(Scypre.com) – Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has come under scrutiny for a controversial statement she made in her dissenting opinion regarding Black infant mortality rates under White doctors in relation to a recent landmark affirmative action decision. Jackson aimed to emphasize the life-and-death significance of race-based admissions for racial minorities, using an example in her dissenting opinion for the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case. The law firm connected to the misleading statement has now attempted to “clarify” the claim.
In her dissent, Jackson argued that considering race in admissions promotes fairness, equality, and the well-being of marginalized communities. She claimed that diversity is vital for the advancement of students and society as a whole, extending beyond college campuses. As one example, she stated, “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”
The source of this claim was an amicus brief filed by attorneys representing a group of medical colleges. The brief argued that having a Black physician for high-risk Black newborns is comparable to a miracle drug, as it more than doubles their chances of survival. The supporting evidence for this claim was a 2020 study that examined mortality rates among Florida newborns from 1992 to 2015.
However, in a letter submitted to the Supreme Court docket on Friday, Norton Rose Fulbright, the law firm involved, acknowledged the need for clarification and sought to eliminate any confusion. The firm stated that the primary finding of the study was that the mortality rate for Black newborns, compared to White newborns, decreased by over half when under the care of a Black physician. They emphasized that patient-physician racial concordance led to a reduction in health inequity, highlighting the study’s conclusion in terms of addressing the issue.
The letter continued to explain that while survival and mortality are considered opposite concepts, they cannot be used interchangeably from a statistical perspective. Thus, the statement made in the amicus brief requires clarification.
However, the lawyer acknowledged that the study still supports Jackson’s argument in her dissent, expressing regret for any confusion that may have arisen from their statement in the brief.
In the letter addressed to the Supreme Court, it was suggested that a more accurate summary of the 2020 study’s findings would be that having a Black physician reduces the likelihood of death for Black newborns by over 50% compared to White newborns.
In simpler terms, Jackson’s claim in her opinion that having a Black physician “more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will survive” could be misleading since the study primarily focused on lower mortality rates, which do not directly correlate with statistical survival rates.
Norton Rose Fulbright sent the letter in response to the attention drawn to Jackson’s statement in her dissenting opinion by various legal experts.
Ted Frank, a senior attorney at Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, directly addressed Jackson’s claim in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, criticizing her for a mathematical error.
Frank argued that “even a brief moment of consideration would reveal the implausibility of this claim.” He further pointed out that if 40% of Black newborns were to die, it would result in thousands of infant deaths every week. However, the actual survival rate exceeds 99%, making it mathematically impossible to double. Frank also disputed the 2020 study, stating that it had flaws and did not support Jackson’s assertion regarding the significantly higher chance of survival for Black newborns with a Black physician.
According to Frank, the study did not make such claims; instead, it focused on mortality rates among Florida newborns from 1992 to 2015, showing a slight improvement of 0.13% to 0.2% in survival rates for Black newborns with Black pediatricians (with no statistically significant improvement for Black obstetricians).