University of Colorado Settles with Do No Harm, Changes Discriminatory Scholarship Criteria

RICHMOND, VA; February 14, 2025 – This week, the University of Colorado School of Medicine agreed with medical watchdog Do No Harm to reform the school’s discriminatory race-based scholarship that excluded white and Asian American applicants. Do No Harm sued the medical school in December 2024 on behalf of a member who was excluded from the scholarship due to race.  

“We are pleased that University of Colorado eliminated the racial requirement for this scholarship,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Racial discrimination is immoral and has no place in medical education. Medical scholarships should go to the most qualified candidate based on merit, not race.” 

Background: 

  • The University of Colorado School of Medicine’s Radiation Oncology Department offered a $2,000 “Underrepresented Minority Visiting Elective Scholarship.”
  • However, the Underrepresented Minority Visiting Elective Scholarship was available only to students from groups that are “historically underrepresented in medicine,” excluding white and Asian American students. 
  • In December 2024, Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against the medical school on behalf of one of its members who was otherwise eligible for the scholarship, but was disqualified based on race. 
  • On February 13, the University of Colorado agreed with Do No Harm that it should drop the racial requirements for this scholarship, also changing the scholarship’s name to the “Radiation Oncology Visiting Elective Scholarship.” In connection with the lawsuit, the University of Colorado also removed discriminatory requirements from another scholarship program, opening up the GEMS Program to students of all races.

More information on the lawsuit can be found at Do No Harm v. University of Colorado. 

The joint stipulation of dismissal can be found here. 

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 15,000 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.

American College of Physicians Pledges to Fight for DEI in Response to Trump Executive Orders

The American College of Physicians (ACP) has pledged to advocate for its “equity” agenda in response to President Trump’s executive orders cracking down on DEI, particularly among medical associations.

On February 7, ACP issued a statement and organizational guidance explaining its posture toward the Trump administration. The guidance particularly focused on President Trump’s DEI executive orders, and doubled down on the organization’s commitment to DEI while pledging further advocacy efforts.

“We’re reaffirming our commitment to equity, compassion, inclusion and justice as our core values,” Shari Erickson, ACP’s “chief advocacy officer and senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy,” said in the statement.

The guidance also contained an item stating that the organization will “Reaffirm That Equity Is an Essential Bedrock of ACP Policy.”

“Equity is such an integral part of our policies and principles that we needed to reaffirm our positions,” Erickson said.

It’s worth noting that the ACP has been the beneficiary of millions in federal funding through grants and contracts that have enabled the organization to operate several advertised programs. For instance, in the first Trump administration, the organization received over $2 million in federal funding for its “I Raise the Rates” vaccination program.

The ACP further pledged to further its advocacy efforts in response to the executive orders.

“We need to strike the right balance and have meaningful impact on the implementation of policies or their reversal,” Erickson said. “There are various ways that we can respond: through public statements, responses regarding regulations and letters to the administration and members of Congress, and by filing friend-of-the-court briefs in court cases.”

President Trump’s executive order asked the heads of federal agencies and departments to produce a strategic enforcement plan to deter illegal DEI programs and practices, with each agency tasked with identifying “nine potential civil compliance investigations” of private-sector organizations. Moreover, the executive order explicitly mentions “medical associations” as targets of enforcement action.

Do No Harm previously reported that many medical associations who have openly embraced DEI and gender ideology had opted to avoid public disavowals of the Trump executive orders. However, some organizations, like the National Association of School Psychologists, have taken public stances defending their DEI practices.

The ACP is no stranger to activism and advocacy that strays away from its organizational purview of medicine and into identity politics. For instance, the ACP proposed a framework for health equity that included criminal justice and law enforcement reforms.

We hope the ACP ends its DEI advocacy and abandons this discriminatory and regressive ideology.

AAMC Webinar Instructs Pediatricians to be ‘Antiracist’ Activists

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), undeterred by the deluge of media coverage exposing its radical activism and the recent executive actions targeting DEI, hosted a webinar last week on pediatrician competencies that included a lengthy discussion on anti-racist activism.

The webinar, titled Competency-Based Medical Education: A Framework for Advancing Equity for our Learners and Our Patients, featured discussions on how the “competency-based” approach to medical education can be used to drive “equity” in the medical field.

The speakers included the Vice President of Competency-Based Medical Education at the American Board of Pediatrics, Dr. David Turner, and the webinar specifically focused on how pediatricians can work to advance equity. 

One speaker, Dr. Patricia Poitevien, referenced a slide explaining that a critical “function” of a pediatrician was “dismantling processes/systems rooted in racism and/or discrimination thereby eliminating inequities and achieving optimal health outcomes for all children.” A key curricular component of medical education assessing that function requires pediatricians to “promote[] antiracism and work[] to eliminate the impact of all forms of racism on health outcomes.”

A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated
Figure 1. A screenshot of the AAMC webinar on Competency-Based Medical Education.

“What skills would they be able to demonstrate? What behaviors would they have to participate in? Which behaviors would we have to assess in a critical learning environment to say ‘yes, you are entrustable in actually doing this function and becoming a pediatrician,’” Poitevien said, referring to assessing a pediatrician’s competencies regarding “antiracism.”

The claim here, that a pediatrician must “promote antiracism” to properly function as a pediatrician, is absurd and disturbing. 

Antiracism is a divisive and harmful ideology that explicitly endorses racial discrimination as a tool to right past wrongs. The goal of antiracism is to achieve equity by disadvantaging certain racial groups and preferencing others. As its most prominent advocate Ibram X. Kendi has said: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

In essence, the webinar’s takeaway is that pediatricians must be trained to promote this toxic worldview in order to properly live up to their station.

The context of the webinar is critical: One of the AAMC’s larger focus areas is Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME), an educational framework that assesses students, physicians, and other learners on performance outcomes across several core “competencies.”

In particular, the AAMC is working on a joint initiative with the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM), and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) called the Foundational Competencies for Undergraduate Education; the AAMC report on the Foundational Competencies for Undergraduate Education lists six core competencies.

Additionally, the webinar is part of the AAMC’s IDEAS educational series, which stands for “Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, [and] Anti-racism” and features presentations and courses intended to advance DEI in medicine. According to the IDEAS homepage, “improving inclusion, diversity, equity, and anti-racism is a critical priority for the academic medicine community.”

In another IDEAS webinar, the AAMC pushed to “institutionalize” DEI among all the major organizations in medical education.

Unfortunately, this institutional commitment to DEI and racially discriminatory ideology on the part of the AAMC is nothing new; Do No Harm exposed the AAMC’s wholesale embrace of radical identity politics in our landmark report in December. The report exposed how the AAMC has embedded DEI into every facet of medical education, and sparked a wave of negative media attention and investigation into the AAMC’s practices.

It seems that, despite the backlash to its radical activism, the AAMC has learned nothing.

CAP Survey Grills Members on Race, DEI Policies

Should a medical association care about the racial and sexual composition of its membership?

Do No Harm obtained a copy of the College of American Pathologists’ (CAP) December 2024 DEI survey, administered by CAP’s DEI Committee. The survey asks members to report their race, sexual identity, sexual orientation, pronouns and more. 

Additionally, the survey asks them to rate the effectiveness of CAP’s DEI programs and activities. (For the record, CAP has won awards for its DEI efforts).

“The race and sexuality of CAP’s members should have no legitimate organizational purpose.

But combine that with CAP’s stated goal to pursue DEI and it becomes even more problematic.”

Figure 1. CAP’s DEI survey.
Figure 2. CAP’s DEI survey.

Moreover, CAP DEI Committee’s goals are to “facilitate the development of a pipeline to build a CAP leadership that reflects the rich diversity inherent in the community of board-certified pathologists and pathologists-in-training” and to “grow and strengthen the diversity of the CAP membership and promote engagement with the CAP being mindful of equity and inclusion.”

The committee is also charged with a duty to “explore interest in affinity groups (such as an African American group).”

The term “affinity groups” refers to groups within an organization centered around a particular racial or ethnic identity that, explicitly or implicitly, are often segregated.

It’s concerning that CAP would structure its organizational priorities around DEI and race.

Racial divisions are toxic, detrimental to the larger mission of medicine, and outright prejudicial. 

CAP should ensure it does not engage in racial discrimination in the name of “diversity,” and that it replaces its fixation on race with a commitment to merit and excellence.

The National Association of School Psychologists Doubles Down on DEI

The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) appears to be doubling down on its commitment to DEI in the wake of President Trump’s executive order targeting DEI at medical associations.

President Trump signed an executive order last month that, among other things, asked the heads of federal agencies and departments to produce a strategic enforcement plan to deter illegal DEI programs and practices, with each agency tasked with identifying “nine potential civil compliance investigations” of private-sector organizations.

Moreover, the executive order explicitly mentions “medical associations” as targets of enforcement action; Do No Harm previously reported that many medical associations who have openly embraced DEI and gender ideology had opted to avoid public disavowals of the Trump executive orders.

In response, NASP President Peter Faustino sent an email to members doubling down on the organization’s DEI activities. 

While the NASP declined to overtly oppose the executive order, it did reiterate its commitment to “equity, diversity, and inclusion” in spite of the executive order.

Figure 1: Screenshot from an NASP email.

Additionally, the NASP linked to its “Resolutions” webpage which includes resolutions to pursue divisive agenda items such as “anti-racism” (which, in practice, invariably involves racial discrimination).

The anti-racism resolution include commitments to “prioritize the perspectives and viewpoints of BIPOC students, families, and communities,” to “provide opportunities for implicit bias training and education for school psychologists and graduate educators,” to advocate for hiring policies so that school psychologists are “reflective of the demographics of the school community,” and many more.

Figure 2: Screenshot from an NASP email.

The email links to the NASP Policy Platform, which also includes multiple references to efforts to advance the DEI agenda.

For instance, the platform includes avowals to oppose policies that would “condition the receipt of federal funds on the prohibition or censorship of curricula, instruction, discussion, or professional development related to: equity, diversity, culturally responsive practices, cultural humility, systemic racism, mitigating implicit bias, social-emotional learning, or any other topic of relevance in K-12 schools and within the higher education system.”

In a three-part series, Do No Harm cataloged the NASP’s embrace of DEI and gender ideology, and its attempts to inject its agenda into every facet of the school psychologist profession.

For instance, the NASP put out a press release in 2023 announcing that it “condemns recent legislative efforts and executive actions in states across the country that seek to discourage, criminalize, and endanger transgender and gender diverse students.”

The organization also defended the teaching of critical race theory in public schools and promoted implicit bias trainings for the school psychologist profession.

Moreover, the NASP’s continuing professional development mandate requires certified individuals to undergo DEI training and indoctrination.

It’s concerning that the NASP is reaffirming its commitment to these ideals and practice, considering how enthusiastic its support for divisive, discriminatory, and radical politics has been.

We urge them to take stock of how unpopular this regressive ideology is, and commit themselves instead to providing the best possible mental health care.

Medical Associations Should Read the Room: Identity Politics are on the Way Out

,

Since taking office, President Trump has signed several executive orders that will likely transform the medical landscape, especially regarding medical associations’ involvement with DEI and gender ideology.

But many medical associations who have advocated strongly for child sex change interventions and DEI initiatives have yet to issue any real substantive public statement on the executive orders.

The American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Association of American Medical Colleges, for example, have not voiced their opposition to the orders despite the focus on several main areas of their political activism.

It’s almost certainly too optimistic to read this as a sign of any meaningful change in organizational priorities. But it’s not nothing.

Medical associations should take this opportunity to focus instead on the valuable and rewarding work of promoting knowledge and best practices within their specific domain, and ditch their divisive activism once and for all.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, on the other hand, may be charting a different course.

AAFP President Jen Brull, MD, wrote a blog Monday expressing dismay over President Trump’s executive orders and actions. 

“In the past two weeks, we have seen an unprecedented number of executive orders and actions that threaten the health of our patients, the practice of family medicine and the well-being of the communities we serve. The pace and scope of these changes are concerning, and I want to be clear: The AAFP shares your concerns, and we are taking action,” the blog reads.

Brull does not explicitly mention the executive orders regarding DEI and gender ideology. 

But it’s worth noting that the AAFP is a staunch advocate for DEI and child sex changes, even publicly opposing state efforts to protect children from harmful transgender medical procedures.

Moreover, in 2022, at several of the organization’s events, the AAFP held numerous DEI-focused sessions and panels, such as presentations on anti-racism. Anti-racism explicitly calls for racial discrimination to right past historical wrongs. In 2023, the AAFP’s vice president of medical education bemoaned the Supreme Court’s decision that found race-based university admissions unconstitutional, instead calling for alternative means of racial discrimination.

“Our advocacy efforts are focused on protecting patient care, defending evidence-based medicine and science, and ensuring that family physicians can continue to provide the full spectrum of care our patients need,” the blog continues. “We are pressing members of Congress to intervene where necessary, advocating for key health care programs and funding, and engaging in public and media outreach to highlight the real-world impact of these policy changes. We are also working to give you the resources and support you need to navigate this uncertain landscape.”

Do No Harm also obtained messages from an internal Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors (AFMRD) listserv expressing anger and dismay at many of the administration’s actions, including taking down resource pages regarding abortions procedures and HIV treatments.

Several users even compared Elon Musk and the Trump administration to Adolf Hitler and the regime of Nazi Germany.

Figure 1. A screenshot of a post from the AFRMD listserv.
Figure 2. A second screenshot of a post from the AFRMD listserv

Like the AAFP, the AFMRD is no stranger to DEI activism. The two organizations held a joint presentation on DEI milestones, while the AFMRD established a task force in 2020 “to measure diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in medical residencies across five domains: curriculum, evaluation, institution, resident pathway, and faculty pathway.”

The organization also urged its members to “get involved” with efforts to oppose anti-DEI laws and policies, including pressuring state lawmakers taking action against DEI. 

This is a make-or-break time for medical associations. 

They must choose: will they continue to double down on unpopular, divisive, and harmful practices out of ideological zeal, or will they commit to the principles of merit, excellence, and evidence-based medicine?

The End of Kendi-Ism at Boston University

Prominent “anti-racism” activist and “scholar” Ibram X. Kendi is leaving Boston University for a position at Howard University while the Center for Antiracist Research, which Kendi founded, will shut its doors later this year, the university announced.

The center’s closure is welcome news for healthcare professionals, students, and patients everywhere. Kendi preached a discriminatory philosophy that sought to eradicate racial disparities in society through racial preferences.

Kendi himself made his embrace of racial discrimination explicit: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

His center’s failings have been well-documented; The Washington Free Beacon reported in 2023 that the center, in its three years of existence at the time, had only produced two original research papers and was laying off a large portion of its staff. This came after raking in major donations from prominent figures.

Nevertheless, Kendi’s ideas have pervaded modern medical orthodoxy to a disturbing degree. The logic of anti-racism undergirds many DEI policies and practices.

Do No Harm has reported on how Kendi-ism has led to overtly discriminatory policies at medical schools that disadvantage students based on their race. In addition, anti-racist philosophy undergirds the justification for prioritizing certain racial groups when administering COVID-19 vaccines.

Once-respected medical associations and professional societies began promoting Kendi’s work and echoing his rhetoric in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests and riots of 2020.

As our Director of Research Ian Kingsbury wrote in 2023, “anti-racism has subverted the intellectual underpinnings of the medical enterprise, replacing scientific rigor with racial obsession.”

It’s a positive sign for merit and excellence that the Center for Antiracist Research will be no more. Hopefully, we will soon close the chapter on this shameful period and medicine will ditch its embrace of racial discrimination once and for all.

Hospitals Across the Country Pump the Brakes on Child Sex Changes After Trump Executive Order

, , ,

It’s a sign of the times. Earlier this week, President Trump signed an executive order halting taxpayer funding to healthcare facilities that perform sex change procedures on minors.

In response, several hospitals in various states have affirmed that they will no longer provide child sex change interventions to minors in order to continue receiving federal funding. 

Denver Health in Colorado confirmed to the Associated Press that, to comply with the executive order, it would no longer perform sex change surgeries on minors.

VCU Health and Children’s Hospital of Richmond are no longer providing surgical procedures as well as gender transition drugs to minors.

Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C. has paused prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors to comply with the order.

Not all hospitals have adopted this approach, however. Oregon Health & Science University, one of the country’s leading providers of so-called “gender-affirming care,” says it will not change its policies.

President Trump’s executive order directs federal agencies to “immediately take appropriate steps” to prevent institutions receiving federal research or education grants from performing child sex change interventions.

Crucially, the order also targets federal health benefit programs, directing the Secretary of Defense to exclude child sex change procedures from coverage through TRICARE and directing the Office of Personnel Management to exclude coverage for child sex change procedures, including transgender surgeries and cross-sex hormones, from certain federal health benefit programs.

With any luck, this cascade of hospitals ending these harmful practices is just the beginning. 

Pfizer Formally Ends Discrimination in Fellowship Program, Resolves Lawsuit by Do No Harm

RICHMOND, VA; January 31, 2024 – Today, Pfizer agreed to end its dispute with Do No Harm over Pfizer’s racially discriminatory “Breakthrough” fellowship. In response to Do No Harm’s federal civil-rights lawsuit, the pharmaceutical giant opened its fellowship to applicants of all races.

“While Pfizer would like to quietly sweep their unlawful discrimination under the rug, their settlement acknowledges what we said all along: racially discriminatory programs are unlawful and will not go unchallenged. For far too long, companies like Pfizer have allowed political ideology to hijack their core responsibilities,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “We are thrilled to have come to a positive resolution to one of our earliest and most important cases and believe this marks an important victory for the future of meritocracy in medicine. Do No Harm will continue to challenge racial discrimination wherever it exists in the medical field to restore integrity and excellence in healthcare.”

Background

  • On September 15, 2022, Do No Harm first sued Pfizer on behalf of two of its members over Pfizer’s Breakthrough Fellowship Program, which excluded Asian American and white applicants.
  • According to the lawsuit, the Breakthrough Fellowship Program’s exclusion of Asian American and white applicants violates the Civil Rights Act, the Affordable Care Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
  • In December 2022, the district court dismissed Do No Harm’s case, citing lack of standing. Do No Harm appealed that decision and in October 2023, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. 
  • In March 2024, the Second Circuit ruled that Do No Harm must identify, by name, the members on behalf of which it is suing to have standing.
  • On January 10, following a petition by Do No Harm to rehear that ruling, the Second Circuit reversed its previous decision.

More information on the lawsuit can be found here: Do No Harm v. Pfizer.

The joint stipulation of dismissal can be found here.

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 15,000 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.

The Society of Hospital Medicine Promotes Exclusionary DEI Scholarship

In a bid to advance DEI, the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) is promoting a scholarship aimed at “underrepresented” medical students and sponsored by an organization with a history of racial discrimination.

SHM’s “Hospital Medicine Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Scholarships for Students” provide two third-year medical students with $25,000 awards.

SHM developed this scholarship fund “to support the growth of a more diverse hospital medicine workforce by identifying medical students who have been traditionally underrepresented in the field,” the scholarship announcement states.

However, it appears that to achieve this goal of diversity, SHM is restricting the scholarships to individuals of certain backgrounds.

The scholarship eligibility criteria note that applicants must be “underrepresented in medicine or from an economically disadvantaged background who demonstrates academic excellence and is in good academic standing in their program of study.”

SHM does not define “underrepresented in medicine.” As Do No Harm has shown, this term has been used in other contexts to refer to certain racial and ethnic minority groups.

There’s a further wrinkle to this story: the scholarship is sponsored by Vituity, a medical staffing agency with a history of promoting racial discrimination. 

Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against Vituity in 2023 over the “Bridge to Brilliance Incentive Program” which was solely offered to Black physicians along with a sign-on bonus of up to $100,000.

Following our lawsuit, Vituity removed the advertisement for the Black Physician Leadership Incentive from its website.

Given these factors, SHM’s scholarship raises concerns of racial discrimination. 

SHM should make it abundantly clear that this scholarship is available to applicants of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.

No student should be denied an opportunity or an award – especially one so sizeable – because of their race.

Yet Another Review Finds Racial Concordance Fails to Improve Health Outcomes

Prominent medical associations have long promoted the theory that racial concordance – when a patient is treated by a physician of the same racial group – leads to improved health outcomes. Proponents of this theory have used it to advocate for initiatives aimed at increasing racial diversity in the physician pool.

However, as Do No Harm demonstrated in our report “Racial Concordance in Medicine: The Return of Segregation,” this theory is bunk. Four out of five existing systematic reviews of racial concordance in medicine found no improvement in health outcomes, and the fifth is fraught with methodological problems. 

Now, there’s even more evidence against this theory.

A new systematic review published in the Substance Use & Addiction Journal found inadequate evidence to support the notion that racial concordance improves health outcomes for black patients in addiction treatment.

The review examined 11 articles published between 1971 and 2016 that explored the effects of racial concordance on black patients in addiction treatment.

“The studies identified in this review did not provide adequate evidence that racial concordance improved treatment access, experiences, or outcomes for Black patients,” the authors concluded.

This review is further evidence that racial concordance does not improve health outcomes.

Arguments advocating for racial concordance in healthcare settings are irresponsible at best and downright harmful at worst.

Too often, we’ve seen racial concordance used to justify discriminatory hiring policies or admissions criteria.

Medical associations, medical schools, and other healthcare institutions that continue to push these unsupported theories are betraying fundamental ethical principles of medicine.

Trump Administration Takes Action to Restrict Harmful Child Sex Change Procedures

RICHMOND, VA; January 28, 2025 – On Tuesday, President Trump signed an executive order to protect minors from harmful sex change interventions.

The executive order halts taxpayer funding of these procedures through federal grants and health benefit programs, and directs federal agencies to take appropriate action to restrict access to child sex change interventions.

These actions are essential to protect our country’s children. Child sex change procedures are not supported by existing evidence, and they carry unknown dangers and uncertain long-term effects.

“Children and teenagers will be better protected, and parents will be better informed, thanks to President Trump’s comprehensive executive order to limit the availability of and end taxpayer involvement in experimental, unscientific medical sex change interventions performed on minors,” said Kristina Rasmussen, Executive Director of Do No Harm. “We commend President Trump for putting in place a robust regulatory framework that prioritizes safety, scientific integrity, and family autonomy.”

First, the executive order cuts off taxpayer funding of these procedures by directing federal agencies to “immediately take appropriate steps” to prevent institutions receiving federal research or education grants from performing child sex change interventions. Agencies are further instructed to end reliance on standards of care drafted by the activist organization WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Care).

The executive order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “take all appropriate actions” to end child sex change interventions. The order then tasks HHS to come up with guidance protecting whistleblowers who speak up regarding compliance with this order.

Crucially, the order targets federal health benefit programs, directing the Secretary of Defense to exclude child sex change procedures from coverage through TRICARE and directing the Office of Personnel Management to exclude coverage for child sex change procedures, including transgender surgeries and cross-sex hormones, from certain federal health benefit programs.

Moreover, the executive order directs the Department of Justice to “prioritize investigations and take appropriate action to end deception of consumers” relating to the long-term effects of transition drugs and procedures.

Do No Harm applauds these actions as valuable steps toward protecting children from these harmful practices.

Yale Medical School Pushes Students into DEI Activism

Yale School of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical schools in the country, is using its platform to encourage students to engage in radical activism.

The school offers a “Team-Based Learning Program” for a wide variety of subjects in the medical field. This program operates according to an alternative type of pedagogy in which instructors provide students with content before meetings, and students apply the material during class.

Included in the list of the Class of 2027’s academic programming is a lab titled “Social and Reproductive Justice,” which includes a learning module consisting of several DEI-related videos. In one video, students are urged to “take action” to “eradicate health inequities” through “collective action”.

What types of collective action should medical students take? According to Yale:

  • “Advocate for changes to curriculum at your institution and promoting increased recruitment and retention from underrepresented minorities at every level of training;
  • Implement justice-informed research or service projects that prioritize and center community perspectives;
  • Use the strategies presented in this curriculum to call out biased behavior when you see and educate your peers;
  • Join a medical-legal partnership to help address structural causes of health inequities;
  • Advocate for policies that will advance health equity in your community;
  • Patron stores and businesses in communities where your patients live;
  • Attend a conference centered on health equity to build a community of support with other clinicians; and
  • Engage with social and digital media featuring through leaders dedicated to equity and the dismantling of systems of oppressions.“

In other words, Yale is urging its medical students to become DEI activists.

And the background materials informing the program reveal the kind of divisive politics that students may be encouraged to push.

For example, one background reading document is entitled “Black Lives Matter: Claiming a Space for Evidence-Based Outrage in Obstetrics and Gynecology.” 

The article opines on how modern medicine is a “broken, racist system” which requires “evidence-based outrage” as an “objective, logical conclusion,” and recommends overhauling medicine to prioritize health equity:

“Instead of sitting back on the reflexive defense that racial disparities are too complex for us to do anything about, what if we decided to try anyway? What if every obstetrics and gynecology department made racial equity in known areas of disparity the priority of all quality improvement projects? For researchers, how would your study designs change if the primary metric was whether they helped Black women? How would your interventions be modified if you could not claim success without racially equitable outcomes?”

Moreover, the program’s “Readiness Assessment Quiz” attributes disparities in health outcomes to “structural oppression.”

“The US legacy of structural oppression and US laws, policies and systems that treat certain groups of people differently have led to the creation of invisible barriers to the access of high-quality appropriate care, free of stigma and discrimination for certain groups resulting in inequities in sexual, reproductive and perinatal care,” the quiz states. 

“Can you think of 2 examples of historical events, laws or policies that may have resulted or facilitated such outcomes?” the quiz asks.

Unfortunately, as Do No Harm has documented, Yale is no stranger to the world of DEI and identity politics.

This includes Yale abandoning a test to diagnose and manage kidney disease on the grounds that it is “racist,” a Yale mental health clinic inquiring about experiences with racism, and Yale’s partnership with the discriminatory Perry Initiative, leading to the filing of a federal civil rights complaint against the university.

Put simply, Yale has a long track record of bending over backwards to not only accommodate the DEI agenda, but to actively advance it at the expense of legitimate medical knowledge.

More DEI-Driven Discrimination from the American Urological Association

,

A chapter of the American Urological Association (AUA) is operating discriminatory programs and scholarships.

The Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the AUA operates a “Pre-Medicine Enrichment Program” which offers students an eight-week mentorship experience focused on developing key skills and advancing research in the urology field. 

Students who are selected to participate in the program will receive a stipend of $5,000. However, the program is limited to “historically underrepresented minorities” who are “first generation students.” 

This is blatant discrimination, and disqualifies candidates who aren’t first generation “underrepresented minorities” (a term which the application page fails to precisely define).

Not surprisingly, the MA-AUA also offers a “Visiting Student DEI Scholarship” worth $1,500 in an effort to further the organization’s goal that “increasing diversity in the field of urological medicine is a top priority that will strengthen our profession, workplaces, and communities.” 

The scholarship is also only available to “underrepresented minorities.”

This is hardly the first instance in which the AUA has demonstrated an adherence to DEI philosophy. In 2023, Do No Harm highlighted the AUA’s intent to publish their third annual “Celebrating Diversity with the AUA” publication. 

The AUA has an entire section of its website dedicated to DEI, complete with a DEI committee, a DEI video podcast series, a diversity statement, and much more.

Do No Harm has also cataloged racial discrimination throughout the urology field.

For example, Emory University previously administered a DEI scholarship within its urology program solely available to individuals that met certain racial and ethnic criteria – a program which earned the school a federal civil rights complaint from Do No Harm.

The sooner professional organizations like the AUA ditch DEI, the more swiftly various medical organizations and universities can return to imparting knowledge in the subject areas that truly matter, instead of engaging in discriminatory programs.

As one AUA physician member said regarding the AUA’s drift towards DEI, “Put a sock in it, please. I would rather read about urology.”

Rep. Crenshaw Introduces Bill Banning Medicaid Funding for Child Sex Change Interventions

This month, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) introduced a bill to prohibit federal Medicaid funding for child sex change interventions.

The bill, titled the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, would prohibit Medicaid funds from going toward sex change surgical procedures, cross-sex hormones, and puberty blockers.

These surgical procedures include genital surgeries such as phalloplasties, as well as chest surgeries such as mastectomies.

“Dangerous and irreversible sex change interventions for children should have no place in the American medical system,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “These harms only compound when American citizens are forced to fund these procedures. Prohibiting federal Medicaid funding of sex change interventions for minors is essential to protect this country’s children.”

The existing evidence does not support the use of sex change interventions to treat gender-distressed children. The Cass Review, an exhaustive review of gender medical services in the United Kingdom, found “remarkably weak evidence” to support the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for gender-distressed children. 

Many of the most frequently-cited studies supporting so-called “gender-affirming care” are rife with methodological errors. Meanwhile, countries including the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland have each restricted minors’ access to these procedures due to the lack of evidence supporting their efficacy.

“We applaud Rep. Crenshaw’s efforts to curtail these harmful practices, and we will continue working with Congress and the Trump administration to create a medical system where no child is harmed by those who should be trusted to heal,” said Dr. Goldfarb.

Do No Harm Challenges Minnesota Department of Health’s Discriminatory Racial Quota

RICHMOND, VA; January 24, 2024 – Medical watchdog Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against Dr. Brooke Cunningham, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health, over the department advisory council’s discriminatory membership criteria.

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

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Do No Harm by the Pacific Legal Foundation, alleges that the racial mandate is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Do No Harm seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction preventing Commissioner Cunningham from enforcing or attempting to enforce the racial mandate.

“Patient care should never be sacrificed on the altar of identity politics, and state medical councils cannot properly safeguard public health when membership is based on the color of their skin over their medical expertise,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “This blatant racial discrimination is demeaning, patronizing, and unconstitutional. President Trump’s recent DEI executive order should motivate public officials to eliminate this type of racism.”

“Racial quotas deny public service opportunities to qualified professionals based solely on their race,” said Wilson Freeman, attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. “That’s racial discrimination and it’s a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

Do No Harm is asking the court for:

  • A declaration that the racial mandate violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • A permanent injunction prohibiting Commissioner Cunningham and the Minnesota Department of Health from enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the racial mandates.

Read the full complaint here.

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 over 15,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 11,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

Mississippi Bill Would Force Physicians to Submit to Implicit Bias Trainings

Legislation introduced in Mississippi would force physicians to undergo implicit bias and “cultural competence” training to renew their license.

The bill was introduced by state Rep. Zakiya Summers, who has led campaigns to advance “educational equity, healthcare access, and racial justice.”

If enacted, the bill would force physicians or osteopaths in general practice, pediatrics, obstetrics, or gynecology to provide proof that they had complete continuing medical education in “implicit bias” and “cultural competence” to renew their license.

The bill defines cultural competence as “the ability to address the health issues of individuals from diverse backgrounds effectively by applying knowledge, empathy, and insight into the views on health that those backgrounds present.”

The bill defines implicit bias as “bias in judgment or behavior that results from subtle cognitive processes, including implicit attitudes and implicit stereotypes, that often operate at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control.”

But the justification for this bill relies on dubious science. 

Implicit bias is not a well-supported scientific concept; the existence of implicit bias is often inferred from metrics on Implicit Association Tests, which are not reliable and do not correlate with real-world behavior. Ohio State University psychology professor emeritus Hal Arkes described the test as “an extremely feeble predictor of behavior.”

Based on these unreliable metrics, implicit bias trainings assert that individuals have hidden prejudices against other races. This creates unwarranted paranoia and inhibitions, which are detrimental to effective healthcare.

Despite this, some states have considered requiring implicit bias training as a condition of medical licensure. Many have rejected these mandates as unnecessary and unwanted.

Many Mississippi medical professionals agree that they should not have to put up with necessary and even harmful trainings to simply practice their profession.

Indiana Bill Cracking Down on DEI Passes Committee

Indiana is one step closer to enacting legislation cracking down on DEI activities, with a particular focus on medical education and licensing boards.

The bill, SB 235, prohibits state agencies from funding DEI offices or employees. Additionally, the bill prohibits the state from handing out contracts or grants to organizations that mandate DEI training.

As it pertains to medicine, the legislation would prohibit health licensing boards from requiring DEI training or using DEI material as part of the licensure process. Boards cannot require healthcare professionals to have familiarity with DEI principles as a condition of licensure. 

Several states require healthcare professionals to submit to DEI trainings, such as implicit bias trainings, to renew or obtain their license. Do No Harm created a “non-woke” implicit bias training program that allows Michigan healthcare professionals to satisfy their state’s requirement while providing accurate, evidence-based information on implicit bias.

The Indiana bill also targets institutions of higher education like medical schools that offer certain health education programs, requiring them to use standardized admissions tests “focused on knowledge and critical thinking around science and medical training.”

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that race-based admissions are illegal, many medical schools have turned to so-called “holistic admissions” that favor other factors over standardized academic achievement in order to admit candidates of certain races. 

The bill, authored by state Sens. Tyler Johnson and Gary Byrne, passed Indiana’s Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. Sens. Liz Brown, Eric Koch, Scott Alexander, James Buck, Brett Clark, Aaron Freeman, and Susan Glick voted to advance the legislation.

The legislation follows on the heels of executive orders by President Trump aimed at ending the federal government’s promotion of DEI and engagement in racially discriminatory practices. 

Those orders also targeted institutions of higher education that practice race-based admissions despite the Supreme Court’s decision that such practices are illegal, as well as DEI practices in private sector organizations.

Do No Harm has previously reported on several instances of Indiana medical schools pushing DEI and engaging in discriminatory practices.

For instance, the Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) was investigated by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for violations of Title VI and Title IX thanks to a Do No Harm complaint.

The school’s Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective had the eligibility criteria that restricted enrollment to those belonging to specific racial/ethnic groups and/or sexual orientation identities. After the investigation was opened by the OCR in December 2022, IUSM changed the eligibility language, removing the race/ethnicity and sexual orientation criteria.

In another instance, the school promoted a 10-week course for individuals who wish to be “certified” in DEI “leadership.” The school also instructed job search committee members to consider their “implicit bias” and “whiteness” in the course of evaluating applicants.