Regular SM Commentor Razib has a great post on one of his blogs about the racial mix of doctors in the USofA. What instigated a fresh take on the classic question was an article in SFGate decrying the lack of “minorities” in the medical profession -
A new study on physicians in California shows a glaring gap between the number of doctors of color compared with the state’s ethnically diverse population, especially among African Americans and Latinos.At the same time, the state has a disproportionate number of Asian and white doctors, according to the UCSF study, which focuses on doctor ethnicity and language fluency.
The linear implication, of course is that if one group is under-represented, it must mean that other groups are over-represented and therefore must get penalized to address the imbalance. Advocates of measures to address this directly assert that minority under-representation is the product of historical transgressions by the over-represented majority. So, the penalty is a form of inter-generational justice.
One problem with this logic is what to do when the overrepresented group(s) are another set of minorities - in this case, Asian docs. As Razib notes, the convenient, epicyclic solution to preserve the original theory is to simply reclassify Asians as whites -
To assert a glaring gap of color one has to de-colorizing Asians. Including Asians makes the gap far less glaring…The general focus of the news report here is pushing the thesis about a minority doctor shortage, so you see the standard deemphasis on statistics which show a surfeit of Asian Americans, but with a precise & clear reiteration of the dearth of blacks and Latinos…The background assumption is of course simple: a world of white and non-white must redress the injustice that the white metes out to the non-white.
Where Razib’s piece powerfully demonstrates the power of blogging relative to the mainstream media is the additional work he does to *actually compute* the propensity of doctors by Race in a more thorough way than the SFGate reporter. For White docs, this “propensity” ratio is 1.32, for Indians it’s 6.78, and for those of Mexican descent, it’s 0.12. So yep, a given desi is about 5x more likely to be a doc than whitefolk who in turn are about 10x more likely to be a doc than Latino/Mexicans.
What’s also instructive are variances within the big buckets - the data shows Asian/Vietnamese have 2x the propensity to be docs as Asian/Filipino’s, for example. This makes Filipinos actually marginally less represented than Whites and yet, SFGate’s position buckets prospective Filipino docs with & competing against the hyper-represented Chinese and Indians for their “slots”… Or perhaps they’d add another racial epicycle to specifically address them?





