challenge for medical providers trying to treat patients according to research-based guidelines.  With so much information within reach, it was difficult for providers to help their patients distinguish between legitimate evidence-based sources and opinion, speculation, and fabrication.    

Published

on

Dr. Adia Scrubb Photo provided by California Black Media..
Dr. Adia Scrubb Photo provided by California Black Media..

Dr. Adia Scrubb
Special to California Black Media Partners

Technology has enhanced communication between medical professionals and patients; improved patient care management; and eased access to care and information, benefiting both patients and medical clinicians.

However, despite the ease and many conveniences these patient care improvements have ushered in, adequate patient care still includes physician supervision, examinations, and interaction, which present challenges for keeping up with demands on the healthcare system and accurate patient education.

Technology has made more educational resources available at our fingertips, and it has created independence for those who want to know more about their bodies.

The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, restricted millions of people to their homes, which required reliance on the internet for communication and information.  Personal internet searches became essential to understanding information about COVID, human physiology, symptoms, and keeping up with vaccine updates.  However, this increase in independent online research resulted in people accessing more misinformation circulating on the internet. This posed a challenge for medical providers trying to treat patients according to research-based guidelines.  With so much information within reach, it was difficult for providers to help their patients distinguish between legitimate evidence-based sources and opinion, speculation, and fabrication.

Nowadays, patients continuously arm themselves with medical information and challenge clinicians with the research they gather from internet sources to advocate for themselves and their care.  This often leaves medical professionals with the complex task of navigating challenging discussions, pointing patients to validated and verified medical information, and following evidence-based medical guidelines for treatment.

Reviewing information before an appointment can certainly make an office visit much more productive, but it is essential to acknowledge the possible bias and limitations of internet searches.  Consideration of the author, source, and date of the information may help determine its validity.

Furthermore, simply asking medical professionals for their preferred patient information resources will direct patients to safe and validated information that is in line with standards of care practices.  This can help patients better understand the recommendations from their doctors and streamline their internet searches.

Access to individual online medical record information, such as blood tests, MRI reports, and office visit notes, has been a significant expansion of technology in medicine. This digitization of medical information enables and positions patients to take a leading role in managing their care.  What used to be multiple sheets of paper in a large file folder is now a click away at any time.  Despite these benefits, instant access can be overwhelming for both patients and medical providers, especially since patients, in many instances, can receive their test results online before the physician has had the opportunity to review them.

Patients may review the office visit notes or their lab results out of context or misinterpret information, which can lead to anxiety, confusion, and fear.  Clinicians are put in a difficult position when they are not able to suddenly break away from their scheduled office visits to reassure an unscheduled patient about their results and next steps.

Medical providers have tools to assist with identifying sensitive results that need urgent review, and efforts are made to notify anxious patients as soon as possible.  However, a patient can be proactive in scheduling a follow-up visit ahead of time to review results with their provider specifically.  This can help patients avoid the stress of suddenly trying to get a hold of their doctor when dealing with unclear or concerning results.  Normal test results often don’t require explanation, but allowing several days for your provider to work through hundreds of test results before sending messages requesting clarification will help medical professionals prioritize their responses to test results based on medical urgency.

Technological improvements such as online messaging and video/telephone appointments have made access to care much easier both for patients and clinicians.  Telephone and video visits have been especially beneficial for patients who are elderly, disabled, or do not have access to transportation.  However, the increase — and ease of — access has created much higher demand for physician time both during and outside of the office visit.  Test results, patient messages, insurance forms, emails, and medication requests are all pouring in while providers conduct their daily scheduled appointments.  Thus, very little time is left in the day for a clinician to respond to every email, fill out every form, and review every lab result when they are responsible for 1,800 or more patients.

This situation, unfortunately, creates a perceived delay in response in a culture where an instant response is expected from messaging and phone calls.  But the reality is that the medical provider is constantly playing catch up to thousands of inquiries due to the around-the-clock online access patients now have.

Patients can make the most of their experience and their physician’s time by taking the time to learn their physician’s communication preferences.  Despite the multiple modalities of access (telephone, email, video, in-person), a medical provider will have a preferred method of communication with their patients.  Some may ask their patients to make an appointment to explain a complex topic, instead of responding to multiple messages. Others may prefer to communicate via phone call if they have to deliver bad news.

There will likely be more medical providers who prefer to communicate only through email or video appointments as remote work becomes more common. If a patient’s communication preferences align with their physician’s preferences, it will create a stronger patient-doctor relationship and foster more effective and impactful communication.

The expansion of technology in medicine has fostered better collaboration, communication, and education between patients and their medical professionals.  Combining electronic resources with rapport, mutual respect, and trust for providers will help patients navigate this new landscape of healthcare.

About the Author   

Dr. Adia Scrubb, MD, MPP, is a Board-Certified Family Medicine Physician currently practicing in Solano County. 

Continue Reading

Activism

S.F. Businesswomen Honor Trailblazers at 44th Annual Sojourner Truth Awards and Scholarship Luncheon

This year’s well-deserved award recipients were women who graciously and continuously have served and empowered the Bayview community and beyond.

Published

on

Carletta Jackson-Lane, 21st Western District governor of the National Association of the Business and Professional Women’s Club, Inc. sits with honoree Carol E. Tatum the 2025 Sojourner Truth Award recipient of the NAB&PW, Inc. Photo courtesy of Sheryl Smith.
Carletta Jackson-Lane, 21st Western District governor of the National Association of the Business and Professional Women’s Club, Inc. sits with honoree Carol E. Tatum the 2025 Sojourner Truth Award recipient of the NAB&PW, Inc. Photo courtesy of Sheryl Smith.

By Rev. Dr.  Rochelle Frazier
Special to The Post

On Saturday, April 19, the San Francisco Business and Professional Women’s Club (SFBPWC) held its sold-out 44th Annual Sojourner Truth Awards and Scholarship Luncheon at the Southeast Community Center at 1550 Evans Ave. in San Francisco.

The luncheon’s theme was “Moving Forward with a Purpose: From Trailblazers to Game Changers.”

This year’s well-deserved award recipients were women who graciously and continuously have served and empowered the Bayview community and beyond.

Carol Evora Tatum received the National Sojourner Truth Meritorious Service Award for her decades of leadership and dedicated community service.

Brittany Doyle, founder and CEO of WISE Health SF, was honored as the Businesswoman of the Year because of her insightful and innovative business acumen regarding community-centered health programs.

La Shon A. Walker was recognized as the Professional Woman of the Year for her community empowerment and leadership work as the vice president of Community Affairs at FivePoint.

The luncheon also provides an opportunity to present scholarships to well-deserving students. The scholarship awardees were Jayana Harbor and Zari Moore, both graduating from Immaculate Conception Academy, and London Robinson, who is graduating from Raoul Wallenberg Traditional High School.

Harbor plans to attend Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland; Moore will attend Loyola University in New Orleans, and Robinson will attend Southern University and A&M College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

“The 44th Annual Sojourner Truth Awards and Scholarship Luncheon is more than a celebration,” said Cheryl Smith, president of SFBPWC. “It’s a tribute to the legacy of Black women who have paved the way and made a commitment to uplifting future generations. We are proud to honor extraordinary leaders in our community and invest in the bright minds who will carry us into the future.”

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.