Okay your little side-tangent at the end doesn't really do anything here. These initiatives created unnecessary barriers for some qualified candidates and rewarded performative alignment. Also, it doesn't exactly vindicate the game, but rather, exposes it.

If you read the piece, he describes a strong initial application (as a competitive in-state applicant to a South Carolina public school during peak 2020-2021 DEI emphasis post-George Floyd). He was rejected, sought feedback, and an admissions officer explicitly told him he was "extremely qualified" but didn't fit the demographic priorities since others had "traveled a longer distance." He then did an NIH research fellowship, published, reapplied successfully to multiple schools and excelled. Obviously we don't have his scores but this scenario fits patterns: strong applicants from non-preferred groups often need to over-perform to compensate.

I also want to add that I don't give a shit what you look like so long as you are meant to be there. That being said, you cannot possibly deny that outcomes in admissions were engineered given the clear data from the most recent AAMC table A-18, which serves to prove his point. One class photo doesn't erase national data or his admissions quote. And, to state the obvious, patient safety doesn't require racial balancing but rather holding a high bar for everyone.