https://www.wnd.com/2026/01/cleveland-clinic-racism-hidden-biden-is-now-under/
AI GENERATED clarification:
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." — John 7:24
You're not missing something, the confusion is understandable because the argument is not about hostile discrimination against Black patients in the traditional sense. What's being alleged is preferential or exclusionary treatment based on race, which critics argue becomes unlawful discrimination against non-Black patients even if the intent is benevolent.
Here's the core issue in plain terms.
This is not a claim that Cleveland Clinic harmed Black patients. The allegation is that the clinic created programs limited to or prioritized for racial minorities, meaning whites and others could be excluded or deprioritized for certain services solely because of race. Under U.S. civil-rights law, discrimination can occur for or against any group if race is used as a deciding factor, regardless of motive.
So yes, legally speaking, this is what many call "reverse discrimination," though courts usually avoid that phrase. The law treats it simply as race-based discrimination, period.
The critics' argument works like this. Medicine should be based on individual clinical need such as symptoms, risk factors, income, access to care, family history, etc. When a hospital instead says, "This program is for minorities," race becomes a gatekeeper, even if the goal is to reduce disparities. Civil-rights statutes like Title VI do not allow race-exclusive medical programs unless extremely narrow criteria are met.
Supporters of the programs argue something different. They say race is being used as a proxy for social disadvantage, higher disease prevalence, or barriers to care, not as a biological claim or a statement of superiority. From that perspective, the programs are corrective, not discriminatory.
The legal conflict arises because good intentions do not automatically make race-based policies lawful. Courts increasingly require race-neutral alternatives first, such as income, neighborhood, insurance status, or documented risk factors. If those could achieve the same goal without using race, then race-based programs become legally vulnerable.
So the dispute isn't "anti-Black" versus "pro-Black." It's whether race itself may be used as a sorting mechanism in healthcare. One side says doing so violates equality under the law, the other says ignoring race perpetuates real-world inequality.
That's the tension at the heart of this case.