Report Reveals UVM’s Medical School Was Slow to Embrace DEI—But Has Big Plans to Change That

The University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine will expand its diversity, equity, and inclusion practices as part of its upcoming strategic plan, according to the college’s response to a survey from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Larner College of Medicine scored 58.4 percent in the AAMC Diversity, Inclusion, Culture, and Equity (DICE) Inventory, indicating it could be fairly devoid of ideological indoctrination – especially when compared to other participating medical schools. But Vermont’s only medical school plans to adopt an array of concerning policies to raise its position in the AAMC’s DEI rubric.

The DICE Inventory results from Larner were part of a larger effort by the AAMC to pressure medical schools across the country to embrace controversial policies that discriminate against faculty and students on the basis of race, ethnicity, and other identity-based characteristics. A report by the AAMC revealed that the vast majority of medical schools have codified radical identity politics into official school policies. These policy changes have continued despite growing evidence of their divisive and antagonistic effects on the cultures of companies, schools, and other institutions.

The AAMC report relies on an extensive survey of medical schools across the country, but the report failed to reveal which specific schools participated.

The lack of transparency by the AAMC and participating institutions has left communities and policymakers alike in the dark about major policy shifts occurring within taxpayer-funded medical schools. As part of a national effort to bring transparency and accountability to medical schools, Do No Harm has sought access to the school-specific DICE Inventory documents submitted to the AAMC through freedom of information requests to publicly funded medical schools. These surveys provide invaluable insight into the extent to which our once-highly-trusted medical colleges have strayed from their foundational mission to educate capable and qualified doctors.

Here are some of the practices that Larner College of Medicine has embraced:

  • Larner has adopted potentially racially discriminatory admissions practices under the guise of “holistic admissions practices.”

Under an “holistic” admissions approach, different (and often lower) academic standards are typically set for candidates based on immutable “diversity” characteristics like race and ethnicity. These practices can be used to systematically discriminate against more qualified applicants who do not belong to a set of identities that were deemed by university bureaucrats to need unequal, favorable treatment by the institution.

Under this policy, Vermont’s taxpayers are funding programs that disadvantage people of certain racial and ethnic backgrounds. In particular, it would disadvantage more than nine out of ten in-state residents based on state demographic statistics.

  • Larner has a “dedicated office, staff, or resources” dedicated to DEI that is led by a senior-level administrator.

This means there’s a permanent woke bureaucracy pushing ideology on faculty, students, and other top administrators. In addition to consuming substantial resources that could otherwise be used for academics, these programs rarely measure meaningful, long-term outcomes for the students they serve. Instead, they pursue politically motivated activities within the university and the broader community.

  • Larner requires candidates for faculty positions to document their commitment and contributions to DEI as part of the hiring process.

Hiring policies that compel potential faculty members to produce written loyalty oaths to DEI ideology are antithetical to academic and intellectual freedom. Moreover, these practices undermine efforts to hire faculty based on their scholarly qualifications.

Figure 1. DEI initiatives at Larner College of Medicine.

Larner College of Medicine’s DEI policies warrant concern from the medical community, policymakers, and the public. While it is true that Larner has far fewer DEI-oriented policies and practices than many of its peer institutions, there are a number of reasons that policymakers and the public should remain vigilant.

First, the survey conducted by the AAMC did not weight the survey questions based on their relative impact on DEI-oriented institutional culture. Thus, a medical school’s low survey score does not necessarily indicate an absence of egregious DEI practices such as some of those enumerated above; rather, a low score could result from losing points on less controversial practices, such as not collecting copious amounts of demographic data for hiring and promotions. To some degree, this appears to be the case with Larner College of Medicine.

Second, Larner College of Medicine states in their DICE Inventory that they intend to include an expansion of specific DEI goals in the school’s upcoming strategic plan, Vision 2025. Since the release of the survey, Larner has delivered on that promise: DEI goals account for 20 percent of the school’s objectives across clinical, educational, research, and community strategic priorities.

Figure 2. Values statement of the Larner College of Medicine.

Finally, the most concerning aspect of Larner’s rollout of DEI is the school’s efforts to obfuscate its activities and thwart transparency. Case in point: Larner College of Medicine repeatedly refused to accommodate freedom of information requests from Do No Harm regarding its DICE Inventory submitted to the AAMC. Larner did eventually comply and release their survey, but the public deserves better cooperation from taxpayer-funded universities.

This sort of opacity from a publicly funded institution is as predictable as it is unacceptable. It is imperative that communities not only demand that medical institutions like Larner desist from these divisive, discriminatory, and reckless DEI policies, but that their administrators make a concerted effort to be more accommodating and transparent to the public.

S2E2: The Silencing of Nurses Who Challenge DEI

,

Dr. Marilyn Singleton is joined by guest host and registered nurse Laura Morgan. Together, they discuss the recent push to indoctrinate medical professionals on DEI and so-called gender-affirming care. They are joined by three other nurses on the front lines of medicine who are speaking out against the forced exodus of medical professionals who want to focus on patient care, not social justice initiatives.

They welcome guest Rebecca Wall, a Kentucky-certified registered nurse anesthetist with 40 years of experience, Clete Weigel, an Ohio nurse forced out of the profession after he refused to complete implicit bias training, and Beth Rempe, a former nurse at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Listen in via YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

The HIV Vaccine Trials Network Wants Research Scholars – But Only If They Meet Race-Based Criteria

,

Have an interest in advancing the science of vaccines and immunology? Seeking an opportunity for mentoring and research funding? Look no further than the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) – but only if you can meet their discriminatory eligibility requirements.

The Research and Mentorship Program (RAMP) helps with access to funding for research and provides mentorship for medical students with an interest in developing vaccines for the prevention of HIV. However, participation is limited to applicants who “self-identify as African American/Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Native American/American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Asian and Pacific Islander.”

Figure 1. RAMP Scholars program details from the HIV Vaccine Trials Network.

The program is supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (a division of the National Institutes of Health) and selects four to nine scholarship recipients each year. In addition to project funding and training, RAMP scholars receive free travel to a clinical research site affiliated with the HVTN to be mentored by an experienced investigator. Award amounts range from $20,000 to $70,000.

The RAMP Scholars program provides the opportunity for awardees to study at clinical trial sites all over the world, and U.S. tax dollars help with the funding. Why isn’t the HIV Vaccine Trials Network willing to extend the same opportunity to all eligible U.S. medical students? The HIV virus doesn’t discriminate according to race – and neither should the HVTN.

Health Affairs Drops Racial Fellowship Requirements Following Do No Harm Lawsuit

Declaring Victory Over Discrimination, Do No Harm Voluntarily Drops Suit Against Health Affairs

On January 22, 2024, Do No Harm announced it voluntarily dropped a lawsuit against Health Affairs’ Health Equity Fellowship for Trainees after Health Affairs eliminated its discriminatory racial eligibility requirements.

In September 2022, Do No Harm filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the Health Affairs fellowship requirement was racially discriminatory against white students: Applicants were only eligible if they “identify as American Indian/Alaskan Native, African American/Black, Asian American, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino.” While the lawsuit was pending, Health Affairs eliminated the unlawful requirement. As Health Affairs no longer considers race in the fellowship, Do No Harm voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit without prejudice.

“We are pleased that Health Affairs has decided to drop its racially discriminatory requirements for their fellowship,” said Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “Segregation based on race is illegal and Health Affairs has recognized that. Do No Harm will continue to fight divisive and discriminatory ideology in healthcare wherever we can find it.”

The withdrawal filing can be found here: https:/ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_temp.pl?file=8719918-0–126033.pdf&type=application/pdf (donoharmmedicine.org).

The original lawsuit can be found here: We’re Suing Health Affairs For Racial Discrimination (donoharmmedicine.org).

S2E1: Discussing So-Called “Gender-Affirming Care” With Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky

,

Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky joins hosts Dr. Stanley Goldfarb and Dr. Marilyn Singleton to discuss the harmful practice of so-called “gender-affirming care.”

Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky is a clinical psychologist and the founder and director of The Center for Child Behavioral Health as well as My OCD Care. He specializes in Parenting-based interventions for mood and behavioral challenges in children. He also specializes in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and other anxiety-based disorders (phobias, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and social anxiety).

Dr. Kaminetzky has publicly spoken out against unethical practices in the area of pediatric gender medicine and the silencing of concerned medical and mental health professionals. Dr. Kaminetzky recently opened Serenity Parent Consulting to provide parents with accurate information, useful resources, and to help them parent with serenity. 

The core of the Hippocratic oath and the role of medical professionals. Nowhere is this commitment more important than the care of our children and teenagers, which is why we’re fighting to curtail the unscientific and individually harmful practice of so-called “gender-affirming care.” “Gender-affirming care” is based on the dangerous premise that any child who has distress that he or she thinks is related to their sex should automatically be treated with social transition to the sex of their choice followed by hormonal interventions and then possibly surgery to remove healthy body parts. Underlying mental health problems are usually not addressed–but some clinicians are fighting back.

Listen in on YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

Utah State Legislature Announces House Bill to Remove Identity Politics From Its Campuses

,

On January 11, members of the Utah State Legislature introduced House Bill 261 (HB 261), which proposes a common-sense approach to keeping politicized ideologies out of its institutions of higher education.

Rep. Katy Hall and Sen. Keith Grover announced the bill, titled Equal Opportunity Initiatives, which prohibits state-funded institutions from “engaging in discriminatory practices.” This includes the prohibition of requiring faculty candidates applying to the University of Utah, home of the only medical school in the state, to commit to a particular ideology as a condition of employment.

HB 261 also requires these institutions to maintain a neutral stance on political issues and protect freedom of speech on university campuses and in the workplace. The bill centers on preventing discriminatory practices based on race or sex, including mandatory training sessions that push divisive philosophies that obstruct fairness and open dialogue.

“[O]ur colleges and universities must focus on their core missions of embracing academic excellence, fostering innovation, and cultivating a free marketplace of ideas,” Rep. Hall stated. “This legislation aims to support all students and faculty while promoting an environment of free, diverse, and open opinions.”

That’s good advice for the University of Utah School of Medicine’s ophthalmology residency program, which had a federal civil rights investigation opened in late 2022 for a clinical and research rotation that excludes white, Asian, and Middle Eastern applicants. And, as Do No Harm has demonstrated, the school has a history of pushing implicit bias training onto the staff and faculty search committees. The introduction of HB 261 is an important step toward restoring merit as the top qualification for faculty recruiting and hiring and ensuring an environment of genuine learning for Utah’s future healthcare professionals.   

California Physicians’ Group ‘Summit’ Urges Doctors to Promote the ‘Health Equity’ Ideology – But Dr. Marilyn Singleton Pushes Back

,

Physicians for a Healthy California (PHC) – the philanthropic arm of the California Medical Association (CMA) – recently called upon the state’s doctors to make “health equity,” a Critical Race Theory (CRT)-inspired doctrine, a priority in their practices.

PHC held its Health Equity Leadership Summit on September 14-15, 2023, in San Jose.

The concept of “health equity” claims that “systemic racism” and “oppression” create substantial barriers for minority individuals who encounter the healthcare system. According to this ideology, achieving “race concordance” between minority doctors and patients means more people from minority racial and ethnic groups would obtain better health care.

This claim has been translated into diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and practices to admit more minority medical school applicants to the nation’s medical schools – even if merit and abilities take a back seat to race and ethnicity.

A “welcome” letter to summit attendees obtained by Do No Harm (DNH) announced PHC’s interpretation of health equity – one that seems to prefer politicized virtue-signaling to sound medical and scientific knowledge:

The pursuit of equity is one that requires humility, empathy, persistence and teamwork. As part of PHC’s Strategic Planning Initiative, which began in earnest last year, the PHC Board has been reflecting on our work in the space of advancing health equity and our role in the broader health equity ecosystem. We seek to expand beyond our historic work with the Network of Ethnic Physician Organizations (NEPO), and its cornerstone Annual Summit, while we consider innovative ways to discuss and advance equity in our health care system.

According to the organization, the summit event sought to train “physicians, executives, advocates, and allies” in how to promote the issue of health equity in California by caring for “underserved communities throughout the state.”

Workshops at the summit provided encouragement to attendees to embrace the health equity philosophy in their practices. Session titles included:

  • Health Equity Leadership in Practice: A Discussion of Chief Health Equity Officers
  • The Diversity Tax, Moral Injury and Career Satisfaction: How Medicine Can Attract and Retain Talent
  • Showing Up as Your Authentic Self
  • Incorporating Equity Practices throughout Your Career
  • Developing and Advocating for Equitable Health Policy

Marilyn Singleton, M.D., a retired anesthesiologist and DNH senior fellow, attended the two-day summit.

“My overall impression of the conference was that the speakers were grim in their outlook on life,” Singleton, an accomplished black physician, told DNH during an interview. Dr. Singleton noted that some of the presenters at the summit were also competent minority women who nevertheless still feel the need to communicate “a sense of hopelessness and perpetual racism.”

“I find it curious that people who have made it, don’t speak from a place of ‘you can do it too,’” she explained, adding:

Yes, there are problems in health care. Yes, there are problems in America. But the fact that we’ve gotten where we are– I mean one of the panelists was an orthopedic surgeon, my goodness! There’s not that many women in ortho in the first place, and, now, she’s a black woman! Like how did you do it? And what does it take? And you must have had gumption and so many positive characteristics! But that’s not what they’re saying at all. It’s negative, negative. I think the same woman said there’s a diversity tax … to do more volunteer work and mentoring because of your gender and color.

Marilyn Singleton, M.D., Do No Harm senior fellow

“You should be proud that somebody’s asking you how you made it and not looking at everything from such a negative point of view,” Singleton responds to such complaints. She observes that embracing a positive perspective “doesn’t deny that there’s issues, but we’re looking for solutions, not a way to just drill down on problems.”

Singleton added another theme of the summit was the notion that “patients have no agency,” and no responsibility to take charge of their medical care.

“Everything is done to them” was the narrative of the presenters, one that, she said, amounts to “a racist view in itself.”

Groupthink pervaded the summit, Singleton continued, noting that questions for the presenters had to be submitted via an app that presumably sent them to someone who vetted them. She said she attempted to submit a question reflecting the lack of positive views of the accomplishments of some minority physicians, but it wasn’t selected for consideration.

Singleton also observed the irrationality of the agenda that insists such CRT-inspired “equity” programs will change decades of minority social circumstances.

“All this stuff to me is missing the whole problem,” she said, elaborating:

You need to go back to when these kids are in kindergarten. Don’t sit here and try to make some sort of program when somebody’s graduated from college already. Education-wise, it’s already too late. Unless you start way back when you can get the kids on an even keel and out here in California, my goodness, what is the new stat? Only 34% of kids are at grade level in English and maybe 40-something in math. So that’s what you have to change. And to have this over-focus on finding black residents or finding black people for medical school. Maybe they’re putting the cart before the horse in that particular arena that we’ve got to get back to basics, but nobody wants to do that because you’d actually have to sit down and quit sort of flapping your gums and do something, and pick up some policies that might be helpful, like school choice and all these things that have been fought for years. So, until we change all that, I don’t think anything’s going to change by the time you get up to medical school and residency.

A summit session panel, for example, featured Manisha Sharma, M.D., senior medical director at Blue Shield of California, referring to doctors who work with patients to encourage them to change their behaviors in order to improve their health as physicians who are “trained to blame and shame.”

“You’re the problem, you don’t eat right, that’s why you’re obese,” Sharma characterized an attempt to teach a patient how to take responsibility for her health.

“The entire time there was absolutely no focus on personal agency,” Diana Blum, M.D., a California neurologist who also attended the CMA/PHC health equity summit, told DNH:

There’s no sense that physicians are supposed to help empower patients to take ownership of their health. There was none of that. And what I found fascinating is here you have these big healthcare organizations that are supposed to really care for you from cradle to death, right? So, you should care about empowering patients to make healthy choices. But it was all about blaming the system. It’s not your fault. It’s the system that’s scapegoating you.

Diana Blum, M.D., California neurologist

Sharma, who identified herself as a “physician-activist” who views everything through the lens of “equity,” also told physician attendees they should all ensure their patients register to vote.

“That means everybody who comes through our doors, every person that you see in the gas station, everybody that you have on the street that you’re taking care of” should be registered to vote, she said.

LGBTQ-activist speakers reportedly schooled physicians attending the health equity summit on pronoun usage and provided a “resource” containing an LGBTQ glossary of terms.

“It was really bizarre,” Blum said. “How is it that we’re being lectured by folks on something that is not even scientific? What I read was anti-science, and they’re lecturing to physicians? I didn’t feel like these people were even educated on what they were saying – they couldn’t answer any of the questions about the pronouns that were asked of them.”

“Why are we wasting our time learning this and how is it going to actually improve patient care?” Blum asked. “None of that made sense to me.”

Both physicians walked away from the CMA/PHC health equity summit experiencing a sense of “lost opportunity” that doctors’ time could have been spent strategizing for real solutions for patient health problems, instead of blaming “the system” and allowing a radical political ideology to snatch power away from individual patients.

“I just felt like it was a lost opportunity, to be honest, because there are major issues that I face every day in my practice,” said Blum, elaborating:

For example, not being able to get the medication my patients need, because of, in my opinion, all the conflicts of interest. Given the stakeholders involved, this was an opportunity to actually discuss how do we make care more affordable, how do we actually increase access and not scapegoat so-called “white supremacy” culture, but actually improve the quality of the care that we’re getting.

“That’s what frustrated me,” she said. “Doctors don’t have much time. So, we’re taking time out of our busy schedule and making an effort to learn and to improve our practice. This was just a total waste on all fronts.”

While Singleton acknowledged some physicians may not be aware of what some minority or LGBTQ patients experience, her overall view of the “grimness” of the presenters, and the extent to which they blamed “the system,” gave her the sense “they were more wanting to create drones than educating people about things they may not know something about – like an army of social justice drones.”

“But there’s a difference between getting informed versus getting indoctrinated,” she said.

Despite the great effort by woke medical schools and associations to create a need for “racial concordance” between doctors and patients, DNH has already shown there is no evidence to support patients benefit from it with improved healthcare outcomes. As noted in the December 2023 report, overwhelming evidence suggests “it is irresponsible for medical organizations and political actors to push, in practice or policy, for racial concordance in medicine.”

 The “attendant radical restructuring of healthcare along racial lines,” the authors added, “amounts to the return of segregation of medicine, sowing seeds of distrust between physicians and patients of different races.”

“The idea of separating the races should be relegated to the ash heap of history,” the authors concluded, “not revived by the false and dangerous claim that they are needed to improve health outcomes.”

Do No Harm Sues National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians For Engaging In Racial Discrimination

,

On January 10, 2024, Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against the discriminatory “diversity scholarship” offered by the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT), which excludes white students from being considered.

White applicants are excluded from consideration for the scholarship, which awards students $1,250 for educational materials and requires them to sign a contract before receiving the funds.

According to the lawsuit, this scholarship offered by NAEMT is illegal under several federal laws, including 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, which “protects the equal rights of all persons … to make and enforce contracts without respect to race.”

Do No Harm filed the suit on behalf of a student who needs the scholarship but cannot apply because she is white and requested:

  • A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring NAEMT from closing the application period, selecting scholarship recipients, or enforcing the racially discriminatory eligibility criteria;
  • A permanent injunction barring NAEMT from continuing the program;
  • And nominal damages in the amount of $1.

“The National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians is given the important responsibility of training America’s first responders,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Like all aspects of healthcare, training the best and brightest to provide the best care for patients should be the primary concern of all medical organizations, not the skin color of an EMT. First responders and all medical professionals should be given opportunities, training, and scholarships on the basis of merit.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Click here to read the complaint in its entirety.

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 6,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and in 14 countries, DNH has achieved more than 4,900 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

American Society of Hematology Says It Has ‘Moral Imperative to Confront and Dismantle Racism’

,

The American Society of Hematology (ASH) is committed to a lofty goal that has nothing to do with the delivery of sound medical care – what it calls a “moral imperative to confront and dismantle racism.”

The organization has joined many other medical societies on the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) train, even offering an ”Anti-Racism Toolkit” on its website with resources to counter so-called “systemic racism.”

The organization says it finds itself “called upon to discuss and address health disparities while teaching, conducting research and delivering care.”

“Racism affects one’s life experience in ways that have tangible consequences on our patients, our practice, and the field of medicine,” ASH continues, further stating:

Stereotyping, bias, lack of representation, and racism perpetuate false beliefs, lead to misdiagnosis, dangerously narrow clinical decision making, and perpetuate implicit bias, all of which lead to real health disparities. These forces also affect the integrity and safety of the learning climate and impact the success of future hematologists. Therefore, we at ASH have a moral imperative to confront and dismantle racism. 

Figure 1. American Society of Hematology Anti-Racism Toolkit landing page.

The “toolkit” is just one of many DEI initiatives at ASH.

In October, Do No Harm (DNH) reported ASH was offering a medical student “award” – for minority applicants only. “How does the Society justify this racial discrimination?” DNH observed, adding, “The award is supposed to help people who are ‘under-represented in health-related sciences.’ Activists say that recruiting such individuals is essential to eliminating health disparities.”

The narrative of health equity and health disparities claims “systemic racism” and “oppression” prevent minority individuals from obtaining access to adequate health care. According to the radical dogma, more healthcare providers from “marginalized” identity groups would allow the healthcare system to achieve “racial concordance,” and supposedly enable more patients from these same minority groups to obtain higher quality health care. However, a recent report by Do No Harm’s Director of Research Ian Kingsbury and senior fellow Jay Greene shows that racial concordance does not ensure better care or better outcomes.

The ASH website also contains a “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Health Care” page that boasts the organization “continues its long-standing commitment to combating inequities in hematology, supporting scientists and clinicians from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine, and embracing diverse voices across the patient and health care communities.”

The organization’s statement that “ASH stands in solidarity with our members and patients in communities that are targets of discrimination, harassment, and violence, and remains committed to combatting all forms of bigotry” sounds more like a political and ideological statement reflecting the tenets of CRT than one concerning its field of medicine. ASH continues about its DEI “four-pronged approach to fulfilling the Society’s commitment to diversity and inclusion”:

  1. Inspiring, recruiting, and supporting researchers and clinicians from diverse backgrounds to pursue and succeed in careers in hematology and related fields.
  2. Involving people with diverse perspectives, talents, and experiences in leadership, volunteer, and staff positions.
  3. Providing resources and education to help build awareness of and seek to dismantle systemic racism and other forms of discrimination affecting our members and patients.
  4. Advocating for policies and supporting programs that aim to eliminate health disparities in the care of hematology patients.
Figure 2. Resources available via the ASH’s “DEI in Health Care” page.

Like many organizations demanding compliance with DEI ideology, ASH has reportedly insisted attendees at its annual meetings commit to the practice of its radical doctrine.

A current Hematology representative for his state to the Carrier Advisory Committee to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) told DNH he was instructed to sign ASH’s “code of conduct” in order to attend its annual meeting. The opening statement in the Volunteer Code of Conduct notes that the mission of ASH is to foster “equitable” – not individualized – care to patients.

“Often, ASH will see me as a ‘volunteer’ and invite me to ASH headquarters for the annual meeting,” the source said. “I received the provided document from ASH demanding that I sign their ‘code of conduct.’ Due to previous political actions that ASH has endorsed,” the source continued, “I am not a member, nor do I consider myself a volunteer of the organization. However, if I do not sign the document, I suspect that ASH will no longer allow my participation at the annual CAC Hematology-Oncology meetings.”

Figure 3. Opening statements of the ASH Volunteer Code of Conduct.

DNH also obtained screenshots from a source familiar with ASH procedures regarding the November issue of the organization’s flagship journal Blood – for which the 2023 subscription rate is a pricey $2,050. The journal contained an ad for a DEI program that promises to teach hematologists “how to address implicit bias” in their field.

“Deepen your knowledge about systemic racism and health inequities in the field of hematology,” the ad in the screenshot promises to instruct, describing the program’s topics as:

  • Hematological malignancies inequities in acute myeloid leukemia
  • Disparities in access to cell therapies and transplants
  • Gender disparities in bleeding disorders, and more
Figure 4. Advertisement from the print edition of Blood, the ASH journal (November 9, 2023).

Though the ad sends hematologists to the website hematology.org/health-equity, that site now delivers an error message with no archived versions available.

Politicized medicine in the form of “health equity” and radical concepts like anti-racism and racial concordance cultivate an activist mindset intended to create division according to immutable characteristics and group identities. As a scientific organization, the American Society of Hematology must abandon ideologies that have no evidence to support them, and return to its scientifically-based mission from early 2020 – a time when DEI and anti-racism did not dominate every corner of its operations.

Do No Harm Files Amicus Brief In Support of Texas’ Efforts to Protect Children From Harmful “Gender Medicine”

,

Add Texas to the long list of states where Do No Harm is taking action to protect children from dangerous gender ideology and medical treatments.

On Friday, December 22, 2023, we submitted an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief to the Supreme Court of Texas, showing support for the state’s efforts to uphold its law prohibiting the practice of experimental gender medicine on minors. The plaintiffs challenging the law include physicians who are practicing so-called “gender-affirming care” and others who want these harmful interventions to continue. In the brief, Do No Harm explains that:

  • Physicians who claim to be experts in dispensing “gender-affirming care” actually do not have any more expertise than the general community of pediatricians in dealing with children with gender dysphoria. Therefore, their argument that their opinions should be determinative is invalid;
  • The plaintiffs and their experts changed critical definitions from the sources they cite to make it appear as if gender identity is innate and immutable and, therefore, justifies imposing unproven medical therapies onto adolescents;
  • The current scientific evidence reveals that the practice of experimental gender medicine on minors causes significant harm, carries serious unknown risks, and offers no proven benefit; and
  • The plaintiff physicians who brought the lawsuit (and the hospital they are affiliated with) have misrepresented and hidden their experimental gender interventions while flouting established ethical standards, including informed consent.

We are watching the developments of this litigation, and oral arguments will take place in the coming weeks. Do No Harm hopes that the Court will not be misled, and will uphold Texas’s law (SB14) to protect children from these harmful and irreversible treatments.

Read the full text of the amicus brief here.

Do No Harm Sues Louisiana Governor to Block Racial Discrimination in Medical Board Appointments

The lawsuit argues the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners appointment criteria is unconstitutional

On January 4, 2024, medical watchdog Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards due to unlawful racial mandates requiring the governor to exclude non-minority candidates for a certain number of positions of the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.

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

“Choosing candidates to oversee the critical aspect of the state’s medical field based on anything other than merit is corrosive to the mission and perception of the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “This type of discriminatory mandate is not only unconstitutional, but also reflects the politicization of healthcare that is dangerous for patients and physicians. Expertise should be the determining factor, and Louisiana must get rid of discriminatory practices to refocus on medical excellence.”

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division.

Background

  • The Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners is comprised of ten members appointed by the governor.
  • In 2018, the legislature enacted a law requiring the governor to make every other newly appointed member for certain Board slots on the basis of race.
  • Given this racial mandate, four seats that require race-specific appointments will become available within the next two years.
  • Do No Harm’s lawsuit says that qualified potential board appointees will not be given equal consideration for the seats that will come open, which is a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment protections.

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 6,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and in 14 countries, DNH has achieved more than 4,900 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

The Nebraska Legislature Proposes Implicit Bias Training Requirements for Health Professionals

Yet another state is seeking to impose offensive DEI-related training requirements onto its physicians, nurses, and multiple healthcare professionals.

Lawmakers in Nebraska have introduced a bill with the intent “to require implicit bias or diversity, equity, and inclusion training for medical providers credentialed under the Uniform Credentialing Act.” Legislative Bill 291 (LB291) will compel all healthcare professionals – even veterinary medicine providers – to complete DEI or implicit bias training on an annual basis.

With new credential applications and renewals that begin on or after October 1, 2024, licensees must complete “a program designed to increase awareness of prejudices and partialities” and “reduce prejudice and discrimination.” The result is purported to be “reducing inequitable health treatments and outcomes.” To administer LB291, the total cost to Nebraska taxpayers is estimated to be $328,896. This money would have a real impact on health care disparities if it were committed to improving outreach programs to communities with insufficient health care access.

Do No Harm has explained that “implicit bias” is a concept that places people into identity groups based on skin color, labeling them as either the “oppressed” or the “oppressors.” Despite constant claims to the contrary, there simply is no evidence that medical professionals deliver patient care differently based on their patients’ immutable characteristics. A so-called “test” that has been widely used to measure an individual’s implicit biases has been proven to be unreliable and based on flawed science. Yet, state legislatures like Nebraska continue to create DEI training mandates that place additional burdens on healthcare providers who are already struggling with burnout and constant demands for their time.

States like Oklahoma and Texas have taken measures to remove divisive and dangerous DEI initiatives from their public universities, and Kentucky recently rescinded its implicit bias training requirement for nurses. Policymakers in Nebraska need to give serious consideration this trend, as well as the negative impact that LB291 will have on its 114,000 healthcare professionals.

Vituity’s (CEP AMERICA LLC.) Racially Discriminatory Incentive Program Ending Following Do No Harm’s Challenge

Do No Harm agreed to settle its lawsuit against the unlawful and discriminatory incentive program offered by Vituity. The medical staffing agency said it would end the “Black Physician Leadership Incentive, ” an incentive program (with a sign-on bonus of up to $100,000) solely offered to black physicians. After Do No Harm sued, Vituity quietly took down the advertisement for the Black Physician Leadership Incentive from its website.

The federal court observed that Do No Harm made a “compelling argument” that Vituity was “blatantly violat[ing] various federal laws.” The court also found that it was “undisputed” that Vituity’s program “discriminate[d] based on race.”

Moving forward, Vituity will no longer consider race when giving doctors incentives.

“The end of Vituity’s racist program is a victory for patients. Medical professionals should be hired on merit alone and medical organizations should abandon the divisive identity politics being used as the basis to implement the debunked theory of racial concordance. Patients want and deserve the best doctors and the best medical care regardless of skin color or the racial makeup of their physician.” Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, board chair of Do No Harm.

Rutgers University Shows Support for Radical Activist Organizations – And Seeks Med School Applicants Dedicated to Social Justice

,

Rutgers University and its schools of medicine have long been dedicated to pushing politicized ideologies in its medical education programs and application policies, and the M.D. program selection process seeks to determine which of its applicants will be similarly committed to the social justice agenda. But most concerning is that the university’s activism has included radical and discriminatory causes.

The Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (NJMS) in Newark and the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS) in Piscataway both have active DEI offices with many of the typical “resources” to promote its social justice positions. RWJMS even says that its “racial and ethnic diversity and equity” efforts for faculty and student numbers specifically target “Blacks and Hispanics.”

Figure 1. From the Rutgers RWJ Medical School Office of Inclusion & Diversity.

This perspective is reflected in the RWJMS and NJMS secondary essay questions for applicants to the M.D. degree program. Since the 2018-2019 application cycle, the school has been asking for information to identify students according to identity groups and activist causes:

  • 2018-2019: How do you identify racially? Ethnically? Culturally?
  • 2020-2022: We are committed to an environment which fosters collaboration, cohesiveness, equity and social justice. With this in mind, how will you contribute to the NJMS community?
  • 2023-2024: We are committed to supporting our NJMS community by enhancing collaboration between students, staff, and faculty, with a dedicated focus on humanism, health equity and social justice. How do you envision yourself contributing to the NJMS community?

As we reported in October, “humanism” is a progressive viewpoint that “advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice.” Of course, while this sounds like a worthwhile approach, what it really means is discrimination based on group characteristics and has led to the revolting surge in antisemitism that is damaging our nation.

It’s no wonder that the medical schools at Rutgers have evolved to adopt these philosophies. In June 2020, the Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences (RBHS) Faculty Affairs office took an additional step in fostering radical activism with a post by the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Inclusion, and Development. There were no words associated with this post – titled “white coats for black lives”–which featured a picture of students wearing white lab coats staging a “die-in.”

Figure 2. RBHS Faculty Affairs blog post from June 5, 2020.

During the winter of 2021, RWJMS continued its support of White Coats for Black Lives (WC4BL) with a 48-page publication describing “A Quest for Anti-Racism.”

Figure 3. RWJMS publication from Winter 2021.

The piece features multiple photographs of medical students kneeling with fists in the air and holding signs promoting Black Lives Matter. It also confirms RWJMS’s policy on student selection: “Rather than only prioritizing on standardized test scores,” the article states, “the medical school values a candidate’s commitment to service, experience working with underserved populations, and understanding of social determinants of health.”

Figure 4. From the RWJMS publication “White Coats for Black Lives: A Quest for Anti-Racism” (Winter 2021).

Do No Harm has publicized how WC4BL (an offshoot of Black Lives Matter) has supported anti-Semitic activity at other medical schools, such as the University of Minnesota, the University of Tennessee, and the University of Utah. And, as the faculty at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA have learned, the anti-racism dogma only serves to exacerbate discrimination and division.

State after state across America are waking up to the destructiveness of DEI in institutions of higher education, implementing legislation to remove those practices from their universities. Rutgers University must also take an objective look at its processes and practices, and resolve to create knowledgeable clinicians instead of social justice warriors.

Do No Harm Board Member Edward Blum Named 2023 Man of the Year

Washington Free Beacon Staff

December 31, 2023

2023 Man of the Year: Edward Blum

It’s not clear that the Civil Rights Movement could have succeeded without the Jews.

Henry Moscowitz helped W.E.B. Du Bois found the NAACP. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel joined Martin Luther King Jr. in King’s march on Selma. Jewish donors supplied the capital for numerous civil rights organizations and black colleges, and in 1964, Jews made up half of the participants in the Freedom Summer project, a voter registration drive aimed at black Mississippians.

So it’s only fitting that the civil rights hero of our own time is himself a Jew—born to Yiddish-speaking cobblers, no less.

Since the 1990s, Edward Blum has worked tirelessly to dismantle a sordid, state-backed regime of racial discrimination that has structured and subverted nearly every institution in the United States. His first victory, in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder, chipped away at the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a patently unconstitutional law that gerrymanders electoral districts based on race and assumes all minorities vote the same way.

Edward Blum, Do No Harm Board of Directors

Read more at the Washington Free Beacon.

Do No Harm Closes Out 2023 With 40 Federal Civil Rights Investigations

In December 2023, Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry secured two additional federal civil rights complaints against universities in Ohio and Michigan for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As we recently reported, the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is investigating Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine (HCOM) for its Physician Diversity Scholars Program. Shortly thereafter, Perry also obtained a federal civil rights investigation against the Western Michigan University (WMU) School of Medicine for its Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective Scholarship Program. The informational brochure for the program confirms that the eligibility criteria require the applicant to “identify as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.”

Figure 1. Eligibility criteria for Western Michigan University School of Medicine’s Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective Scholarship Program.

While the brochure still contains the racially exclusive language in the eligibility requirements, the Visiting Medical Students page has been scrubbed of this language. At the time of Perry’s OCR complaint filing, the “Eligibility Requirements” stated that applicants “must identify as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, or Hispanic/Latino.”

Figure 2. WMU School of Medicine “Visiting Medical Students” webpage as it appeared on January 8, 2023.
Figure 3. WMU School of Medicine “Visiting Medical Students” webpage as it currently appears.

Similar to the HCOM program, Perry called upon the DOE OCR to investigate the Visiting Scholars Program at WMU in lieu of the Health and Human Services (HHS) OCR. While there are partner medical facilities within WMed Health where students complete their electives, the school is extensively involved in supervising and administering the program, including granting credits at WMU for clinical work required for graduation.

Since our launch in April 2023, Do No Harm has filed more than 150 federal civil rights complaints with the DOE and HHS OCR offices against institutions of higher education that are discriminating on the basis of race and/or sex. These complaints have resulted in multiple favorable decisions so far to remove discriminatory and exclusionary eligibility criteria from scholarships, fellowships, and awards, or the complete discontinuation and removal of them from the universities’ websites. Our work to restore merit and achievement as the driver of the selection process in medical programs will continue into 2024 and beyond.  

Racial Discrimination At the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society

Another day, another racially discriminatory medical program.

The latest injustice comes from the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, which is “dedicated to creating a world without blood cancers.” Apparently, it thinks racial discrimination can advance that goal, based on its Underrepresented Minority Medical Student Research Program (archived page).

The program’s discrimination is obvious. It’s only available to 2nd-to-4th-year medical students who are “Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino(a), American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander.” In other words, Whites and Asians need not apply.

Figure 1. Eligibility requirements for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s “Underrepresented Minority Medical Student Research Program.”

This program is illegal and unconstitutional. It’s also morally unacceptable. And last but not least, it’s unjustifiable. The Society surely hopes this program will elevate physicians who can help minority patients with Leukemia or Lymphoma. But the best way to ensure they get the best treatment is to elevate the most talented physicians, regardless of race. There are many White and Asian physicians who would surely excel if this program was available to them.

More to the point, it won’t help to have more minority physicians paired with minority patients—a concept known as “racial concordance.” As Do No Harm demonstrates in a new report, studies show that racial concordance doesn’t improve health outcomes or decrease disparities. In fact, it’s more likely to harm patients by encouraging lower standards. Yet patients deserve the most qualified physicians, no matter their skin color.

The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society should be ashamed. Plenty of diverse candidates deserve a shot at this program, including less fortunate whites and Asians. The Society shouldn’t be surprised if someone files a lawsuit to end this blatant racial discrimination. The best course of action is for the Society to stop the discrimination on its own, immediately. Then it can get back to focusing on its real mission of curing blood cancer.

If you see a discriminatory scholarship or fellowship at your professional society, please let us know via our secure online portal.

Do No Harm Files Amicus Brief In Support of Oklahoma’s Law Protecting Children

Once again, Do No Harm is engaged in the battle to protect children from gender ideology.

On Monday, December 18, Do No Harm filed an amicus brief along with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The brief asks the Tenth Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision, which held that Oklahoma’s law prohibiting the practice of experimental gender medicine on minors is likely constitutional. In the brief, Do No Harm and OCPA explain that:

(1) the current scientific evidence reveals that the practice of experimental gender medicine on minors causes significant harm, carries serious unknown risks, and offers no proven benefit;

(2) the Court should not hesitate to depart from the purported objective recommendations put forth by the politically motivated medical interest groups opposing Oklahoma’s common-sense law; and

(3) the advocates of experimental gender medicine criticize any screening procedures for these interventions as too strict.

We are watching the developments of this filing and are hopeful that the Court will uphold Oklahoma’s law to protect children from these harmful and irreversible treatments.