Commentary
The American Heart Association’s Discriminatory Anti-Discrimination Policies
Share:
Many organizations—including in the medical field—make assurances not to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, age, and a variety of other factors. These types of statements are fairly commonplace in both the private and public sector.
However, what is less common is an explicit codification of discrimination included in the very same paragraph as an anti-discrimination statement. Yet, this is precisely the situation with the American Heart Association (AHA).
In one of its funding opportunities for grantees, the AHA is offering a four-year award of up to $4.4 million for organizations addressing the role of inflammation in cardiac and neurovascular diseases. In their applications, potential grantees are supposed to include requests for funding of postdoctoral fellows related to the program. Upon first glance, the idea sounds innocent enough.
In fact, the AHA assures applicants that its aim is to end the treatment of “people inequitably based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, ability, veteran status or other factors.” But the very next sentence codifies this type of mistreatment by mandating that “at least 50% of the fellows named must be from a racial or ethnic group that is under-represented in science (Black/African American; Hispanic/Latino; Native American or Alaska Native; and/or Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander); or an LGBTQ+ person, or a woman.”
But it does not end there. The AHA goes onto require that “at least 25% of key personnel of the research team must be from groups who are under-represented in science and medicine.”
The AHA’s message could not be any more contradictory: they are against discrimination, except when they are in favor of it.
This type of reverse discrimination and racial balancing has no place in medicine, or in any related field. However, given the AHA’s long history of endorsing DEI and woke concepts, its discriminatory requirements should come as no huge surprise.
A search for “equity” on the AHA’s website brings up nearly 9,000 results, from news articles to health equity guidelines and more. Included in these results is the AHA’s “Office of Health Equity” which is supposedly dedicated to “leveraging diversity, equity and inclusion to drive the AHA’s mission to be a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives.”
As part of the AHA’s Office of Health Equity, the organization has issued several position statements on “health equity, social justice and structural racism.” They are also supplemented by several policy positions held by the organization, guided by “principles for addressing structural racism through public policy advocacy”.
For example, the AHA published a more than 14,000-word report outlining a variety of positions held by the organization designed to “advance antiracist strategies”. These include several policies entirely unrelated to health or medical outcomes, such as “advance[ing] policies that support the preservation of trust in and the integrity of our electoral process” and “work[ing] to mitigate implicit and explicit bias among school staff and to examine disciplinary policies and the role of law enforcement in schools”, among others.
Also included in the report is an endorsement of “provid[ing] complementary, culturally concordant prevention services for patients and historically excluded populations.” This is an implicit and buried endorsement of racial concordance in medicine, the disproven idea that patients should see providers of the same race.
Put simply, the AHA’s embrace of politicized concepts runs wide and deep, even encroaching upon areas that are completely unrelated to health and medicine. The codification of discriminatory practices in a recent grant opportunity is merely a symptom of a much deeper problem brewing within the organization.
The AHA is certainly not alone in advancing a woke ideology or incorporating discrimination in its funding opportunities. However, the extent to which these concepts have infiltrated the organization’s mission and operations is a serious cause for concern—and one that deserves careful monitoring going forward.