Indiana Enacts Law Cracking Down on DEI

Huge news in the Hoosier State.

This week, Indiana Governor Mike Braun signed into law sweeping legislation, SB 289, that takes aim at a number of DEI initiatives in institutions of higher education and other publicly-funded entities.

The law specifically targets “unlawful discrimination” in education, public employment, and licensure, as well as DEI committees in public universities.

Next, the law prohibits public educational institutions or employers from taking actions based on an individual’s “personal characteristic[s]” such as their race, religion, color, sex, national origin, or ancestry. 

Additionally, the law changes the eligibility criteria of state-funded “minority scholarships” to make clear that applicants should be residents in an “underserved county” and agree to teach in an “underserved county,” rather than be a “minority.”

Moreover, the law prohibits a public employer from requiring training asserting that “a person with a certain personal characteristic: (1) is inherently superior or inferior to a person with a different personal characteristic; (2) should be blamed for actions committed in the past; or (3) has a moral character that is determined by a personal characteristic of the person.”

The law likewise prohibits licensing boards from requiring individuals to affirm these statements as a condition of licensure. As Do No Harm has documented, licensing boards such as state medical boards are often major vectors for injecting DEI into the medical profession.

This is a step in the right direction for Indiana.

American Chemical Society Replaces Discriminatory Scholarship Following Do No Harm Lawsuit

RICHMOND, VA; May 7, 2025 – Today, the American Chemical Society (ACS) agreed to replace its racially discriminatory ACS Scholars Program with a new program that will not consider race in the application process. Do No Harm sued the ACS in March 2025 on behalf of a high school senior who met all the qualifications for the program except the racial requirement and was therefore ineligible.  

“We are pleased that the American Chemical Society will stop discriminating based on race in its scholarships. Allowing identity politics to interfere with merit in medical education is not only a disservice to these future medical professionals, but also the patients they will serve,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “The ACS replacing its previously discriminatory Scholars Program sends a clear message that racial bias has no place in medicine or medical education.”  

The ACS Scholars Program violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, because ACS receives tens of millions of dollars from federal contracts, it violated President Trump’s executive order demanding that federal contractors end discriminatory programs. 

Click here to read the joint stipulation of dismissal. 

Click here to read the original lawsuit. 

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 17,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

We Need a Unifying Approach to Mental Health Care

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally submitted by Dr. Miceli as a comment to JAMA Health Forum in response to “How Anti-DEI Policies Adversely Affect Mental Health,” an article authored by Ruth Shim, MD, MPH. Dr. Miceli disclosed his affiliation with Do No Harm when submitting the comment; JAMA Health Forum rejected the submission. 

In the midst of a mental health crisis in the United States it is myopic and mistaken to claim that policies seeking to end DEI’s divisive, discriminatory excesses are adversely affecting mental health. We need to acknowledge the state of behavioral health and address these challenges in their entirety, not through the polarizing lens of structural discrimination.

Unfortunately, mental health in America has declined over time. It is misguided, however, to argue that DEI is “crucial to ensure the emotional well-being of the entire US population.”  The New York Times Magazine, for example, highlighted how DEI created a more negative atmosphere at the University of Michigan even after the school spent roughly $250 million building a bureaucracy trying to make it work. DEI is no panacea.

The evidence Shim offers for DEI’s mental health benefits is shaky as well, with more nuance than her conclusions suggest. In one study cited, state immigration policies labeled as “exclusionary” were “not associated with psychological distress.” In another, used by Shim to argue that state policies have led to fewer discriminatory experiences, the authors plainly state they “cannot claim that the policies themselves created an environment where [trans and nonbinary] people are less likely to experience discrimination.” Moreover, a third paper comments that causality of policies and their potential implications on mental health “cannot be inferred.”

While the relationship between policy and mental health is more tenuous than portrayed, it is also clear that some of the article’s claims overstate the totality of evidence. In one referenced study, reported concern regarding discrimination was “not associated with alcohol use, depression, or ADHD at follow up.” In another, there was no statistically significant reduction in suicidality, as related to state-level nondiscrimination policies, for “gender minority children and adults” in three of four cohorts by the study’s concluding year. And, in another, income may have played a factor in biasing results, compounded by the limited number of respondents with psychiatric disorders in select states.  The authors write, “the results must be interpreted with caution.”

Yet, caution is far removed in the case of DEI advocacy. Shim advances the narrative whereby “our underlying beliefs about people from different racial backgrounds” are shaped by “structural racism.” Such a pessimistic view of mankind ignores the progress America has made and loses sight of our individuality. This view has also spurred the development of harmful DEI programs and policy that prioritize the recruitment and admission of select groups, impose racial quotas, and solely offer racism as the driver of health disparities.

Now, more than ever, is not the time for division. Mental illness is a serious problem in America. To conflate it with policies that aim to correct DEI’s illiberal tyranny is simply wrong. We must take a unifying approach when examining the root causes of the behavioral health ailments facing our nation, rather than placing blame on policies restoring merit, fairness, and equality.

Inside the American Board of Pediatrics’ ‘Climate Change’ Certification Course

,

In June 2021, the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) launched a new course titled “The Impact of Climate Change on Pediatric Health Care,” that is intended to educate board-certified pediatricians about climate change.

The course is approved for “maintenance of certification” credit, meaning that its completion counts toward pediatricians renewing their board certification.

Although justified on the basis of enabling pediatricians to better care for patients, Do No Harm obtained several excerpts from the module that reveal many of the questions have little to do with clinical practice.

Figure 1. A screenshot of the “Impact of Climate Change on Pediatric Health Care” module.

One question, for instance, includes the model answer that “changing to a vegan diet contributes to reducing climate change […].”

However, Drs. Lisa Patel and Karina Maher, two primary authors of the course, wrote that understanding the impact of climate change will improve clinical practice.

“Understanding these health effects will improve the clinician’s ability to counsel, treat, and care for their patients,” they wrote. “Learning how climate change does not affect every person equally is an important step towards recognizing that structural racism can determine health outcomes.”

Figure 2. A screenshot of the “Impact of Climate Change on Pediatric Health Care” module.

Another question’s model answer includes a statement about higher rates of asthma in “redlined” communities.

Meanwhile, another slide opines on the disparity in assets between the “average Black American family” and the average “White American family.”

Figure 3. A screenshot of the “Impact of Climate Change on Pediatric Health Care” module.

Another model answer stated that prenatal exposure to air pollutants could potentially impact the development of a person’s offspring, and specifically that exposure to fossil fuels could lead to developmental delays.

Figure 4. A screenshot of the “Impact of Climate Change on Pediatric Health Care” module.

The course represents the increasing mission creep in the medical profession, in which medical associations increasingly take political and social positions on issues outside the purview of clinical practice.

The premise of the module, that a changing climate impacts public health, may well be true; but that does not then mean that physicians should undergo training in climate science as part of their maintenance of certification. 

That same logic would entail advising physicians to become educated on just about every facet of modern society; from urban planning to criminal justice to the logistics of food distribution; that could conceivably impact public health.

There is no consistent limiting principle, and it’s hard to see how questions as to whether a vegan diet “contributes to reducing climate change” are germane to the practice of pediatric medicine. 

The ABP should certify pediatricians based on competencies relevant to the practice of medicine.

The ACGME’s DEI Awards Program

Last month, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) received top billing in an executive order from President Trump targeting accreditors for injecting DEI and racial discrimination into higher education. 

Per the order, the ACGME’s offensive behavior includes expecting “institutions to focus on implementing ‘policies and procedures related to recruitment and retention of individuals underrepresented in medicine,’ including ‘racial and ethnic minority individuals.’

But in addition to its diversity-promoting accreditation standards, the ACGME goes a step further and helps financially incentivize additional DEI activities at medical schools through the Catalyst Awards, a grant program that provides up to $100,000 to selected projects.

The Catalyst Awards, run in collaboration with the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, awards grants to projects that “impact the clinical learning environment and improve the experience of residents and fellows” in one of three priority areas, including “Promoting diversity, equity, and belonging.” The program will begin accepting applications next month.

Previous recipients of the award include the Northwell Health Feinstein Institute for Medical Research for its project to develop skills “necessary for managing workplace microaggressions,” as well as Johns Hopkins School of Medicine for its “multidisciplinary health equity workshop” that instructs residents to “be cognizant of individual biases (their own and those of others), understand the issue of structural injustice, and address the impacts of bias and injustice on their patients and peers.”

What’s more, in addition to the ACGME’s DEI-infused accreditation requirements for residency programs, the organization also recently released the latest version of its Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) Program.

This program is “designed to improve how clinical sites engage resident and fellow physicians in learning to provide safe, high quality patient care.” These expectations are not accreditation requirements for participating residency programs, but are described as “feedback” for residency programs and other clinical settings.

However, the latest version of the program, released in 2024, introduced a new “CLER Focus Area” called Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Unsurprisingly, that focus area stresses the importance of “strategies and efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion and improve interprofessional learning” in clinical practice.

The DEI focus area includes several DEI “pathways” that are essentially just expectations for residency programs to promote DEI.

For instance, one of the “pathways” states that the “Clinical learning environment creates and maintains diversity among the clinical care team to optimize learning and patient care.” To achieve this goal, the clinical learning environment “creates a systematic and comprehensive approach to recruit and retain a diverse clinical care team.”

All told, the CLER program description mentions “equity” 31 times.

These initiatives are further evidence that the ACGME has a deep, institutional belief in DEI, and its accreditation requirements are just the tip of the iceberg. 

This is an activist organization with an ideological commitment to advancing the DEI agenda.

Federal Court Delivers Major Victory Against Racial Discrimination

,

You may have missed it, but last week, a federal court delivered a huge win against racial discrimination and gender ideology.

Judge Timothy Kelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declined to block President Trump’s executive orders targeting DEI and gender ideology. 

This means that the orders, which among other things direct federal agencies to cut off funding for equity-related grants and initiatives that promote gender ideology, remain in effect.

The decision comes in response to a lawsuit by activist groups who receive federal funding and support harmful DEI programs based on race and gender identity. The groups (the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago) had sued the Trump administration over the following executive orders:

  • EO No. 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Referencing
  • EO No. 14168: Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government
  • EO No. 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity

Do No Harm not only filed an amicus brief explaining how these executive orders target illegal discrimination and are well within the executive branch’s constitutional authority, but participated in oral arguments to defend the orders!

The plaintiffs, meanwhile, argued that these orders violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights, and moved for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the orders.

The court held otherwise, and denied their motion.

“The government need not subsidize the exercise of constitutional rights to avoid infringing them, and the Constitution does not provide a right to violate federal antidiscrimination law,” Judge Kelly wrote.

Additionally, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge provisions of the executive orders that only gave presidential directions to subordinate agencies. 

This is a massive win. The plaintiffs had effectively argued that efforts targeting illegal and discriminatory DEI practices were themselves illegal and violated their constitutional rights.

But as the court held, there is no right to racial discrimination.

Education Department Announces Major Reforms to Accreditation Process

The Department of Education on Thursday announced changes to the higher education accreditation process, making it easier for institutions of higher education to switch accreditors.

The reforms – communicated to universities and other institutions through a Dear Colleague Letter – come in response to President Trump’s executive order on accreditation.

That order, among other things, singled out medical accreditors like the Liaison Committee on Medical Education and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for imposing DEI requirements on medical schools.

The executive order was in turn influenced by Do No Harm’s report exposing education accreditors for injecting DEI mandates into their standards.

The Department of Education’s reforms include lifting a temporary moratorium that had been placed on accepting and reviewing applications for new accrediting agencies.

Additionally, the Department of Education will simplify the process of switching accreditors going forward, as well as review a greater number of potential new accrediting bodies.

Opening up the process by which new accreditors can be certified and approved is an important step toward limiting accreditors’ ability to inject DEI into higher education.

If accreditors lose their monopoly, then they have less leverage by which they can impose their particular ideological or political agenda on institutions of higher education.

Tackling accreditors’ political activism is essential to restore trust in medical schools and other institutions of higher education.

Arkansas Ditches Racial Quotas Following Do No Harm Lawsuit

Last month, Arkansas enacted a law to remove race and gender quotas from state boards and commissions.

The law was prompted, in part, by Do No Harm’s federal lawsuit challenging an Arkansas law that required racial quotas for certain government bodies.

As a result of the bill becoming law, Do No Harm voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit against Arkansas on Thursday. 

Previously, Arkansas’s law had imposed racial quotas on gubernatorial appointments to state licensing boards; for instance, requiring at least one member of the five-person Occupational Therapy Examining Committee to be a racial minority.

Do No Harm and the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism had filed the lawsuit on behalf of two Arkansas natives who met the committee’s requirements but were excluded because they were not racial minorities.

This is a major victory, and Do No Harm applauds Arkansas lawmakers and Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders for taking action against racial discrimination.

Medical boards like the Occupational Therapy Examining Committee should be made up of the most qualified candidates to ensure that expertise is prioritized, and that the individuals in charge of critical decisions are the most deserving.

Racial quotas subvert merit and replace it with ideology.

With any luck, Minnesota will follow Arkansas’s lead.

Do No Harm had filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Health over the department advisory council’s discriminatory membership criteria.

Minnesota law requires the department’s Health Equity Advisory and Leadership Council to include representatives of certain racial and ethnic groups.

Following Do No Harm Lawsuit, Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons Eliminates Discriminatory Scholarship Program

RICHMOND, VA; May 1, 2025 – The Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons (SOMOS) ended a discriminatory scholarship following a lawsuit filed by Do No Harm in December 2024.

“We are pleased that the Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons has ended its discriminatory scholarship program,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Offering opportunities only to applicants who meet certain gender or racial requirements is against the law and harmful to the necessary objective of recruiting and training the most qualified healthcare providers. This should serve as a message to all medical institutions: If you are engaging in unlawful discrimination, we at Do No Harm will make sure you are held accountable.”

The E. Anthony Rankin Scholarship Program – administered by SOMOS in partnership with the U.S. Navy – was available only to applicants of an “underrepresented gender or racial background in orthopaedics.”

The now-ended SOMOS scholarship excluded and disfavored white medical students in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The stipulation of dismissal states that the program was canceled for current and future cohorts, and if SOMOS revives the program it will be available to all students.

Click here to read the joint stipulation of dismissal.

Click here to read the original complaint.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With more than 17,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

Do No Harm Issues Statement Supporting HHS Review of Sex Change Interventions for Children

RICHMOND, VA; May 1, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm, a medical watchdog group dedicated to removing identity politics from medicine, issued a statement of support for the report, “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices,” published by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“American children, especially those suffering from gender confusion, deserve better than to be used as a political pawn by gender activists. The Health and Human Services review of the scientific evidence and best practices in the treatment for pediatric gender dysphoria rightfully exposes a number of serious risks in the medical transition of young people,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “The report cites a ‘lack of robust evidence’ for these medical procedures and most alarmingly finds that ‘WPATH suppressed systematic reviews its leaders believed would undermine its favored treatment approach.’ Do No Harm, its fellows, researchers, and members have been warning about the experimental and irreversible sex change interventions on children, and we are grateful and encouraged HHS is bringing needed scrutiny to the gender industry. It is clearer now more than ever that we must end this misguided practice and replace it with evidence-based treatment for gender confused kids.”

The HHS review concluded that:

  • “There was a rapid expansion and implementation of a clinical protocol that lacked sufficient scientific and ethical justification.”
  • “Second, when confronted with compelling evidence that this protocol did not deliver the health benefits it promised, and that other countries were changing their policies appropriately, U.S. medical professionals and associations failed to reconsider the “gender-affirming” approach.”
  • “Third, conflicting evidence—evidence that challenged the foundational assumptions of the protocol and the professional standing of its advocates—was mischaracterized or insufficiently acknowledged.”
  • “Finally, dissenting perspectives were marginalized, and those who voiced them were disparaged.”

Click here to read the FULL report.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With more than 17,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

Med School Partnership Runs Networking Event for ‘Underrepresented’ Students

,

A medical education is an incredible gift, and opportunities should not be denied to students based on their particular background.

Yet the Alliance of Minority Physicians (AMP), an organization that works in partnership with Penn Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, appears to think otherwise.

AMP is promoting what it refers to as its “Pathways to Excellence in Medicine Initiative,” a series of events and mentorship opportunities that is explicitly geared toward “underrepresented” students.

AMP doesn’t define this term, but both the National Institutes of Health and Association of American Medical Colleges defined the term to essentially mean black and Hispanic students.

According to a flyer advertising the program’s “Med Immersion Day,” a networking fair for prospective physicians, the program is “Designed for URiM Medical Students Across Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley.”

Figure 1. A flyer advertising the Pathways to Excellence Med Immersion Day.

“MS1-MS3s across Philadelphia from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine are invited to join us for this immersive experience!” a website advertising the event read. “You will have the opportunity to network with Penn/CHOP residency programs, engage in interactive programming tailored to your year in training, and be inspired by an exciting keynote speaker.”

Helping the next generation of physicians gain the skills and knowledge they require in order to be successful in their careers is a laudable goal that helps both medical students and their future patients alike. 

But when this guidance is conditioned on an applicant’s “underrepresented” status, it inherently discriminates against future medical professionals on the basis of immutable characteristics. 

Indeed, the immersion event’s green “register” button explicitly required applicants to identify their race and underrepresented group.

Figure 2. Screenshot of the AMP registration survey.

In addition to the “Pathways to Excellence in Medicine Initiative,” there is also a visiting clerkship program, the “Visiting Clerkship Program for Students Underrepresented in Medicine,” that provides stipends and rotation opportunities to selected students.

Earlier this year, Do No Harm sued Penn Medicine, the Consortium of DEI Health Educators, and WURD Radio for their Black Doctors Directory, which illegally excluded non-black doctors.

And previously, in 2023, Do No Harm reported that the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania required a political litmus test littered with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-based principles as part of its job application process. 

Do No Harm also previously filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights against the school for requiring participants in a medical education program to be from a particular racial or ethnic background; the school took just a handful of months to scrub their website and reverse course.

The sooner programs like these are scrutinized and quickly cast away, the better.

Do No Harm Announces the Election of Two New Board Members

RICHMOND, VA; April 30, 2025 –Today, Do No Harm announced the addition of two new members to its board of directors. Dr. Richard Bosshardt is a Florida-based plastic surgeon with over forty years of medical experience. Dr. Soumi Eachempati is a former professor of surgery and public health at Weill Cornell Medical College, as well as a health technology entrepreneur.

“We are excited to welcome Dr. Bosshardt and Dr. Eachempati as the newest members of the Do No Harm Board of Directors,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman at Do No Harm. “These two men bring a wealth of experience and expertise from their respective backgrounds as medical professionals. Their wisdom and guidance will strengthen our organization as we work to protect patients from the disastrous consequences of identity politics.”

Do No Harm’s members elected Dr. Bosshardt to the board of directors in Do No Harm’s first-ever member-wide board election.

“I am delighted to have been elected to serve on the Board of Do No Harm,” said Dr. Richard Bosshardt. “It is an honor and a privilege that I humbly accept. Since I first joined Do No Harm within months of its launch, first as a Visiting Fellow, then as a Senior Fellow, I have received invaluable support and encouragement in my fight with the American College of Surgeons regarding its embrace of DEI. I have watched Do No Harm grow in size, scope, and influence while staying true to its mission to restore Hippocratic medicine, push back against DEI and gender-affirming care in minors, and restore a focus on merit and excellence in our profession. I am proud to serve such an honorable and effective organization and will do my utmost to justify my election to the Board.”

“Due to a variety of the reasons, the practice of medicine has become increasingly complicated,” said Dr. Soumi Eachempati. “Concurrently, the quality of medical education has been gradually deteriorating as medical schools have been infiltrated with secondary ideologies that obscure the mission of actually teaching critical aspects of medical care. After observing these changes in medical education over my thirty years in medicine as a student, practitioner, and educator, I was pleased to learn about the efforts of Do No Harm and even more pleased at the opportunity to support its important cause of making healthcare better for all.”

Dr. Richard Bosshardt is a Senior Fellow at Do No Harm and a recently-retired plastic surgeon of 47 years, with 35 years in private practice. He has been active in pushing back against so-called “gender-affirming care” in minors, critical race theory, and DEI in medicine. Having seen the divisive effects of identity politics both personally and professionally, he is committed to eliminating it from the medical profession.

Dr. Soumi Eachempati is a surgeon, entrepreneur, and former hedge fund analyst. He started his distinguished career at Weill Cornell Medical College where he rose to the rank of Professor of Surgery and Public Health and was named Director of Trauma Services and the Surgical ICU. During this time, he performed over 5,000 operations and authored over 200 peer-reviewed publications and book chapters. He was elected the President of the New York State Chapter of the American College of Surgeons and was also named to the national Board of Governors of the American College of Surgeons. His entrepreneurial experience includes founding a company specializing in clinical applications and another company that facilitated safe reentry for businesses and schools during the first year of the COVID pandemic.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 17,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

CMS Rolls Back ‘Health Equity’ Mandates in Cancer Treatment Payment Model

It’s another win for fairness in medicine.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is rolling back its requirements for participants in a Medicaid payment program known as the Enhancing Oncology Model (EOM), according to the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC).

The EOM is a payment model for clinicians caring for Medicare patients with certain common cancer types; it provides practices with a monthly payment per patient.

However, pursuant to the Biden administration’s “health equity” executive order, practices would be required to submit health equity plans in order to participate in the EOM.

That requirement has now been rolled back, according to the AJMC. Instead, CMS has sent revised agreements to EOM practices stating that health equity plans are no longer mandatory.

“CMS will not require or accept submissions of health equity plans in EOM for 2025 and beyond, which was a previous requirement for the program,” Lalan Wilfong, MD, senior vice president for value-based care at Thyme Care, told the AJMC.

CMS made this change “to comply with Executive Order 14151 and Executive Order 14168, effective January 20, 2025,” Wilfong told the AJMC, in this context referencing one of President Trump’s executive orders targeting DEI in the federal government.

This is a much-welcome change; it’s deeply disturbing to require practices to swear fealty to the DEI ideology before funding their efforts to treat cancer patients.

It’s also a welcome sign that CMS is unwinding the toxic DEI agenda that CMS had promoted under the prior administration.

For instance, in April 2022, CMS issued a proposed rule for inpatient and long-term hospitals, forcing them to report information on patient race, ethnicity, income, geographic location, sexual orientation, and gender identity. 

This information could then be used to financially reward or punish healthcare providers based on their adherence to identity politics. Do No Harm urged the public to comment on the rule in July 2022, and submitted comments later that month raising the alarm about the rule’s potential for abuse.

In 2023, CMS proposed two rules that would modify quality reporting programs for skilled nursing facilities and cancer hospitals, respectively. These reporting programs use payment incentives and payment reductions to ensure facilities are providing adequate care.

However, the modifications instead promote the concept of “health equity” once again by including a health equity scoring system in the quality reporting guidelines. This encourages providers to promote health equity, which in practice is essentially racial discrimination. The finalized version of the rules went into effect later in 2023.

Do No Harm applauds this recent CMS action, and welcomes future efforts to roll back the “health equity” agenda.

Trump Administration Moves to Hold Accreditors Accountable for Pushing Racial Discrimination

, ,

Today, President Trump issued an executive order targeting accreditors for injecting discriminatory DEI ideology into medical education. 

The order, titled Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, empowers the Secretary of Education to “hold accountable, including through denial, monitoring, suspension, or termination of accreditation recognition, accreditors” who promote discriminatory DEI programs.

The order explicitly singles out medical education accreditors and medical schools, empowering federal agencies to “investigate and take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American medical schools or graduate medical education entities that is advanced by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or other accreditors of graduate medical education.” 

The order further expands on its decision to target medical education accreditors, recounting their discriminatory requirements and mandates.

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which is the only federally recognized body that accredits Doctor of Medicine degree programs, requires that an institution “engage[] in ongoing, systematic, and focused recruitment and retention activities, to achieve mission-appropriate diversity outcomes among its students.” The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, which is the sole accreditor for both allopathic and osteopathic medical residency and fellowship programs, similarly “expect[s]” institutions to focus on implementing “policies and procedures related to recruitment and retention of individuals underrepresented in medicine,” including “racial and ethnic minority individuals.”  The standards for training tomorrow’s doctors should focus solely on providing the highest quality care, and certainly not on requiring unlawful discrimination.

“We applaud President Trump for taking this crucial first step towards dismantling accrediting bodies’ divisive influence over medical schools,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm.

“By promoting accreditors’ accountability, the executive order gets rid of schools’ pretext for pushing discriminatory programs themselves,” said Dr. Goldfarb. “This is a great step towards restoring integrity to American healthcare.”

The executive order follows on the heels of Do No Harm’s report exposing education accreditors for injecting DEI mandates into their standards.

Do No Harm’s report identified 10 accrediting bodies for graduate medical and healthcare education programs that reference the value of “diversity” in their accreditation standards and/or impose DEI requirements on the programs they accredit. These standards range from explicit requirements to maintain DEI offices and programs to more indirect encouragement of efforts to achieve certain diversity-related outcomes.

Moreover, the order follows legislation recently introduced in Congress by U.S. Representative Burgess Owens. That legislation, known as the ACE Act, prohibits accreditors from mandating colleges adhere to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) standards as a condition of accreditation.

For the future of medical education to be protected, it’s essential that accreditors cannot impose their own ideological agenda onto medical schools.

New Report Reveals Depths of HHS’s Discriminatory Funding Initiatives

A new report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) identified dozens of programs and initiatives operated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that explicitly discriminate based on race or otherwise encourage racial discrimination.

The report, titled “55 HHS Federal Funding Initiatives Discriminate Based on Race,” catalogs various HHS programs that distribute grant funding based on race or encourage grant recipients to put in place policies targeted at specific racial groups.

These programs include the so-called “Centers of Excellence” or “COE” program directed toward “underrepresented minority individuals.”

The COE program distributes grants to health professional schools and nonprofits for the purpose of implementing practices and policies to assist racial and ethnic minorities.

“Among numerous other race-based requirements for recipient schools, schools must agree to use funding to establish, strengthen, and expand programs to support the academic performance of underrepresented minority students,” the report states.

The report also identified racially discriminatory scholarship programs, such as the Scholarship for Disadvantaged Students (SDS).

The SDS program distributes scholarships to “eligible individual[s]” who are “from a disadvantaged background,” “including students who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups.”

Moreover, the report also highlighted the Nursing Workforce Diversity or NWD program, which was the subject of a recent Do No Harm report.

The NWD program funds nursing education programs, conditioning funding on recipients establishing methods to increase the enrollment of “racial and ethnic minorities” and other “underrepresented” groups. And the program was accepting applications as recently as March 18, 2025.

Prioritizing certain racial groups for funding opportunities is cut-and-dry discrimination.

Taxpayers should not be facilitating racially discriminatory practices and programs, plain and simple.

NIH Puts Universities on Notice: End DEI Programs or Lose Grant Funding

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a notice Monday, updating the conditions of its grant awards to make clear that universities and other research institutions who engage in discriminatory practices will lose out on grant funding.

“NIH reserves the right to terminate financial assistance awards and recover all funds if recipients, during the term of this award, operate any program in violation of Federal anti-discriminatory laws or engage in a prohibited boycott,” the notice reads.

“Prohibited boycott” in this context refers to boycotts of Israeli companies or companies doing business with Israel. 

Additionally, the conditions ensure that recipients do not and will not operate DEI programs that violate federal law.

“By accepting the grant award, recipients are certifying that: […] They do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws; and [they] do not engage in and will not during the term of this award engage in a discriminatory prohibited boycott,” the terms read.

This is a crucial step toward ridding medical education of the pernicious and pervasive ideology of DEI. 

As Do No Harm has repeatedly documented, the NIH’s use of DEI requirements in grant funding prior to the Trump administration was a chief contributor to DEI and racial discrimination in the medical field.

For instance, the NIH previously had in place its Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) requirement that mandated applicants for certain grants include a document outlining how their research will advance diversity and inclusivity, e.g. through including researchers from “historically underrepresented” backgrounds.

Additionally, numerous grant programs at medical schools that are backed by the NIH blatantly discriminate against applicants on the basis of race.

The notice also follows on the heels of President Trump’s executive order earlier this year directing federal agencies to eliminate DEI language and discriminatory practices in the federal contracting and grantmaking process.

Divisive and discriminatory practices, policies, and ideologies have no place in the medical field. This action is essential for restoring the values of excellence and merit in medical education.

Lewis Katz School of Medicine Changes Tune After Being Caught Red-Handed

The Lewis Katz School of Medicine (LKSOM) at Temple University has elected to remove exclusionary language from its public advertisement of an event for “women faculty” – motivated, in all likelihood, by the efforts of Do No Harm.

LKSOM is hosting a May 16 “workshop” through its Status of Women Faculty committee that will feature “engaging sessions on advocacy and empowerment,” according to a flyer advertising the event. The event will “culminate in the announcement of the 2025 Women in Medicine and Science Mentoring Award recipients,” referring to an annual award recognizing faculty members for their work advancing the professional success of women at LKSOM.

But note the exclusionary language in the fine print and event description: “Join fellow LKSOM women faculty” and “A workshop for LKSOM women faculty.”

Figure 1. The original flyer distributed by LKSOM featuring exclusionary language.

In response, Do No Harm filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, sending a courtesy copy to Temple’s and LKSOM’s leadership warning the school that the exclusionary language violates Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination for institutions that accept federal funding.   

It appears that Temple and LKSOM got the message.

Conspicuously absent from the new flyer advertising the event is the exclusionary language restricting the event to only “women faculty.”

Figure 2. The second flyer distributed by LKSOM with the exclusionary language removed.

On one hand, it’s encouraging that LKSOM is now complying with federal civil right laws.

But on the other hand, it should not be incumbent on watchdogs like Do No Harm to alert rogue institutions of their legal obligations, and it shouldn’t take the threat of a legal challenge to bring about this mandatory compliance.

It sure looks like LKSOM was simply caught red-handed and is now attempting to control the fallout. And it’s especially disingenuous that LKSOM portrayed its unlawful planned discrimination as just an honest mistake by adding the statement “As always, all are welcome” to the new flyer.

In reality, “all were not welcome” at LKSOM’s event until Do No Harm challenged its flagrant violation of federal civil rights laws.

UT Austin Slapped with Civil Rights Lawsuit for Race-Based STEM Program 

The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) sued the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) on Monday over its research program, “Black epiSTEMologies,” which aims to “foster racial equity in STEM for all Black people.”

The lawsuit alleges the program – which is funded by the National Science Foundation – violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by excluding non-black students from the program. 

According to the lawsuit, the program asks students to explore their “conceptions of Blackness … as it relates to their STEM engagement and perspectives of racial equity in STEM.” Additionally, the program pays students who meet its eligibility criteria a $40 gift card to complete a survey and participate in a focus group.

However, the lawsuit alleges that the program is only open to students who identify as black or biracial with at least one black parent, excluding students from all other racial backgrounds.

“This is one of the most shockingly discriminatory programs this organization has ever encountered,” said AAER president Edward Blum. “UT-Austin is openly violating the Constitution and federal civil rights laws by paying students for their time and insights – but only if they are a specific race.”

“Federal dollars should never be used to segregate students or promote exclusionary racial practices,” Blum added. “UT Austin’s conduct is an affront to equal protection and basic decency. It is frustrating and puzzling why UT’s administration and the Board of Regents did not end this blatantly discriminatory program long ago.”

It’s also worth noting that the state of Texas prohibits public universities from having policies or programs “promoting differential treatment of or providing special benefits to individuals on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity.”

Unfortunately, as Do No Harm has documented over the years, the existence of legal barriers doesn’t always deter bigotry and discrimination, and oversight and enforcement is often required. 

Do No Harm also recently identified instances of divisive practices and policies elsewhere in the UT system: UT Southwestern’s Department of Surgery maintains a “structural disadvantage curriculum” (SDC) that was funded in 2022 by a grant from the American College of Surgeons to bankroll “innovative and impactful research projects and programs addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and anti-racism issues.”

AAER’s lawsuit is critical to ensure UT adheres to federal law and ends its discriminatory behavior.