Medical University of South Carolina Rebrands Discriminatory DEI Programs

The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) might be figuring out which way the wind is blowing; the school appears to have renamed several of its initiatives to downplay their DEI-related purposes.

Take its division dedicated to “inclusive” resources and mentoring.

The old version of the web page, dated February 10, reads as follows: “To support our mission and our vision to become a nationally recognized model of excellence for U.S. medical schools, the PRIME (Pathway Resources & Inclusive Mentoring and Excellence) Division works to support all students, residents, and faculty by implementing mentorship and professional development programs designed to ensure that we are providing the best health care teams for all South Carolinians.”

The current version, meanwhile, reads as follows: “To support our mission and our vision to become a nationally recognized model of excellence for U.S. medical schools, the PRIME (Pathway Resources & Impactful Mentoring and Excellence) Division works to support all students, residents, and faculty by implementing mentorship and professional development programs designed to ensure that we are providing the best health care teams for all South Carolinians.”

Notice anything different? MUSC renamed its “PRIME” division to remove mention of “inclusive mentoring.”

It’s doubtful that this represents a significant shift in MUSC’s DEI priorities, given that several programs explicitly geared toward “underrepresented groups” appear to remain active.

But perhaps MUSC realizes that the DEI branding is a little too toxic in this day and age.

For instance, the archived web page of MUSC’s Summer Institute, dated February 10, states that the Institute’s objective is to increase representation of racial and ethnic minorities in the medical profession.

“The purpose of the Summer Institute is to increase the number of underrepresented groups, to include racial/ethnic minorities, rural and/or first-generation college students, as well as other students interested in further diversifying the physician workforce from South Carolina who are matriculating into the medical profession,” the archived web page stated.

However, the current web page omits mention of “underrepresented groups” entirely, instead just describing the program’s details.

As another example, the archived web page, from November 2024, for MUSC’s residency programs highlighted the “major recruitment effort for under-represented in medicine (URiM) residents” that the school had undertaken. It also discussed the work of the “Resident Diversity Transition Forum” and how the McClennan-Banks Resident Society worked to “enhance diversity within the College of Medicine.”

The current web page omits these references, with the Resident Diversity Transition Forum renamed as simply the “Resident Transition Forum.”

Again, it’s difficult to imagine this rebranding represents an institutional departure from DEI, considering how ingrained it is in MUSC’s programs and infrastructure.

The school shelled out a $370,000 annual salary for a “chief equity officer” just last year; meanwhile, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) launched an investigation into MUSC over several discriminatory scholarships and programs, prompting the school to alter its discriminatory eligibility criteria.

If MUSC is serious about abandoning DEI, there should be no half-measures.