California May Take Your Child From You

The radicalism of the transgender movement is boundless. Look no further than California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom may soon sign a bill that would take children away from parents who disagree with their child’s chosen gender identity. The message is clear: Support your child’s sex change, or lose your child.

The bill in question passed the California Assembly on September 8 by an overwhelming margin of 57 to 16. It previously passed the California Senate. Named the “Transgender, Gender-Diverse, and Intersex Youth Empowerment Act,” a more accurate title is the “No Freedom For Families And Forced Sex Changes for Children” Act. This news story describes what the bill would do:

“Under the proposed law, parents who fail to acknowledge and support their child’s gender transition could face potential consequences, including the loss of custody rights to another parent or even the state itself.” 

Will Gov. Newson sign this bill? Not if he’s honest. Gov. Newsom recently said that California is “a place where families — not political fanatics — have the freedom to decide what’s right for them.” He further declared that “there is no state in America that supports local control and parental engagement like the state of California.” Yet this radical legislation is the opposite of parental freedom and engagement. It will destroy parents’ fundamental rights, to say nothing of children’s physical and mental health.

Transgender activists will brook no dissent in their campaign to control America’s children, not even a child’s own parents. Gov. Newsom should realize that the right call is obvious: Parents who defend their child should be praised, not punished by having their child ripped away.

Leaders at the UMass Medical School Notified of Federal Civil Rights Complaint Filing for a Discriminatory Pipeline Program

The chancellor the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (UMass Chan) in Worcester and the UMass General Counsel in Amherst have been notified of a federal civil rights complaint filed against a university-sponsored pipeline program that discriminates on the basis of race.

On September 7, as a courtesy to university officials, Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry provided a copy of his complaint to these officials regarding the Pipeline for underrepresented Students in Medicine (PRISM) program. Sponsored by the McManus Lab at UMass Chan, this clinical research opportunity’s eligibility criteria state that participants “must be a member of historically underrepresented groups in medicine; e.g., Blacks, Mexican Americans, Native Americans (American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), and of Hispanic origin.”

Figure 1. Eligibility criteria for the PRISM program at UMass Chan School of Medicine.

Perry’s complaint cites Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as students who are not a member of the four groups above are being illegally excluded based on their race, color, or national origin.

Do No Harm will legally challenge and call attention to medical education programs that are engaging in illegal discrimination in violation of Title VI or Title IX, despite the prohibition of such unfairness in their non-discrimination statements. UMass is no exception to schools that endorse and publicize these statements. We encourage UMass Chan to take immediate corrective action regarding the PRISM program’s eligibility criteria, as racial exclusion and inequality are against the law and have no place in medical education.

Is your school engaging in discrimination with programs that exclude certain groups of applicants based on race or sex? Please let us know via our secure online portal.

Yet Another Attempt to Circumvent the Supreme Court’s Ruling to End Race-Conscious Admissions

The American Medical Association is prodding medical schools to find workarounds to the Supreme Court’s ban on race-based college admissions. They aren’t alone. An article on a popular medical news and opinion site (KevinMD.com) features statements from other key players in the healthcare establishment who “retaliated [to the Court decision] by vowing to continue affirmative action practices.” For example:

  • The Association of American Medical Colleges: “We remain committed to enhancing health professional education and practice by emphasizing critical thinking, innovation, effective communication with all patients, and increased access to patient care for an increasingly diverse population … We will work together to adapt following today’s [June 29, 2023] court decision without compromising these goals.”
  • Thomas NASCA, CEO of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education: “ACGME standards do not require race-based affirmative action to achieve diversity, and this [Supreme Court] decision does not require programs and institutions to change their resident selection practices.”
  • Leaders at Stanford Medicine: “While we adjust to this new environment in a manner that conforms with the law, we want to emphasize that Stanford Medicine firmly believes in the transformative power of diversity, in all dimensions…While the ruling changes the landscape of university admissions, it does not change our resolve or our values.”

The article contrasts these statements with commentary from Do No Harm staff in claiming that “a vocal minority of physicians believe that admission to medical school should be based on merit alone.” Whether we’re truly a vocal “minority” or the voice of a dispossessed majority, we remain steadfast in the pursuit of common sense over ideology and reason over pseudoscience. These principles dictate our commitment to overseeing that the Court’s decision is implemented with fidelity. “Merit alone” must not simply be the rallying cry of “vocal” whistleblowers, but the modus operandi of all American medical schools.

The University of Iowa College of Nursing Takes Down Its “Anti-Oppression Statement” – But There’s Still Plenty of DEI To Go Around

The state of Iowa has a legacy of common-sense principles. Unfortunately, one needs to look no further than the University of Iowa – and especially the College of Nursing – for a heavy dose of woke ideology.

Do No Harm obtained documents from some of the university’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training materials on “Social Justice;” “Practicing Pronouns;” “Oppression;” and “Barriers to Inclusion.” References to phrases such as “the system of oppression,” “fae/faer/faerself,” and “guilt is the glue that holds prejudice in place” prompted us to take a closer look at their other DEI endeavors. While exploring the school’s webpages, I readily found more concerning information within the nursing education program.

The University of Iowa College of Nursing (UICON) places its DEI initiatives front and center for website visitors. Unfortunately, that’s not unusual for major universities in states that have not taken legislative measures to remove DEI offices from higher education. But the UICON goes beyond the ubiquitous bias resources and DEI models.

Figure 1. University of Iowa College of Medicine homepage.

While reviewing the IUCON’s DEI pages on August 3, 2023, I located one specific item that was particularly eye-catching: UICON’s Anti-Oppression Statement, which includes the following excerpts:

Across this nation there has been an increase in acts of hate (ex. racism, xenophobia, transphobia, sizeism, heterosexism, religious oppression) in the form of threats, harassment, bullying, body shaming, intimidation, assaults, scapegoating, discrimination, injuries, vandalism, violence, and death for members of the Asian, Jewish, Latino, African American, transgender, plus size, and immigrant communities. 

We cannot ignore the fact that hate is the fuel that is perpetuating divisive sentiment, bias, discriminatory behavior, and hate crimes.

We recognize the physical, emotional, and traumatic impact that these acts of hate and injustice may be having on our students, their families, and our colleagues who may represent these diverse identities that enrich our overall American culture. 

The University of Iowa College of Nursing emphatically denounces all forms of individual and systemic social injustices, including all forms of overt and covert oppression.

In our efforts to achieve the highest level of excellence in nursing education, research, practice, and service, the College of Nursing is committed to an anti-oppression/social justice approach that continuously examines the processes that repeatedly advantage and develop the potential of one group over another. We are committed to condemning all forms of oppression and we support education, policies and practices that advocate for and implement equity and social justice for all people, including reducing disparities in the delivery of high-quality and culturally responsive health care. 

We ask our students, staff, faculty, alumni, and members of our UI and global health sciences communities to join us in advancing health, igniting leadership, and engaging in educational partnerships and­­­­ practices with diverse communities that dismantle all forms of hate.

Figure 2. UICON Anti-Oppression Statement (archived page).

However, a September 5 visit to the webpage that previously contained the Anti-Oppression Statement produced an error message:

Figure 3. IUCON webpage with the Anti-Oppression Statement as it appeared on September 5, 2023.

Turns out it wasn’t a change of heart: just a modest change of messaging. Much of the same information has now been placed into the College of Nursing Humanity Statement, including these excerpts:

Welcome! 

The University of Iowa College of Nursing values different backgrounds, perspectives, and life experiences across the lifespan. The resources you see listed on this site are available for everyone to use. Our College is a microcosm of the larger American community and experience. We strive to celebrate our similarities and embrace and learn from our differences through civil and reciprocal discourse that respects everyone’s right to freedom of expression. It is our goal to provide a welcoming, inclusive and accessible environment for everyone in our college and our profession.  We know our work today will graduate tremendous future nurses and build safer and healthier communities where everyone belongs and is valued, needed, and appreciated.  

However, we also recognize the physical, emotional, and traumatic impact that acts of bias, discrimination, misconduct, and hate may have on our students, their families, our healthcare colleagues, and our patients who may be representative of diverse identities and/or diverse perspectives that enrich the tapestry of our vibrant American culture. 

The College of Nursing emphatically denounces all forms of bias, discrimination, misconduct, and hate. We strive to hold our faculty, staff, and students accountable for our attitudes, actions, and words as we uphold the tenets of the College’s Seven Pillars of Diversity.       

In our efforts to achieve the highest level of excellence in nursing education, research, practice, and service, the College of Nursing is engaged in education, policies and practices that advocate for and implement equity and social justice for all people, including reducing disparities in the delivery of high-quality, ethical, and culturally responsive health care to improve patient outcomes. 

The American Nurses Association (ANA) Code of Ethics guides nursing practice and states that all patients will receive nursing care no matter their background, resources, or situation. The ANA recognizes bias, discrimination, misconduct, and hate as a longstanding public health crisis contributing to inequities impacting mental, spiritual, and physical health and well-being. The ANA seeks to strengthen the nursing profession by increasing intellectual diversity and inclusive leadership while striving to establish anti-discrimination nursing practices and environments.

We ask our students, staff, faculty, alumni, and members of our UI and global health sciences communities to join us in working to dismantle all forms of inequitable care by advancing health, building healthy work and educational environments, empowering leadership, and fostering innovative partnerships and­­­­ practices with a broadly defined diverse group of colleagues and communities that welcome and utilize the perspectives, talent and contributions of all. 

The University of Iowa College of Nursing is more than a college – we are a community that cares for all. 

Figure 4. UICON Humanity Statement (current page).

While reducing the level of hyperbole is a positive adjustment to the statement, the addition of statements from the American Nurses Association that describe concepts regarding discrimination and hate is not. As we have previously reported, the ANA has moved far beyond its original mission of advocating for nurses and is fully entrenched in extreme ideology.

Last year, Do No Harm obtained documents from the University of Iowa in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Those documents exposed the UI medical school’s practice of training members of the faculty hiring committee in the concept of implicit bias. The training also provided instruction in hiring strategies based on advancing DEI instead of recognizing individual achievement when reviewing faculty candidates. Even so, the school has maintained entries on its website like the “Black Lives Matter at School – Iowa Teach In” event and the Anti-Racism Resource Guide.

Why is all of this bad for nursing? Spending the limited amount of time available to train students in ways to become skilled and competent nurses on topics that do nothing to achieve that objective is the obvious response. But the downstream effects on the profession as a whole are less visible, and they can be significant.

In my role at Do No Harm, I receive incoming messages from other nurses who are frustrated with the seemingly endless barrage of DEI training they are encouraged – and in some cases, required – to complete. They are insulted by ideological concepts pushing group identity politics being imposed on them in the name of continuing education. Some are close enough to retirement that they choose to give up nursing completely. Others, like Clete Weigel in Ohio, are forced out. These instances have resulted in the loss of highly experienced nurses in a time where the entire industry continues to sound the alarm about a critical U.S, nursing shortage.

It’s time for the University of Iowa to discard its commitment to divisiveness and dogma and provide the type of quality education that future nurses and physicians need. Their fellow Iowans (and future patients) care about the level of skill and talent of their healthcare professionals; not their knowledge of obscure pronouns and dedication to social justice activism.

Laura Morgan is a registered nurse and Do No Harm’s program manager.

The University of Colorado School of Medicine Suddenly Scrubs Its Website After Being Hit with Federal Civil Rights Complaint

The University of Colorado School of Medicine (CUSOM) promoted three discriminatory scholarships for “historically underrepresented” groups on its website – that is, until they were notified by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that those programs were being challenged.

On June 4, 2023, Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry filed a federal civil rights complaint with the Department of Education’s OCR for three “diversity scholarships” that discriminated on the basis of race/ethnicity or sex/gender identity/sexual orientation. Shortly after the Denver OCR received the complaint and contacted the university, CUSOM made substantial changes to the eligibility criteria for each of the three scholarships:

1. Medical Student Externship Diversity Scholarship

The original eligibility criteria stated, “The Program is open to applicants who belong to groups that are recognized as historically underrepresented in the health profession including African American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander and/or LGBTQIA+.”

Figure 1. CUSOM Medical Student Externship Diversity Scholarship webpage as it appeared in June 2023 (archived page).

The eligibility was later updated to remove the illegal race/sexual orientation/gender identity restrictions:

Figure 2. Updated eligibility criteria for the Medical Student Externship Diversity Scholarship (current page).

2. The Chair’s Diversity Scholarship

Eligibility for this scholarship was originally restricted to “a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority in health science graduate programs (African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaska Native, Vietnamese, or rural students).”

Figure 3. CUSOM Chair’s Diversity Scholarship webpage as it originally appeared (archived page).

The revised criteria now say that “any student in good academic standing” is eligible to apply:

Figure 4. Revised eligibility criteria for the Chair’s Diversity Scholarship (current page).

3. Visiting Student Diversity Scholarship

This scholarship was being promoted as an opportunity for 4th-year medical students with an interest in surgery; however, the discriminatory program was only open to “applicants who belong to groups that are recognized as historically underrepresented in the health profession including African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander and/or LGBTQ.”

Figure 5. CUSOM Visiting Student Diversity Scholarship webpage in June 2023 (archived page).

After being notified by OCR of the federal civil rights complaint, the CUSOM revised the eligibility criteria to say that anyone can apply:

Figure 6. Revised Visiting Student Scholarship (current page).

“In each case, CUSOM scrubbed the discriminatory and illegal eligibility restrictions based on race, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity after the filing of my complaint,” Perry said. “The remedy that Do No Harm and I sought,” he continued, “was to enjoin the University from continuing to engage in illegal discrimination.”

As soon as the OCR finalizes its investigation it has indicated that it will issue a closure letter to reflect the changes CUSOM has made to correct its non-compliance with Title VI and Title IX, according to an email Perry received from the Denver OCR.

Do No Harm applauds the steps that CUSOM has taken to stop its illegal discrimination and enforce federal civil rights laws including Title VI and Title IX – as is legally required by recipients of federal financial assistance. We encourage other medical education programs to follow suit.

This case at the University of Colorado School of Medicine demonstrates the effectiveness of challenging colleges and universities that are violating the law by offering discriminatory scholarships and academic programs. Do No Harm will continue to take the necessary action to correct these violations and restore fairness and the equal treatment of all individuals in medical education.

Do No Harm Submits Comment to CMS: Payment Policies Must Not Be Based On “Health Equity Goals” of the Biden Administration

,

Do No Harm chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb submitted comments to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding the proposed rule CMS–1784–P, which seeks to make changes to the way healthcare providers are paid for their services.

“The proposed rule gives our group of experienced medical professionals great concern in several areas,” Dr. Goldfarb wrote in a September 8 letter to CMS. “What should be straightforward updating of various payment policies,” he continued, “has instead become just the latest effort by the Biden administration to use critical government services as a carrier for its alleged ‘health equity’ goals.”

Stated plainly, the proposed rule change would directly incentivize healthcare providers to deliver more services to patients of certain races/ethnicities, sexualities, and religions. Such a system would constitute a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and pushing individual patients to the front of the line based on any factor other than their health status is morally wrong.

Read the full comments below:

Do No Harm Comment on CMS Rule 8-28-23Download

A Federal Civil Rights Investigation is Underway at the University of Delaware

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has opened a federal civil rights investigation against the University of Delaware (UD) for a program that discriminates on the basis of sex.

Mark Perry, senior fellow at Do No Harm, filed a Title IX complaint with the OCR for the school’s partnership with The Perry Initiative, a pipeline program exclusively for women entering the fields of medicine or engineering. One component of the project is the Perry Outreach Program (POP), which is for female high school students who are interested in orthopedic surgery. POP restricts applicant eligibility to those who “gender-identify as female or non-binary.” By using its resources, facilities, staff, and websites to promote The Perry Initiative, UD violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination based on sex and gender identity.

Figure 1. The Perry Outreach Program in orthopedic surgery at the University of Delaware.

The UD Delaware Rehabilitation Institute (DRI) also “proudly sponsors” The Perry Initiative in support of its “mission of advancing the science of physical rehabilitation.”

Figure 2. The UD Delaware Rehabilitation Institute, sponsor of The Perry Initiative.

One of the co-founders and board members of The Perry Initiative is Dr. Jenni Buckley, a mechanical engineer and UD faculty member.

Do No Harm is monitoring the progress of this investigation and anticipates a positive outcome from the Office for Civil Rights. In addition to the Title IX complaint against UD, Do No Harm is also challenging the discriminatory female-only Perry Initiative programs at 14 other colleges and universities.

Are you seeing programs or scholarships at your school that discriminate on the basis of race or sex? Please let us know; you may remain anonymous if you wish.

The Indiana University School of Medicine Just Can’t Get Enough of Woke Ideologies

The Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) is at it again pushing more identity politics on faculty and staff, this time with an online learning course called Mitigating Unconscious Bias in Decision-Making.

Do No Harm has previously covered IU’s other woke offerings, such as a training module from the IU Office of Academic Affairs that instructed job search committee members to consider their “implicit bias” and “whiteness” in the course of evaluating applicants, rather than focusing solely on their experience and suitability for the position.

The new course on “unconscious bias in decision-making” is an additional offering on the same topic, but for a wider audience. IUSM employees and students were notified of its existence via email, which Do No Harm was made aware of by an anonymous source. Even individuals who are not affiliated with the university can enroll: “While this training is designed with academic medicine in mind,” the email noted, “the content can be applied to any setting.”

Promoted by the woke dean of IUSM

The training module opens with a message from Dean Jay Hess, who notes that understanding one’s own perceptions is a fundamental step in making everyone at IUSM feel supported and encouraged. “On multiple occasions when I was faced with a decision,” he claims, “my decision-making was in fact influenced by unconscious bias.” He even acknowledges that the training itself is questionable. “There is some research and there are many people out there who question the value of unconscious bias training,” he says. But he encourages it as “important” for IUSM from the perspective of recruitment, evaluation, and promotion of people, and even to the care of patients.  

Figure 1. Course offered by the Indiana University School of Medicine.

Training places equity and justice at the center of patient care

The first unit of the module says that IUSM “commits to identifying and dismantling hate, oppression, systemic racism, and discrimination in academic medicine,” and instructs learners to do the same by taking steps to address diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice.

“As we become more aware of our biases, we can make better data-informed decisions,” said Dr. Alvaro Tori, associate dean for Diversity Affairs at IUSM. He also advised learners regarding “taking inventory of the identities that you ascribe to and the power, privilege, and oppression that we each navigate.” Dr. Tori said that these measures place equity and justice in the center of the work of patient care, education, and research.

Subsequent sections in the training provide a roadmap for taking such an identity-based inventory and buying into the concept of “equity.” Units 2 and 3 in the module used YouTube videos, created by the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2019, with the ubiquitous explanation of biases being our brains’ way of taking shortcuts to deal with information overload and numerous examples of types of bias.

https://youtu.be/BwYFhJO9t50
Video from “Mitigating Unconscious Bias in Decision-Making” at IUSM.

In Unit 3, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) is introduced, and despite its weak science, the module content states “the IAT is considered more reliable and valid than survey evaluations.”

But it goes to the extreme in an effort to make its misguided point. The UCLA video on this topic refers to “The Black-White Attitude Test,” and describes how the tester will see pictures of a young black male’s face and a picture of a young white male’s face. The tester is instructed to sort the faces by hitting a key on the left side of the keyboard for white, and key on the right side for black. The next step is to sort words in two “attitudinal categories” using the words “beauty,” “happy,” and “joy” or “filth,” “sick,” and “greed.” The tester then identifies the “good” words by striking a key on the left, and the “bad” words using the right side of the keyboard. The final step is to sort the words and the faces together. However, the exercise further conditions the tester to associate positive words with white faces and negative words with black faces by actually instructing him or her to do so. The narrator states that when good words are associated with white faces and bad words are associated with black faces, “you will find your groove and fly through this test. Most of us do.”

Figure 2. From “Lesson 5: The IAT” from the UCLA Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (a component of the IUSM Mitigating Unconscious Bias course).

However, when the procedure is reversed, the claim is that the process takes longer and testers will make more mistakes. The video attributes this to the so-called “IAT Effect,” which “reflects the strength of an attitude” and indicates “an implicit preference for whites.”

https://youtu.be/hr9xAcWv790?t=135
Video from “Mitigating Unconscious Bias in Decision-Making” at IUSM.

There is no proof that unconscious bias plays a role in clinical decision-making that leads to disparate outcomes. Beyond the fact that the IAT fails in its goals, there simply is no evidence that using it is beneficial in any way.

IUSM’s training offers conflicting advice

Unit 3 offers a discussion of the ways to address individual bias. The material moves into the “group mitigation strategies” and a section that describes “What We Will Do.” One of the strategies is to “go anonymous,” meaning that any information that could be used to identify an individual is to be eliminated from application documents, thus creating a “blind selection” process.

Figure 3. From “Mitigating Unconscious Bias in Decision-Making” at Indiana University School of Medicine.

But that doesn’t align with the IUSM Office of Academic Affairs training module, which makes it clear to search committee members that they are to use “equity benchmarks” at every point of faculty candidate review and selection (emphasis added):

Here are some strategies that serve to buffer outcomes from the impact of bias. First, search committees should adopt an inclusive mindset. Rather than trying to narrow the pool down, they should try to make it as inclusive as possible. Furthermore, at each point of the process that the pool gets narrowed, the committee should ensure that the percentage of minoritized applicants continues to reflect the percentage in the original pool. If it does not, then the committee might revisit their criteria for evaluating applicants. Second, establish and use well-defined criteria to guard against bias. As we discussed, criteria that seem valid on the surface may systematically disadvantage applicants of color. Wherever possible, eliminate biased metrics or find ways to adjust for them in the ratings. Finally, ensure accountability by agreeing that decision-making processes must be clear to all committee members and by slowing down the evaluation process so as not to rely on biases and heuristics when assessing candidates.

So what are IUSM community members supposed to do? Anonymize data, or insert percentage controls of minoritized applicants? It is no wonder that Do No Harm has heard from so many concerned stakeholders who feel that they’re being fed contradictory guidance that constantly pushes identity politics.

It’s time the Indiana University School of Medicine stops wasting time and resources on training that only serves to create division. State policymakers are starting to pay attention to constituent requests for help to force some sanity back into the school.

Is your school or healthcare organization requiring implicit bias training? Please let us know via Do No Harm’s secure online portal.

The University of Minnesota Department of Medicine Scrubs Its Website of a Discriminatory Program in the Wake of a Federal Civil Rights Investigation

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has completed its investigation of the Department of Medicine’s discriminatory single-sex, female-only early career research award at the University of Minnesota Medical School (UMMS), prompting the school to scrub its website.

In April 2023, we reported that the OCR was investigating the UMMS Department of Medicine’s Dr. Anne Joseph Women’s Early Research Career (WERC) Award, which limited eligibility to women, for violating Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. On September 1, Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry was notified by the OCR that the investigation into the WERC Award was complete. “The University provided documentation to OCR that the Award was open to all applicants who met the eligibility criteria,” the disposition letter stated, “and was not limited based on sex.” The university also confirmed that it will remove the word “Women’s” from the name of the award.

A search of the University of Minnesota (UMN) website for the term “WERC” produced a result:

Figure 1. Search of the UMN website for the term “WERC” on September 2, 2023.

However, that link has been taken down:

Figure 2. Broken link on UMN website (September 2, 2023).

An archived page displaying the award can be seen here:

Figure 3 & 4. Archived page on UMMS Department of Medicine website as of June 4, 2023.

As a result of Perry’s work in recent years, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities has been the target for two dozen civil rights complaints citing more than fifty violations of Title VI and Title IX. Do No Harm acknowledges resolution of the discriminatory limitations of the WERC research award, and encourages the University of Minnesota to revise the other programs it continues to sponsor that violate federal civil rights law.

Indiana Doctor and Educator: IUSM Needs Immediate Reform

Do No Harm recently spoke with Dr. Cindy Basinski, a practicing physician and medical educator in Indiana. She’s deeply worried about Indiana University School of Medicine, her alma mater. IUSM is one of the most radicalized medical schools in the nation. Dr. Basinski told us what’s at stake:

Every day, I talk with medical students and faculty at the IU School of Medicine. Their backgrounds and beliefs differ, but they all share the same concern. They see firsthand that IUSM is undermining medical education with divisive ideology. It’s creating a culture of fear and self-censorship that harms them and, ultimately, patients across Indiana and beyond.

IUSM is going the same route as most medical schools nationwide, though it’s arguably much further along the road. It has rallied around the ideology of “diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice.” Every medical student, educator, and physician I know is sympathetic to the goal of building trust and understanding among different communities and groups of people. But DEIJ goes much further, demanding conformity of views on campus.

Start with medical students. Before even getting into medical school, they are asked how they have promoted – or plan to promote – DEIJ objectives. Students have also told me about the politicized lessons they get in the classroom. IUSM is downplaying medical science and ethics in favor of politicized narratives about race and gender.

Students don’t dare disagree because they know it would destroy their chances of getting into residency programs they desire. They are completely dependent on recommendations from IUSM faculty, so they silence themselves for their own protection.

Faculty are also suffering. They cannot question the tenets of the DEIJ agenda, lest they be punished by administrators. Even worse, IUSM faculty are now required to show how they’ve advanced DEIJ in order to secure tenure or promotion. Whereas students are being forced into silence, IUSM faculty are being forced to be complicit with the corruption of medical education.

This runs counter to the purpose of medical education, the principles of medical science, and the pursuit of medical progress. The most incredible advances in medical history happened because students and faculty pushed the bounds of knowledge and questioned received wisdom. If faculty and future physicians aren’t exposed to a wide variety of views, or even free to share their own perspectives, they won’t move medicine forward. Patients will suffer.

Going public was a hard choice, but I know that staying silent jeopardizes the future of medicine. I’m speaking out for the countless students and faculty who cannot speak for themselves. IUSM is engaged in coercion at its worst, because it affects not only students and staff but the healthcare system in Indiana.  

We need our lawmakers to help restore balance in medical education. I urge our Governor and General Assembly to recognize what’s happening and reform IUSM and all of Indiana’s higher education. Now is the time to protect the free speech rights of students and faculty alike. Now is the time to refocus medical and higher education on actual education, not divisive ideology. Hoosiers’ health depends on it.

Cindy Basinski, MD, FACOG, FPMRS, Adjunct Faculty Member at IUSM

Do No Harm is grateful to Dr. Basinski. Here’s hoping divisive ideology is driven from the Indiana University School of Medicine as soon as possible.

Activists Scheme to Skirt Affirmative Action Ban – And Provide False Pretense For Doing It

,

Two commentaries published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on the same day leave no doubt that the American Medical Association remains committed to skirting rather than honoring the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action.

In The Supreme Court Decision on Affirmative Action—Fewer Black Physicians and More Health Disparities for Minoritized Groups, “researchers” argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling against race-based admissions “goes beyond college admissions for Black people and other minority groups to the very core of the health of the entire country…Multiple research studies have shown that patients have improved outcomes when they are treated by people of a similar background or race or ethnicity.”

The claim that black patients fare better with black doctors references a systematic review (i.e., an assessment of the evidence base on the topic) that offers some optimism when it comes to the effect of racial concordance on patient-provider communication. It conveniently neglects to reference the four other systematic reviews on race concordance in medicine which conclude that the evidence base does not reveal a pattern that demonstrates benefit, including a more recent review that also specifically focuses on patient-provider communication.

The JAMA piece isn’t the first occasion in which the American Medical Association has endorsed or promoted fictional claims that black patients fare better with black doctors. That they continue to promote these falsehoods in the face of public fact checking of sloppy factual errors reveals the depths of their conviction to continue lowering standards and engaging in racial preference for medical school admission. 

In the other piece of commentary ­– Affirmative Action Ruled Unconstitutional: Options for Building a Diverse Healthcare Workforce – “researchers” assert that “The Court’s opinion potentially leaves room to maneuver.” Citing Justice Sotomayor’s dissent that colleges can consider “socioeconomic diversity” in their admissions decisions, they mention the UC Davis “socioeconomic disadvantage scale” as a blueprint for the “maneuvering” that they advocate. The UC Davis Associate Dean of Admissions is explicit and unapologetic about the fact that their admissions policies are a technical workaround to the state’s prohibition on affirmative action and a solution to the imagined problem of the “overrepresentation” of Asian physicians.

The piece concludes with a warning: “Far from coming to an end for legal questions about race and ethnicity and university admissions, intense litigation will likely continue for many years.” So long as woke activists at the American Medical Association remain committed to skirting the Supreme Court’s decision, this prediction is all but sure to come to fruition.  

The Eastern Vascular Society puts its DEI Agenda Front and Center

The Eastern Vascular Society (EVS) is one of many medical organizations that’s gone off the woke deep end. For recent proof, look no further than the Society’s DEI survey.

The survey, which the Society says is intended for “measuring our progress” and gleaning “a more complete understanding of our membership,” starts by asking some simple questions relating to practice, career status, and the like. But a scroll just a bit farther down the page uncovers questions on buzzword topics like members’ race, preferred pronouns, and gender identity.

Questions from the EVS’s DEI Survey.

The EVS’s DEI Commitment – which preambles the survey – confirms the Society’s leftist slant.

The formulation of this survey begs a number of questions, not the least of which are what does demographic information like this have to do with practicing vascular medicine, or what does the EVS plan to do with these responses? Initiatives like this could signal that future DEI-related programs and practices are coming down the pipeline.

But the DEI survey is only one piece of the EVS’s latest woke puzzle: the Society recently finished receiving applications for its DEI Grant. The grant, which is being offered by the EVS’s DEI Committee, is designed specifically for members who identify as LGBTQ+, underrepresented in medicine (URiM), or women.

Information on the EVS’s DEI Grant.

Which is to say, the grant is designed to discriminate on the basis of race. Rather than taking a fair, colorblind, merit-based approach to its grantmaking process, EVS is instead showing its true, discriminatory colors.

More information on the EVS’s DEI Grant.

It’s important for all clinicians in every field to succeed in their professions. So, why doesn’t the EVS seek to serve all its members equally, rather than giving preference to some over others? Initiatives like the DEI survey and DEI Grant take the focus off patients and put it on politics.

But members of the EVS shouldn’t be surprised by either the survey or the grant, considering that the Society claims it was founded on woke ideas.

According to its homepage, the EVS was founded in 1987 in part to “to serve disparate communities through a commitment to diversity and inclusion” and “to promote diversity and inclusion within the Society, in vascular surgery education, training and research.”

The EVS’s homepage.

The EVS was woke before woke was a thing.

The Society joins the ranks alongside the AMA, ANA, the AAPM&R, and more in the battle against integrity in the medical field. And the number of medical associations who remain silent on or are free from destructive DEI-related ideologies – like those propagated by the EVS – is shrinking.

Do No Harm was founded to shed light on woke, divisive initiatives like these as part of our commitment to ensuring that all patients receive the best possible care. We’ll keep up the fight until merit is restored to medicine.

More Extremism At The American College of Surgeons

The American College of Surgeons is at it again. First, Do No Harm visiting fellow Dr. Richard Bosshardt drew attention to the prestigious institution’s divisive turn and attempt to censor dissent. Now another source has let us know that the ACS is doubling down on discriminatory woke ideology.

The source sent us details the ACS’ upcoming Clinical Congress in Boston, Massachusetts. The Clinical Congress is the organization’s annual conference, attended by thousands of surgeons. They can expect indoctrination from start to finish.

The conference will feature an event called “DEI and Antiracism Fundamentals, Skills Building and Implementation Principles for Surgeons.” It’s as bad as it sounds. The event will brainwash surgeons with the “core tenets of DEI and Anti-racism along with the requisite skills necessary to strategically implement DEI efforts in one’s own surgical environments.” As we’ve seen, implementing DEI and anti-racism means fixating on patients’ race and even discriminating against patients, including by giving some patients preferential access to treatment.

Figure 1. From the ACS Clinical Congress 2023 program.

The conference also has plenty of other woke sessions. The list includes panel discussions on “how to achieve health equity” and “the social determinants of health,” as well as breakout sessions on recruiting more students from races that “under-represented in medicine” and “addressing implicit bias.” Without fail, these events will beat surgeons over the head with divisive and discriminatory ideas, from accusing surgeons of racism to training surgeons to be political activists as much as medical professionals.

None of this belongs in surgery, much less the rest of medicine. When Dr. Bosshardt called out the American College of Surgeons last year, he said it “must choose between surgery and ideology.” The ACS has made its choice, and it’s the wrong one. Surgeons and their patients deserve so much better.

University of Arkansas’ Move to Integrate DEI Staff into Other Offices Draws Questions

The University of Arkansas (UA) at Fayetteville announced in mid-June it would be dissolving its DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) Division later in the year, but then also revealed the division’s staff and resources would be integrated into other departments of the university in order to meet goals associated with student or employee “recruitment” and “success.”

The timing of the announcement came two weeks in advance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, in which the Court largely struck down affirmative action in higher education. It also arrived amid growing concern about DEI initiatives in the administration of Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the state legislature. This reported dissolution has led to questions about whether the university’s incorporation of DEI staff and resources into other offices is just a strategic workaround to enable woke practices to be maintained in a different form.

Inside Higher Ed asked, is UA’s move “a capitulation to right-wing demands or a savvy defense tactic?”

And National Association of Scholars (NAS) Research Fellow Neetu Arnold tweeted:

It’s already happening.

The University of Arkansas is getting rid of its DEI division, but it is not getting rid of DEI personnel and their toxic ideology. Instead, it will become a part of higher ed operations permanently.

The article announcing the move contained email responses from UA Director of Media Relations John Thomas regarding the goals of reallocating the DEI office’s resources. According to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents obtained by Do No Harm, not all of Thomas’s comments in response to the reporter’s questions made their way into the article. When asked if the move is “in response to the affirmative action bill filed in the Arkansas Legislature or the impending Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action,” Thomas said:

“While as a state institution, we are always respectful of the laws, regulations, and various viewpoints on how we carry out our mission, from an educational standpoint and as an employer, we believe that this is the best way to fulfill our land-grant mission of access and opportunity for all.”

A second document from the UA media relations office contains an additional response from the media relations office that contained the same statements to two different reporters.

The Arkansas Advocate also reported that, in his announcement about the reallocation of DEI personnel and resources, UA Chancellor Charles Robinson said the university’s strategic planning process “has affirmed that supporting equal opportunity, access and belonging are critical to our land-grant-mission and university values.”

Robinson continued:

“It is my belief based on my experience as having served as Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Provost — and now as Chancellor — that we can accomplish better outcomes by reallocating resources into these essential areas. We must strengthen our ability to achieve measurable results that enhance opportunity for all Arkansans.”

According to the Advocate, UA Faculty Senate Chair Stephen Caldwell said he, the provost, and Robinson have discussed their concerns that Arkansas could grow to be more like Florida in terms of blocking public colleges from funding DEI measures.

Caldwell said the goal is for both minority and non-minority students to be successful, “so let’s concentrate on student success and student excellence and try to achieve that in all mediums for all students of all backgrounds, races, creeds and colors.”

Asserting the DEI debate has created political polarization throughout the country, Caldwell observed Robinson’s strategy is to rebrand the debate as student success.

“And I think when you reframe it like that, it speaks to what it is that he’s trying to do, and the faculty are behind student success 100%,” he said.

A third document Do No Harm obtained shows how that “success” will be supported by distributing the former DEI assets throughout the campus. Dated July 11, 2023, this document contains a table that shows 46 items to address and take action on following their announcement and the Supreme Court ruling. Items to be reallocated included:

  • Division of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion website, which has been taken down (archived page here)
  • DEI Fellows program to conclude on June 30
  • Two DEI positions will be transferred to Student Affairs and Student Success
  • Digital inventory will be transferred “as appropriate along with the person…where the need is greatest”
  • DEI banner to be carried at the June 23 PRIDE Parade
  • Discussion on the IDEALS (Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access, Leadership Development, Strategic Supports) Institute DEI training, which has been removed from the UA website (archived page here)
  • Future faculty recruitment strategy “to cultivate large pools of qualified candidates” and two policies
  • Steps to “reimagine the purpose, scope, and participants” of the DEI Advisory Board

Do No Harm will be monitoring the actions of the University of Arkansas for alignment and compliance with the Court’s race-neutral mandate, as well as its self-imposed decision to disperse its DEI division through the school.

Are you seeing ongoing efforts to consider race in university admissions to medical education programs, or DEI initiatives in states that have laws prohibiting them? Do No Harm wants to hear from you, and you may remain anonymous if you wish.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry Names the Mt. Sinai Health System in Civil Rights Complaints Filed with the NYC Commission on Human Rights

The Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York City continues to support race-based discrimination in its internal opportunities, despite municipal law that prohibits it. Under the City Human Rights Law, the City Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) has, in part, the “power to eliminate and prevent discrimination from playing and role in actions related to employment.”

Yet, the MSHS Office for Diversity and Inclusion (ODI) operates and funds the “Mount Sinai Administrative Fellowship Program,” prompting Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry to file a complaint with the CCHR. The salaried fellowship is offered to applicants who “self-identify as a member of a racial/ethnic group that is historically underrepresented in healthcare leadership – specifically Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native), and/or Pacific Islander (one who has origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands).” This eligibility criterion, verified in the Administrative Fellowship Program application, illegally excludes Asian, white, and Middle Eastern/North African individuals on the basis of their race, color, or national origin.

Figure 1. August 23, 2022 email announcing the Mount Sinai Administrative Fellowship Program.

This is not the first time Perry has notified the CCHR of civil rights violations by Mt. Sinai. In June 2023, Perry filed a complaint regarding the Growth in Operations, Administrations, and Leadership Society (GOALS) program at the Icahn School of Medicine, “an elite Black male Initiative at Mount Sinai Health System that advocates for career advancement opportunities and equitable resources for its members.”

Figure 2. GOALS Program at Mt. Sinai Icahn School of Medicine.

These programs are reflective of other programs sponsored by the MSHS ODI. A concerned healthcare provider tipped us off to two ODI initiatives that place Black Lives Matter and anti-racism front and center. The United in Solidarity page features a book by Ibram X. Kendi, critical race theory proponent and author of “How to Be an Antiracist.”

Figure 3. “United in Solidarity” page at Mt. Sinai Health System.

And, the MSHS Icahn School of Medicine recently hosted “Ten Years of #BlackLivesMatter” on its monthly Chats for Change Zoom meetings schedule.

Figure 4. August 2023 “Chats for Change” at the Icahn School of Medicine.

Do No Harm urges the NYC Commission on Human Rights to investigate and resolve the discriminatory programs that the Mt. Sinai Health System is funding. We also encourage MSHS to shift its focus toward caring for all patients, students, and employees equally – regardless of skin color – and stop obsessively promoting racism and oppression in every facet of its operations.

Single: Search

a:10:{s:8:”location”;a:6:{i:0;a:1:{i:0;a:3:{s:5:”param”;s:9:”post_type”;s:8:”operator”;s:2:”==”;s:5:”value”;s:4:”post”;}}i:1;a:1:{i:0;a:3:{s:5:”param”;s:9:”post_type”;s:8:”operator”;s:2:”==”;s:5:”value”;s:4:”page”;}}i:2;a:1:{i:0;a:3:{s:5:”param”;s:9:”post_type”;s:8:”operator”;s:2:”==”;s:5:”value”;s:4:”case”;}}i:3;a:1:{i:0;a:3:{s:5:”param”;s:9:”post_type”;s:8:”operator”;s:2:”==”;s:5:”value”;s:11:”in-the-news”;}}i:4;a:1:{i:0;a:3:{s:5:”param”;s:9:”post_type”;s:8:”operator”;s:2:”==”;s:5:”value”;s:8:”research”;}}i:5;a:1:{i:0;a:3:{s:5:”param”;s:9:”post_type”;s:8:”operator”;s:2:”==”;s:5:”value”;s:12:”testimonials”;}}}s:8:”position”;s:4:”side”;s:5:”style”;s:7:”default”;s:15:”label_placement”;s:3:”top”;s:21:”instruction_placement”;s:5:”label”;s:14:”hide_on_screen”;s:0:””;s:11:”description”;s:0:””;s:12:”show_in_rest”;i:0;s:13:”display_title”;s:0:””;s:8:”modified”;i:1687892261;}

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Issues a Ruling to Protect Youth from Gender Ideology in Alabama

On Monday, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision vacating a lower court’s preliminary injunction against Alabama’s law protecting minors from experimental gender medicine. This is a tremendous victory in the war against these radical and experimental interventions—which include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries. This result means that Alabama’s law is now in effect and that children and adolescents in Alabama are protected from experimental gender medicine while the litigation over this law continues in the lower court.

The Eleventh Circuit’s unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Barbara Lagoa, explained that States are permitted to enact laws like Alabama’s in order to protect “children from drugs, particularly those for which there is uncertainty regarding benefits, recent surges in use, and irreversible effects.” The court also explained that the statute did not draw sex-based classifications—and thus was not subject to any form of heightened judicial scrutiny—because the law protected both boys and girls alike. Judge Brasher, who joined the majority opinion in full, also issued separate concurring opinion explaining that, even if Alabama’s law were subject to a heightened form of scrutiny, it would likely still pass the relevant constitutional test. Credit to Alabama Attorney General, Steve Marshall, and his entire team for having the courage to take on this issue in the service of protecting the children of Alabama.

Although this decision is a major victory, the battle continues elsewhere. Over the next month or so, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will be reviewing preliminary injunctions issued against the laws of both Kentucky and Tennessee that protect minors from experimental gender medicine. And the Eighth Circuit will eventually be reviewing a permanent injunction issued against Arkansas’ law. It seems likely that this issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court, where we are confident these laws will prevail against constitutional challenge.

Senior Fellow Mark Perry Points Out UNC’s History of Civil Rights Violations to the Board of Trustees

On August 9, 2023, Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry sent the following letter via email to the entire Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, Provost, and General Counsel at the University of North Carolina (UNC). No response was received from any party.

Dear UNC Board of Trustees:

I was motivated to contact you after reading the 8/7/2023 article “Legal Compliance or ‘Interpretive Overreach’?” in Insider Higher Ed about your group’s recent discussions about whether UNC’s ban on the consideration of race for admissions should also extend to UNC’s hiring and contracting. In addition to considering a ban on considering race for employment and contracting, I would suggest that you should also address the issue of banning the consideration of race for UNC’s educational programs, events, scholarships, fellowships, internships, awards, etc. In fact, the consideration of race for those educational programs, etc. is already illegal according to Title VI’s prohibition of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin for recipients of federal funds like UNC. I can say that with some authority because I have more experience filing Title VI and Title IX complaints at colleges and universities than any other individual. To date, I have filed 855 federal civil rights complaints for more than 2,000 violations of Title VI and Title IX at more than 750 colleges and universities (many like UNC have multiple complaints). Based on those complaints, the Office for Civil Rights has opened nearly 400 federal civil rights complaints and more than 350 of those investigations have so far been resolved, mostly (90%) in my favor.  

On December 19, 2022, I filed a Title VI complaint against UNC for its BIPOC*-only FERN: Fellowship for Exploring Research in Nutrition, and I shared a courtesy copy of that complaint with UNC General Counsel Charles Marshall and his staff (note that BIPOC = Black, Indigenous, People of Color). Within 24 hours of receiving a courtesy copy of my complaint, the FERN website was scrubbed of the BIPOC-only eligibility restriction and the fellowship is now open to all students regardless of race. UNC’s reaction was covered by the media including the article “UNC-Chapel Hill removes racial criterion for fellowship program limited to BIPOC amid civil rights complaint.” That quick 24-hour response reflects the fact that UNC’s General Counsel Office understands that all race-based discrimination for all of UNC’s educational programs is unlawful.

In addition to violating federal civil rights laws, race-based discrimination in UNC’s educational programs also violates UNC’s Statement on Non-Discrimination based on race, color, or national origin:

The University is committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment and to ensuring that educational and employment decisions are based on individuals’ abilities and qualifications. Consistent with these principles and applicable laws, it is, therefore, the University’s policy not to discriminate based on age, color, disability, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or veteran status as consistent with the University’s Policy on Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment, and Related Misconduct. No person, on the basis of protected status [including race, color or national origin], shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation under any University program or activity, including with respect to employment terms and conditions.

Note that discrimination based on “employment” is already prohibited by UNC’s Statement above.  

Following my 12/19/2022 Title VI complaint against UNC I found six additional programs and scholarships at UNC that discriminate based on race in violation of Title VI (and one that also discriminates based on sex) and filed the Title VI complaint below (see bottom email) on 12/26/2022. That complaint has been docketed by the Office for Civil Rights as Case #11-23-2067 and was opened for a civil rights investigation by OCR on 6/23/2023. I shared a courtesy copy of my 12/26/2022 complaint with UNC General Counsel Charles Marshall and his staff.

As you continue to guide UNC’s policy prohibiting all illegal race-based discrimination for admissions, educational programs, financial aid, employment, contracting, etc., perhaps it would be helpful to conduct a complete internal audit of all UNC units (schools, colleges, departments, diversity offices, etc.) for discriminatory scholarships, fellowships, awards, programs, events, etc. to help uncover other violations of Title VI in addition to the six violations currently under federal investigation. I am confident that there are other discriminatory programs at UNC that I have not yet discovered by reviewing UNC websites in addition to new programs that might be introduced that violate Title VI and/or Title IX.  

Ever vigilant,

Professor (em.) Mark J. Perry, Ph.D., University of Michigan

Senior Fellow, Do No Harm