[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 82 (Thursday, June 12, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1209-E1210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       QUALIFIED APPLICANTS ONLY

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 12, 1997

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it has recently come to my attention that Dr. 
Albert Schweitzer, well known for his selfless dedication to bringing 
medical care to thousands of poor Africans, would currently be unlikely 
to gain admittance to an American medical school due to his status as a 
Lutheran minister. A recent study of medical school admissions 
practices identified a pervasive bias against medical school candidates 
with strong religious views.
  This aberration in American education was carefully researched and 
detailed in an article jointly authored by Albert E. Gunn, Esq., M.D., 
associate dean of admissions at the University of Texas--Houston 
Medical School and George O. Zenner, Jr., M.D., associate professor at 
the University of Texas--Houston Medical School. The research of these 
two highly qualified professionals warrant careful consideration and, 
as such, I commend the research done by Drs. Gunn and Zenner and am 
pleased to enter Joseph Sobran's commentary on this significant work 
into the Congressional Record.

                       Qualified Applicants Only

                           (By Joseph Sobran)

       Do medical schools screen Christians out? The question is 
     rarely asked in public, but it has recently received a public 
     answer anyway, though it's not likely you've heard about it.
       An article by Albert E. Gunn and George O. Zenner (both 
     doctors) in the spring issue of Issues in Law & Medicine, 
     published in Terre Haute, Ind., offers some appalling 
     findings, taken from interviews and evaluations of applicants 
     to an unnamed school of medicine. The article deserves wider 
     circulation, so permit me to quote extensively from it. It 
     confirms suspicions that hadn't even occurred to me yet, 
     though they should have--proving once again that contemporary 
     life outdoes not only satire, but the most beady-eyed 
     conspiracy theories.
       Excerpts from the interviewers' comments on various 
     applicants speak for themselves:
       ``In discussing various issues related to medicine--
     especially ethical and moral issues--I felt that her 
     viewpoint was rather narrow or rigid and that she has not 
     thought the issues through very well. She is strongly 
     religious and calls herself a `Christian'.''
       ``* * * I found Mr. ---- to be immature and quite rigid in 
     his thinking. * * * His interests seemed to be exclusively in 
     outdoor sports and in church activities. * * * I was somewhat 
     concerned by Mr. ----'s attitude toward religion and 
     medicine. He is a strict Christian who believes in the 
     literal truth of the Bible. He does not believe in the 
     Darwinian theory of evolution, and does not feel that it 
     should be taught in schools and colleges in the way it is 
     presently taught. In hypothetical situations in which he as a 
     doctor might advise a patient about contraception or 
     abortion, Mr. ---- insisted upon taking a highly moralistic 
     stance. For example, he said that when advising a 25-year-old 
     woman about contraception, he would first want her to 
     convince him that her activities were `moral.' I found this 
     attitude very disturbing.''
       ``Mr. ---- is very enthusiastic. * * * God and religion 
     very much influence his life. * * * Mr. ---- shows potential 
     for a medical career provided he controls his own 
     preconceived attitudes on what will help a patient.''
       ``What makes this interview difficult is that the student 
     is certainly different from most applicants and is heavy on 
     religion, as expressed numerous times in his essay. Knowing 
     how concerned the committee is about such matters, I 
     questioned him in some detail but not in any way, I believe, 
     to influence his answers. * * * He prays frequently and has 
     fasted on one occasion for three days waiting for a message 
     from God to help him make a difficult decision. He does not 
     hear voices. God answers him by giving him a feeling of what 
     is the right decision. A lot of these matters are reminiscent 
     of other applicants that the committee has turned down, 
     fearing either a psychiatric disorder or a situation where 
     the individual as a medical student or physician will 
     `moralize' or force religion on a patient when not 
     indicated.''
       And a few brief comments about various applicants, from 
     viewers and the admissions committee:
       ``Vague discussing abortion.''
       ``He has found God but does not hear voices.''
       ``Negative view of candidate who said she was Catholic and 
     this influenced her view on abortion.''
       ``Applicant would counsel against abortion and would not 
     refer patient for abortion.''
       ``Do not recommend acceptance due to indecisiveness on 
     abortion and pulling the plug.''
       ``Displayed rigidity in comparing future of fetus to future 
     of pregnant 16-year-old girl.''
       ``Rigid, born-again Christian. Has not resolved how 
     abortion will affect medical practice.''
       The authors of the article note that ``several of the 
     applicants appeared reluctant to discuss their views, 
     possibly fearing that their opposition to abortion might 
     jeopardize their selection.'' No wonder, when the views of 
     those who expressed disapproval of abortion were so often 
     frowningly judged ``rigid,'' ``narrow,'' and even 
     ``indecisive.'' The authors observe: ``No extant records 
     contain a case in which an applicant who favored abortion was 
     described in negative terms.''
       Not that all Christian applicants were rejected, of 
     course--that would be either demographically difficult or at 
     least suspicious-looking. But even the positive comments of 
     the interviewers and committee display a telling bias:
       ``. . . I am personally satisfied that he is not a born-
     again Christian. . . .''
       ``Very religious and moralistic but not evangelistic.''
       ``Mexican-American Catholic, observant, not fanatical.''
       ``He would not hesitate to recommend an abortion or birth 
     control devices to young ladies for whom this would be 
     appropriate. . . . While superficially he resembles other 
     applicants who have been objectionable to the committee, on 
     looking more closely, I am sure he should not be regarded as 
     such.''
       In the interviews and evaluations, the authors point out, 
     only Christian views and

[[Page E1210]]

     anti-abortion views were discussed negatively. No 
     nonreligious or pro-abortion applicant seems to have been 
     found too ``rigid'' or, for that matter, too lax or cavalier 
     about abortion. All the interviews and evaluations assume a 
     consensus among the doctors that abortion and the willingness 
     to perform it are desirable, and that any reservations about 
     them are cause for suspicion and alarm. Here is one place 
     where liberals don't seem to seek ``diversity'' and 
     ``pluralism.'' Or rather, they equate ``diversity'' and 
     ``pluralism'' with agreement with their own attitude.
       Only religious applicants were grilled about their views--
     in spite of a state law governing the school that forbids 
     denying admission because of opposition to abortion, and in 
     spite of other laws prohibiting religious discrimination. 
     Presumably the school's own formal code proscribes these 
     admissions policies too, but that doesn't seem to stop 
     anyone.
       So while pro-lifers are writing their congressmen or 
     pounding the pavement to change the bogus constitutional law 
     of Roe v. Wade, this is what's going on behind the closed 
     doors of the medical profession. If you've had trouble 
     finding a Christian doctor, or if you've wondered why the 
     American Medical Association is so fervently pro-abortion, 
     here is your answer. Christian students are getting the 
     message that they're unwelcome in the medical schools. If 
     they want to try to get in anyway, they usually sense that 
     it's a good idea to keep their views under wraps.
       This is a sampling from only one school, but it may be 
     worth noting that the school apparently isn't in New York or 
     Los Angeles, but in a conservative and heavily Christian 
     region. We can only guess what things are like in the pagan 
     precincts.

     

                          ____________________