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.

(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 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.