That kind of knee jerk reaction championing “facts” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of historical inquiry. I know some may balk at this statement fearing it justifies revisionist historical narrative. Like so much of history, “facts” do not necessarily speak for themself. I wondered whether this was a striking but ultimately benign action consistent with administrative practices in other state agencies in North Carolina? Or did this flagging point toward bias in the examining and licensing of these physicians? My research is complete and now appears in the current issue of the North Carolina Historical Review. The board annotated these physicians’ record with “c,” “col” or “colored.” Note the annotation for Drs.
Usmle first aid 2017 bound update#
I offer this as preface to my update from an October 2018 blog entry titled, “Bias in Testing?” In that post from three years ago, I discussed a research project I had undertaken-one looking at the Register (official record) from the North Carolina Medical Board triggered by my finding that for nearly fifty years the board’s practice had been to annotate the record of black physician candidates for licensure. Along the way is an accompanying human tendency toward reductivist thinking-the tendency to take complex questions and issues and rework them in order to reduce them to ones offering simplified, general answers. Indeed, even when these are not available or immediately apparent, our minds work actively to supply them. Science suggests strongly that we, as humans, are fundamentally hard-wired to seek answers or explanations. It is human nature to crave certainty…to seek a clear understanding of our world and definitive answers to the questions-big and small-that confront us.
0 kommentar(er)
