The University of Florida College of Medicine Hits the “Delete” Button on a Discriminatory Visiting Scholars Program

The University of Florida College of Medicine (UFCOM) in Jacksonville has done some housekeeping on its website since a federal civil rights investigation into a discriminatory scholar program was opened.

In October 2022,Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) regarding UFCOM Jacksonville’s Visiting Elective Scholars Program in the Department of Pediatrics (archived page here). The complaint cited violations of both Title VI and Title IX, as eligibility to apply was limited to “Individuals belonging to a group considered underrepresented in medicine (Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, and LGBTQ+).”

Figure 1. Eligibility criteria for UFCCOM-Jacksonville Department of Pediatrics Visiting Elective Scholars Program (archived page).

OCR referred the case for investigation, which was opened on April 10, 2023. However, a recent review of the UFCOM-Jacksonville website shows that it has been scrubbed clean of any evidence of the program, with no indication that it has been moved to another location.

Figure 2. URL that formerly housed the UFCOM-Jacksonville Department of Pediatrics Visiting Elective Scholars Program (https://pediatrics.med.jax.ufl.edu/404/?aspxerrorpath=/visiting-elective-scholars-program/)

UFCOM has used this tactic before. Last November, in response to media coverage of our comprehensive report, UFCOM permanently removed divisive and ideological material from its admissions homepage and DEI-related resources.

If you are aware of a scholarship, fellowship, or other program that violates federal civil rights laws at your school or institution, please inform us. Do No Harm will conduct a review and will take appropriate action if the program is discriminating on the basis of race or sex.  

Dear Medical Schools: Don’t Defy the Supreme Court

How will medical schools respond to the Supreme Court’s recent ban on affirmative action? Essentially every medical school practiced this race-based discrimination before the ruling. Now the man who took this issue to the Supreme Court is warning educational institutions to follow the law and do what’s right.

Edward Blum, who founded the organization at the heart of the case, has sent letters to 150 colleges and universities. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote that it is “incumbent on your institution to ensure compliance with this decision, starting with this admissions cycle.” The letters went to the schools’ presidents, deans of admission, and general counsels.

Medical schools have a choice to make. Some may try to get around the ruling by creating new race-based admissions options, such as scholarships that are restricted to people with certain skin colors. This approach violates the spirit of the ruling, and more importantly, the letter of federal law. Medical schools may also try other creative ways to continue discriminating, such as prioritizing students from gerrymandered zip codes.

This cannot be allowed. The best – and only valid – option is to treat every applicant equally, recruiting medical students based on merit. That’s what medical schools are supposed to do, not least because it leads to the best possible physicians who will provide the best possible care.

Kudos to Edward Blum for bringing this fight so far – and for continuing the fight until equality fully wins. Every American should hope this cause succeeds, and Do No Harm will do our part to ensure it happens.

Medical Schools Shouldn’t Teach “Structural Racism”

The Supreme Court has ended affirmative action at medical schools, but some activists want to keep divisive, race-focused education firmly in place. Look no further than recent commentary published in the Milbank Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal published on behalf of the Milbank Memorial Fund. The commentary calls for accreditors and policymakers to force medical schools to teach more about “structural racism.”

The Milbank Memorial Fund has spent more than 100 years shaping medical school practices and medical policy. In a recent foray in this field, its quarterly journal published a comprehensive plan to make medical education even more divisive and discriminatory than it already is. The plan has three key planks:

  • The Liaison Committee on Medical Education should develop and promulgate specific learning objectives and curricular offerings that require medical schools to teach about structural racism and antiracist medical practice in ways that are robust and standardized.
  • The federal government, through the Health Resources and Services Administration, should prioritize support for antiracism education in medical schools, residency, and continuing medical education in similar ways and with similar effort in scale and scope to its support for primary care, providing technical assistance and grants for programs across the educational spectrum that provide antiracist training.
  • State governments should mandate, as part of continuing education requirements for physicians, 2 or more hours per recertification cycle of antiracist training.

Nowhere do the authors provide any evidence that their recommendations would help improve the quality of care that doctors provide. Activists are simply hoping against reason and common sense that doctors can become trained and radicalized in topics like housing policy, education policy, and other topics native to fields like sociology and economics. These are not harmless goals. Rather, intense fixation on race crowds out the study of medicine. The more time doctors learn about so-called structural racism, the less time they spend learning to treat cancer, heart disease, or broken bones.

And what is structural racism? If it is economic, disadvantage, violent neighborhoods, poor K-12, education, and wealth differentials, what are doctors to do to mitigate these factors? Historically, when patients have had economic concerns regarding the cost of care or prescription medications, referral to social workers accomplished all that could be done to address these concerns. Current medical school curricula include discussions of social factors. Total revamping of the curriculum to expand more time on these issues is simply foolish.

And as the plan makes clear, the foundation wants policymakers and accreditors to force medical schools down this road.

They should do nothing of the kind. Accreditors and policymakers should ensure that medical education focuses on medicine, and medicine only. Anything less will further lower the quality of America’s future physicians – and jeopardize the care that the American people will receive.

The University of Washington Department of Medicine Must Answer the Office for Civil Rights Regarding Two Discriminatory Scholarships

In response to a federal civil rights complaint against the University of Washington’s (UW) Department of Medicine, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is investigating the school for illegal racial discrimination.

As noted in the complaint, UW operates two racially discriminatory programs that restrict eligibility based on race, color, and national origin. Both programs are described by the University as “a funded program designed to give students with diverse backgrounds a chance to experience the training that the University of Washington Department of Medicine has to offer.”

  • The Visiting Scholars Program: Eligibility is restricted to “applicants who demonstrate academic excellence and belong to groups that are recognized as historically underrepresented in the health and science professions, including Black/African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latino, and Pacific Islander.”
Figure 1. Eligibility criteria for the Visiting Scholars Program at the UW Department of Medicine.
  • Eligibility for the Visiting Resident Scholars Program is restricted to “applicants who demonstrate academic excellence and belong to groups that are recognized as historically underrepresented in the health and science professions including Black/African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latino, and Pacific Islander.”
Figure 2. Eligibility criteria for the Visiting Resident Scholars Program at the UW Department of Medicine.

In violation of Title VI, medical students who are not members of the five racial/ethnic groups listed in the eligibility criteria (e.g., whites, Asians, and Middle Eastern/North Africans) are excluded from the Program and discriminated against on the basis of their race, color, or national origin.

Do No Harm anticipates the OCR’s investigation will result in making these scholar opportunities available to all applicants, bringing the University of Washington Department of Medicine into compliance with federal law that prohibits racial discrimination.

Law Firms Warn Med Schools: No More Discrimination

Medical schools need to follow the Supreme Court’s new ruling that bans the racial discrimination known as affirmative action. That’s the timely message from two legal groups, which are publicly warning medical schools to stop their racial discrimination, which Do No Harm has long highlighted.

To start, the Liberty Justice Center is launching a major campaign “to notify more than one hundred and fifty medical schools across the country regarding their legal obligation to end race-based admissions policies in response to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.” It’s also “prepared to challenge any higher educational institution that continues to discriminate against students, faculty, or board leaders.”

America First Legal is also leading the charge. It has sent a letter to 200 law schools warning them of the “consequences” they will face if they “fail to comply with or attempt to circumvent the Court’s ruling.” While the letter was not addressed to medical schools, this warning applies equally to them.

Do No Harm has found, primarily through freedom of information requests, that almost every medical school has racially discriminatory admissions policies. We’ve also filed more than 100 federal civil rights complaints about racially discriminatory scholarships at medical schools, leading to numerous federal investigations. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, we’re doubling down on holding medical schools accountable for discriminating on the basis of race.

So are others. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has already sent a letter to his state’s colleges and universities, stating that “Missouri institutions must identify all policies that give preference to individuals on the basis of race and immediately halt the implementation of such policies.” The University of Missouri quickly announced an end to all race-based financial aid. Other state attorneys general are likely to issue similar warnings.

The Supreme Court was right to end this racial discrimination. Now it’s time to ensure this ruling is followed. Kudos to all the law firms and leaders who’ve joined Do No Harm in fighting for equal treatment and colorblind merit.

The School of Medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center is Under Investigation by the Office for Civil Rights

The medical school at Ole Miss, located in Jackson at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for a discriminatory scholarship.

The Underrepresented in Medicine Student Clerkship and Externship Support: Dr. Godfrey Arnold Scholarship is offered through the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and provides at $1,500 per month stipend to awardees. However, only “members of underrepresented in medicine groups as defined by the AAMC” are invited to apply.

Figure 1. Underrepresented in Medicine Student Clerkship and Externship Support: Dr. Godfrey Arnold Scholarship at the University of Mississippi School of Medicine.

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) definition of “underrepresented in medicine” is noted on its website:

Before June 26, 2003, the AAMC used the term “underrepresented minority (URM),” which consisted of Blacks, Mexican-Americans, Native Americans (that is, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), and mainland Puerto Ricans. The AAMC remains committed to ensuring access to medical education and medicine-related careers for individuals from these four historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups.

Figure 2. AAMC definition of “underrepresented in medicine.”

An email inquiry to the education administrator for this scholarship confirmed that the program is using the 2003 AAMC definition as a guideline for who is invited to apply. This means that individuals who are not members of one of the four racial/ethnic categories described above are not invited to apply for the Arnold Scholarship. This is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision banning race-based considerations in college admissions, and state legislative efforts to remove DEI from higher education, we call on the University of Mississippi School of Medicine – and all academic medical institutions – to abandon discriminatory practices and bring themselves into compliance with federal law.

Federal Civil Rights Investigation of Indiana University School of Medicine Comes to a Close – But Is the Institution Still Engaging In Racial Discrimination?

The Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) was forced to respond to a federal civil rights complaint and investigation into a discriminatory program filed by Do No Harm. However, that response – and IUSM’s ongoing actions – indicates the school doesn’t intend to end its discriminatory programs.

In late 2022, we reported that IUSM was under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for violations of Title VI and Title IX in its Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective. At the time of the complaint and investigation, the eligibility criteria stated that eligible applicants were limited to those belonging to specific racial/ethnic groups and/or sexual orientation identities.

Figure 1. IUSM URiM Visiting Elective Program eligibility criteria (July 23, 2022).

After the investigation was opened by the OCR in December 2022, IUSM changed the eligibility language, removing the race/ethnicity and sexual orientation criteria and replacing it with the statement, “Preference will be given to applicants whose personal statements establish that their background and/or perspective will contribute to IUSM’s diversity, equity, and inclusion goals.”

“The original eligibility was restricted to medical students who identify as one or more of the three diversity categories of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and LGBTQ+,” said Mark Perry, senior fellow at Do No Harm. “Those restrictions have been removed, and IUSM also removed any mention of Race/Ethnicity on the program application,” he stated. As a result of these modifications, the OCR notified Perry that has closed the investigation as of July 3, 2023.

“However, IUSM hasn’t fully committed to stop discriminating,” Perry continued, “because the name is still the same and the program description still shows intent to favor applicants who are ‘underrepresented in medicine.’” The program description on its webpage states:

Indiana University School of Medicine is working to diversify the workforce by graduating more physicians from underrepresented groups and ensuring that all trainees are prepared to provide culturally competent care for patients from all walks of life. The Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective Program supports 4th year medical students and qualified 3rd-year medical students attending a U.S. medical school including U.S. territories, from underrepresented backgrounds in medicine.

Further evidence of IUSM’s discriminatory actions is seen in its Underrepresented in Medicine Resident Scholar program, which attempts to circumvent federal law by stating:

The Underrepresented in Medicine Resident Scholar program is open to all IU School of Medicine residents and fellows, with intentionality towards Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx or other diverse perspectives.

Perry has filed an additional complaint with the OCR for another violation of Title VI by the Indiana University School of Medicine.

California’s Reparations Committee Reaches Into Medical School

,

It’s well known that a California government committee is demanding $1.2 million “reparations” payments to qualifying black people. Yet it’s also worth noting that the committee has demanded that all California medical schools implement so-called “anti-bias training.” It’s a clear-cut attempt to make divisive and discriminatory ideology an even bigger part of the Golden State’s medical education system.

The committee’s demands are explicit:

To address discrimination against African Americans in health care, the task force recommends the legislature add the completion of an evidence-based anti-bias training and an assessment based on such training to the graduation requirements of all medical schools and any other medical care provider programs in California receiving state funding.

In addition to doctors and nurses, the list of educators who would be covered includes “mental health professional programs (psychologists, Ph.D, or Psy.D), masters-level programs in psychology or therapy (for counselors, clinicians, and therapists), and programs for clinical social workers.” The committee also wants to extend bias training to dentists.

The problem is that anti-bias training is itself profoundly biased. It is grounded in the idea that white and Asian people are inherently racist and oppressors, while people of other races (especially black and brown people) are inherently victims. This worldview is discriminatory, and in the context of medical education, anti-bias training pushes future doctors to treat people differently based on skin. That’s racist – and wrong.

The most common methods of bias training, such as the so-called “implicit association test,” have been shown to be deeply flawed. Even its creators have acknowledged that it doesn’t work. California should be steering clear of anti-bias training, which is indefensible, ineffective, and deeply insulting to people of all races. It’s one more reason why the state’s reparations committee shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Trans activists aren’t ready to tell the truth about Europe

,

When will transgender activists tell the truth about Europeans reversing course on so-called “gender-affirming” care for kids?

Several weeks ago, the Ohio House Public Health Committee heard testimony from critics and proponents of House Bill 68, which would prohibit medical transition (i.e. puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries) for children expressing gender dysphoria. One of the opponents of the bill was Christopher Bolling, a retired pediatrician who coauthored “several American Academy of Pediatrics policy statements and clinical practice guidelines.”

After his prepared remarks, Dr. Bolling was asked to discuss policy changes in Europe.

Dr. Christopher Bolling testifying before the Ohio House Public Health Committee regarding House Bills 68.

Representative: Talk a little bit about where the evidence stands in terms of gender-affirming care and then maybe even what people are referencing about other countries. I think there’s a lot of confusion.

Dr Bolling: There is a lot of confusion…In other countries, I would really encourage you to drill down. The Tavistock situation gets brought up a lot. It’s a lot about decentralization of gender-affirming care across the National Health Service. There’s also a lot of discussion around the Swedish and Scandinavian models. In all these circumstances my colleagues in Europe are discussing what’s best for these patients. They’re not talking about banning the care.”

Dr. Bolling only added to the confusion. Indeed, these characterizations are plainly deceptive. The Tavistock gender clinic in London was ordered closed after years of whistleblower complaints and an NHS investigation that rated their services as “inadequate.” Among the concerns raised: Doctors were rushing kids into treatment and initiating puberty blockers after a single consultation.  Moreover, they were not conducting appropriate differential diagnosis, especially for kids with a history of trauma or those on the autism spectrum.

British clinical guidelines were informed by the “Dutch Protocol” which was written when the pediatric incidence of gender dysphoria was vanishingly rare and when most cases were natal males, a balance that has since shifted to 3:1 in favor of natal females. British health officials retain enough political courage to recognize that the dramatic shift in referrals can be linked to social and cultural factors (i.e. social contagion) and that higher guardrails are needed to prevent harm.

The recommendation to delegate services away from Tavistock emphasizes that a multidisciplinary approach to treatment demands “strong links to mental health services.” Unlike the American healthcare establishment, British medical experts acknowledge that expressions of dysphoria often arise from emotional or psychosocial disturbance rather than vice-versa. 

Pediatric gender services in the U.K. are being shifted toward clinical research settings (i.e., “decentralized”) precisely because Tavistock—like American gender clinics and professional medical associations— was not adapting to the explosive growth in referrals and the growing risk of transitioning kids who would be harmed by these irreversible “treatments.”

Changes in Sweden were similarly compelled by explosive growth in the medical transition of children. The Swedes too reject the theory that more kids are suddenly discovering their truer and happier selves. As one expert there frames it, “tolerance has been high in Sweden for at least the last 25 years, so you can’t say it has changed.” The decision to limit the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to clinical research settings is being done to ensure that these interventions are only provided in the most “exceptional” cases, a protocol that was easier to follow fifteen years ago when the incidence of dysphoria among natal girls was 1500% lower.

It all begs the question: Why deceive on what is happening in Europe when reality is so easy to discover? The plain truth is that activists must lie about it. “Gender-affirming care” for kids is a consensus-based rather than evidence-based practice. The revelation that the consensus doesn’t even extend as far as some of the world’s most progressive countries is so politically damning that its acknowledgement would almost certainly force the reckoning that activists are hoping to stave off.

The U.S. has become an extreme outlier when it comes to pediatric gender medicine. Activist gaslighting won’t allow it to remain that way forever. 

Ian Kingsbury is the Director of Research for Do No Harm.

Do No Harm Applauds the Decisions of the United States Supreme Court

Do No Harm applauds the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the Students for Fair Admissions cases. Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that our Constitution and laws are color-blind; that every person, no matter their skin color, is equal under the law. 

For decades, the Supreme Court allowed universities—both public and private—to discriminate against applicants based on their race. It told universities, including medical schools, that racial discrimination is legal so long as they adopt a “diversity” rationale. No more. The Court unambiguously ruled that the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit universities from discriminating against any applicants because of their race, including Asian and white applicants.

The rulings expose racially discriminatory policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, but they apply equally to all universities that receive public funding, including medical schools. Because of these decisions, medical schools can no longer racially discriminate against applicants.

“Do No Harm celebrates these landmark decisions with students all over the country who have suffered discrimination because of their race,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm. “Do No Harm will monitor universities to ensure compliance with the Court’s race-neutral mandate. If universities resist these rulings and continue to racially discriminate, Do No Harm is prepared to take legal action on behalf of its members.”

Do No Harm Files Amicus Brief with OCPA to Protect Minors from Gender Ideology

On Tuesday, Do No Harm filed an amicus brief alongside the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) in defense of Oklahoma’s law prohibiting the practice of experimental gender medicine on minors. In the brief, Do No Harm and OCPA make three points: (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 the recommendations of politically motivated medical interest groups who peddle nothing more than ideology dressed up as “science”; and (3) even if legal briefs assert that there is a supposedly “robust” and “rigorous” screening procedure for experimental gender medicine, according to public reporting, many practitioners of experimental gender medicine oppose any screening that restricts a minor’s ability to obtain puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. A decision on the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is expected in late July or August.

For the full amicus brief for Peter Poe v. Gentner Drummond, see below or click here.

DNH-and-OCPA-Amicus-Brief_06.27.2023Download

The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Has More Discriminatory Programs to Address

The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) is once again under investigation for federal civil rights violations.

As we reported in January 2023, UNC-CH continued to offer programs that violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, despite being investigated for racial discrimination for sponsoring the Fellowship for Exploring Research in Nutrition FERN program. This week, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) notified Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry that it has opened yet another federal civil rights investigation into UNC-CH for the six programs described in his December 2022 complaint.

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity and Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. We are optimistic that the Supreme Court will soon issue a ruling that racial preferences in university admissions decisions are illegal because doing so violates Title VI. At the same time, the Department of Education is conducting an examination of UNC-CH for applying racial preferences in multiple scholarships, programs, and events. Will the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill finally discontinue its legacy of illegal and discriminatory practices?

It’s Time to Review the Research Behind Pediatric Gender Medicine

, ,

Earlier this month the Do No Harm team attended the Endocrine Society’s Annual Meeting in Chicago, hosting a booth and urging members to reassess the nature and scope of its commitment to “gender-affirming care” so that American endocrinologists can provide the best evidence-based treatment for minors.

Do No Harm sponsored a booth at the Endocrine Society’s ENDO 2023 annual meeting

As part of our efforts on-site, we also published this commentary by Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Roy Eappen and used significant digital advertising to spread our message to those attending the conference.

Our experience confirmed what we have long suspected: medical organizations like the Endocrine Society are putting political demands ahead of the scientific process and patients’ needs, and that most practicing endocrinologists are deeply concerned about the Society’s elevation of transgender activism and would prefer strong guardrails to protect adolescents and children from a rush to transition.

In fact, not only do they have serious concerns, they are afraid to speak up about those concerns due to the political pressure they have faced since the Society came out in support of these treatments in 2017.

The Society has made it clear: those who do not walk the line will be ostracized.

We also spoke with numerous European endocrinologists who expressed genuine shock that the United States has not followed their lead and restricted – or outright prohibited – treatments for adolescents and children.

As we have previously shared, nations across Europe have instituted bans and noted that the science behind such treatments is sorely lacking – and in evaluating what science does exist, the risks to children far outweigh any benefits.

Do No Harm is calling on the Endocrine Society to withdraw its guidelines and conduct a thorough review of the latest research, much like European countries have done.

We will continue taking the fight to stop the woke takeover of medicine where it matters most.

1,000+ Medical Professionals Join Do No Harm in Condemning Racist Rhetoric Published by New England Journal of Medicine

Do No Harm’s petition has garnered the signatures of more than 1,000 healthcare professionals and hundreds of other individuals

Richmond, VA, 6/28/23 – Do No Harm, a medical watchdog group opposing divisive ideology in healthcare, announced that its petition condemning the recent publication of a shocking and offensive article in the New England Journal of Medicine has garnered signatures from more than 1,000 medical professionals. The New England Journal of Medicine article calls for segregating students in medical schools based on skin color, a proposal that has sparked widespread outrage and raised serious concerns regarding the publication’s judgment, values, and editorial process.

“We believe in a medical community that upholds the highest standards of inclusivity and equality,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “The publication of this article is deeply troubling and undermines the progress made in fostering collegiality and teamwork in delivering high quality healthcare. We call upon the New England Journal of Medicine to address this matter with urgency, accountability, and a commitment to rectify the situation.”

The petition, addressed to the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, demands a thorough accounting of how an article advocating explicit racial discrimination and racist treatment of certain students was allowed to be published.

The New England Journal of Medicine should follow an established editorial process that includes rigorous peer review to ensure scientific validity and ethical integrity. The publication of an article calling for racial segregation in medical schools is a signal that something has gone terribly wrong at this once esteemed journal. 

###

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With over 5,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and in 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 2,450 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

North Carolina Could Protect Medical Education by Overriding Veto

North Carolina is on the brink of reform. The state legislature has passed a praiseworthy bill that would begin to get woke ideology out of higher education, including medical schools. Yet Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed the legislation on June 16th. The state legislature may soon override the veto.

The bill that passed the state legislature tackles two big problems in medical education.

  • First, it protects medical educator’s free-speech rights. The bill prohibits medical schools from requiring faculty to endorse “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or prove their commitment to these divisive woke concepts. Many medical schools require this in so-called “DEI Statements,” which are nothing more than a political litmus test that ensures conformity of extremist thought.
  • Second, it protects medical educators from woke training. The bill prohibits so-called “implicit bias training,” which teaches that skin color and other characteristics determine whether someone is an oppressor or a victim. Implicit bias training, which many medical schools require, is fundamentally racist and divisive. It has no place in medical education.

These policies are common sense and urgently needed to prevent North Carolina medical schools from becoming even more woke and one-sided. Yet in his veto message, Gov. Cooper accused the legislature of opposing the creation of “a more effective and understanding workforce.”

This is misleading – and medically and morally wrong. The North Carolina bill would push medical schools to uphold high standards of education, instead of undermining those standards in service to divisive and discriminatory woke ideology.

Thankfully, the Senate has already overridden the Governor’s veto. The House will likely vote on an override motion before the month is out.

Another Medical Association Goes Woke

, ,

Another day, another medical association goes woke.

The latest example is the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R). Representing more than 10,000 medical professionals, it recently sent out a DEI survey that asks members to show how woke they really are.

The survey starts with the typical focus on members’ identity. It asks for a member’s gender, transgender status, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity. It only gets worse from there.

The survey also asks members to rank their familiarity with key woke concepts. The list includes ableism, ageism, allyship, implicit bias, nativism, equity, intersectionality, LGBTQI, microaggressions, racism, classism, and much more.

What do these divisive concepts have to do with physical medicine and rehabilitation? The survey never says, but then providing better care isn’t the focus. Determining a medical professional’s level of wokeness seems to be the real goal.

The survey goes on to ask how well the AAPM&R has integrated DEI into every level of the organization. The clear implication is that the association is going to make a full-court press to become as woke as possible. That appears to include indoctrinating members and pushing them to toe the woke party line.

The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is going the same way as virtually every other medical association. It’s putting divisive and discriminatory woke ideology ahead of its core mission of helping medical professionals provide better care. Patients in need of physical medicine and rehabilitation – beware.

A Letter to the President of the American Nurses Association

, ,

Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, Ph. D., MBA, RN, NEA-BC, FAAN
President, American Nurses Association
8515 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3492

Dr. Kennedy:

I have just finished reading the latest ANA position statement titled “Opposing Actions that Prohibit DEI Education and Programs,” and have several concerns that I feel are important to address with you.

I am a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist with 40 years of clinical practice and I am profoundly disappointed, sickened, and frankly, aghast at the content of these statements.  I am left to wonder what has become of an organization I have represented so proudly my entire career.  To see the ANA engaging with radical ideologies that reject standards of quality care delivery in favor of identity politics is disturbing. In my own state, the Kentucky Nurses Association hosted one of the most inflammatory and discriminatory courses I have ever seen with its “implicit bias curriculum,” complete with some very shocking photos and graphics with racist concepts.

Among the core values put forth by the ANA is the following:  “We are creative, nimble, open to change; we will never stop striving for excellence.” The DEI position statement is in direct contradiction to this stated value.  It strips every nursing academic body of the ability to identify the best and brightest candidates for nursing careers based on merit, achievement, and aptitude. A selection process that ignores candidate qualifications and emphasizes provider selection based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and alignment with divisive ideologies does not support a concept of excellence.

To make matters worse, corporate human resource department policies often shield organizations from the threat of an unlawful termination lawsuit – and subsequent bad press – instead of policing for patient safety. Is the sacrifice of standards of excellence in the name of DEI worth the risk of harm? Adding more marginally prepared nursing staff to an already compromised healthcare environment does not inspire confidence in the profession from those who place their trust in us, and backing the divisive tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion are only eroding that trust even further. Plus, lack of skill and talent will serve to negatively affect these nurses’ careers and future employability.

Administrators and policymakers in the ANA are often removed from the realities we in clinical practice face every day, especially when dealing with novice nurses.  My experience, and that of several of my peers in the education and professional development fields, has shown that these new grads often arrive on the unit with very limited clinical skills, ability to problem-solve, or competence in communicating with their patients. A lack of appreciation for or understanding of the traditional nursing mission, often accompanied by a poor work ethic and an attitude of entitlement. Definitions for microaggressions and constructs like implicit bias are readily verbalized while the five rights for medication administration are lost concepts. Institutions now provide “safe rooms” for the nursing staff to escape the stresses of the hospital environment, where they are given coloring books and crayons to ease their anxieties. Some have even had their mothers complain to nursing supervisors that their child isn’t being treated fairly or needs “special accommodations” to perform their patient care assignments. In contrast to your vision, I assure you that “lumps of clay” cannot be molded, cajoled, and otherwise created to become competent, professional nurses when their limited didactic training is used to indoctrinate them with radical ideology. 

It’s clearly one thing when major American companies make it known to the public that woke ideology drives their business models.  Customers can select a different beer, choose to shop at a different store, or decline purchase particular products.  But it’s a very insidious, dangerous, and deceptive mission to cover up this new woke nursing practice model that is certain to negatively impact patient care without revealing your discriminatory and divisive bias to patients. To take the once highly respected and trusted nursing profession to such levels of destruction baffles me.  What price is the ANA willing to pay to betray generations of nurses and destroy our standards of practice?  Discarding the nursing science that embodied truth and robust examination for destructive ideology in the name of DEI is a poor exchange that is fraught with detrimental consequences for the profession that I, and countless other nurses, have loved and given our lives to.

Dr. Kennedy, the nursing profession will suffer the detrimental consequences of these actions by the ANA long after you and I are no longer practicing nurses if you do not take action to reverse course on the divisive concepts currently being endorsed by the organization. Our profession has long been the most trusted among the public, and taking a stand on issues that are aimed at dividing us risks losing the trust of individuals we have taken an oath to protect from harm. It is time to get DEI out of nursing education rather than explicitly endorsing it.

Sincerely,  

Rebecca Wall, CRNA, MSN
Kentucky, U.S.A.

How To Save Medicine From Identity Politics

More About This Event

Diversity, equity, and inclusion mandates are transforming the focus of medical education and the healthcare profession at-large.

DEI has been elevated above merit and achievement as the basis for choosing medical students, scholarship recipients, and promoting faculty. An increasing amount of time is spent on woke ideology at the expense of the study of quality medical care and innovation.

More hospitals are requiring ‘implicit bias’ and ‘anti-racism’ training to maintain employment. The federal government is coercing doctors to implement anti-racism initiatives to receive higher Medicare reimbursements. Some of the most trusted medical associations in the country have shifted focus to DEI-related professional development.

The consequence of putting DEI ahead of merit and medical qualifications? A decline in the quality of the physician workforce and patient care – and a reduction in patient trust in their medical providers and systems.

Do No Harm is a new nonprofit that is dedicated to informing the public about the true nature of woke activities in health care and medical education. It’s time to understand the risks to the health care system and subsequently, to the health of the American people.

As Do No Harm exposes the crisis, they are also developing solutions to address it.

Please join us for a conversation with the Do No Harm Chairman, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, to discuss the DEI crisis facing medicine, the solutions on the table, and how Do No Harm is committed to positive change:

  • Date: July 12, 2023
  • Reception: 6:00pm
  • Lecture: 7:00pm
  • Location: Boar’s Head Resort, 200 Ednam Dr., Charlottesville, VA 22903

Dr. Goldfarb has spent more than 50 years in medical practice and education. A board-certified kidney specialist, he is a former Professor and Associate Dean for Curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. He has been widely published in medical journals and was one of the first to highlight the ideological corruption of health care.

Please contact Caroline Cyr at caroline@donoharmmedicine.org if you have any questions regarding the event.