Did the AMA House of Delegates Forget About the Civil Rights Act?

It’s not news that the American Medical Association (AMA) has a history of endorsing radical wokeness and remaining out-of-touch with the vast majority of physicians. However, one would hope that the AMA would at least refrain from adopting policies that appear to support blatant racial discrimination.

At its interim meeting in November the AMA House of Delegates voted on a resolution that will allocate resources specifically for “Black male physicians” in order to help them attain “the skills and knowledge to assume leadership roles in academic medicine, healthcare administration, and public health.”

Now published on its website, pages 14 and 15 of Reference Committee C’s annotated report state the adopted language of Resolution 308:

RESOLVED, that, consistent with applicable laws, our American Medical Association support the development and funding of comprehensive mentorship programs connecting Black male pre-medical students with physician mentors, guiding academic preparation, MCAT preparation, the medical school application process, and career development; and be it further

RESOLVED, that, consistent with applicable laws, our AMA support the development of leadership training programs for Black male physicians, equipping them with the skills and knowledge to assume leadership roles in academic medicine, healthcare administration, and public health; and be it further

RESOLVED, that our AMA encourage collaboration between our AMA, medical schools, HBCUs, and community organizations to increase pathways for Black male students in medicine.

Given anti-discrimination laws, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is interesting that the resolution repeatedly emphasizes a race-based prioritization while suggesting “consisten[cy] with applicable laws.” 

Specifically, Title VI “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.”

The Federal Government’s overview clearly states:

If a recipient of federal assistance is found to have discriminated and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the federal agency providing the assistance should either initiate fund termination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal action.

Furthermore, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.]

Does the AMA receive federal funding? Several million dollars annually, as a matter of fact. 

Do No Harm members are well aware of the AMA’s activism, as we have recently shown. Despite its claims to the contrary, the AMA has a record of putting politics way ahead of science. 

This time it appears the AMA is attempting to draw on the debunked theory of racial concordance, which alleges that patients fare better when treated by doctors of the same race. But, the claim that racial concordance improves health outcomes is utterly without merit – a notion that Do No Harm has not only thoroughly disproved from a scientific perspective, but also has addressed through legal measures to advance care for all patients. 

The AMA appears to be on the verge of flaunting its disregard both for science and the law, given the explicit wording of the adopted resolution. After all, if the AMA explicitly pledges to “support the development of leadership training programs for Black male physicians,” such a prioritization could by design exclude non-black males and all females.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments explicitly prohibit discrimination based on race and sex by entities receiving federal funds. 

The resolution was voted on by the AMA’s House and notes that this “preliminary report of actions… should not be considered final.” 

If the AMA truly wants to improve health outcomes for patients, then it would do well to ensure that it offers these programs to all students and physicians and does not prioritize or divide individuals by race or gender.