A mainstream media outlet finally reports on “little-noticed” racial preference provisions in the House of Representatives’s version of the health care reform bill. Found on page 881 of a bill of over 1,000 pages:
“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of…Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
This is only one of several examples. The Washington Times reports that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights itself calls the provisions racially discriminatory and will ask for a rewrite. (Also see Google news) An excerpt:
“In a draft of a letter the commission approved Friday, the group raises constitutional questions about giving preferential treatment to minority students for scholarships, and about favoring medical schools and organizations that have a record of sending graduates to areas with inadequate health care services.
“‘These programs are unlikely to reduce health care disparities among racial and ethic groups,’ according to the draft letter obtained by The Washington Times. ‘A growing body of evidence indicates that increasing access to high-quality physicians – whatever their racial or ethnic ancestry – is the best way to mitigate such disparities.’”
Given the extent of racial preferences in government entities, one wonders why the commission isn’t issuing daily formal complaints about the practice.
According to the Times, the commission cited research that showed improving quality of care at hospitals in minority areas would improve minority care more than eliminating racial disparities. Although this sounds like common sense, civil rights industry professionals prefer to deal with quantity over quality.
Wade Henderson, president and chief executive officer of the Leadership Council said, “The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is overstepping its bounds yet again with another slanted and incorrect interpretation of logical and constitutional standards” and claimed that the commission doesn’t have the “expertise and understanding of how the training in the House bill will work.”
As we’ve mentioned on the blog many times, racial preferences are anathema to what actual civil rights crusaders (as opposed to preference proponents) intended. The provisions in the House version of the bill clearly discriminate based on skin color. But this lowering-of-the-bar standard in the name of skin deep-only diversity is entrenched.
Comments on this entry are closed.