Dr. Stanley Goldfarb explains the false premises behind Implicit Bias Training and details Do No Harm’s efforts in the states and Washington, D.C. to educate policymakers and leaders that this “training” should not be the basis for continuing medical education.
United States District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden ruled yesterday that eight states can continue a civil rights lawsuit against Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Xavier Becerra and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Brooks-Lasure. The case challenges a Biden-era rule that enables higher compensation for doctors who adopt an “anti-racism” plan. The order indicates the plaintiffs have “plausibly alleged” that the anti-racism rule is illegal because it’s not authorized by the Medicare statute.
Background: In May 2022, with the support of Do No Harm, Dr. Amber Colville and the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri and Montana sued the Biden administration. They argued that a HHS rule violates the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) by encouraging doctors to consider race when making important medical decisions.
As detailed in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs believe that racial discrimination of any kind has no place in medicine. They oppose the concepts of “anti-racism” and “equity” because they inject race-based decision making into our health care system without any medical justification.
In response to the filing, the government moved to dismiss the case based on procedural technicalities and questioned whether or not the plaintiffs had legal standing to file the suit in the first place.
In yesterday’s Order, Judge Ozerden denied the government’s request to dismiss the case. Instead, he determined that while Dr. Colville does not have legal standing to sue at this time, the eight states have standing “due to injury to their sovereign interest in the enforcement of their laws.”
The states will move forward, and in a solid sign for the future, the Court explained that the challengers have “plausibly alleged” that the anti-racism is illegal because it’s not authorized by the Medicare statute.
“We are encouraged by Judge Ozerden’s order that the case can continue and our concerns have merit,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm. “Discrimination has no place in the provision of Medicare services nor anywhere else in medical practice.”
The case is being heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Gulfport Division.
About Do No Harm
Do No Harm is a diverse group of physicians, healthcare professionals, medical students, patients, and policymakers united by an ethical mission: Protect healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology. They believe in making healthcare better for all – not undermining it in pursuit of a political agenda. Learn more at www.donoharmmedicine.org.
The US. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has declined to investigate a complaint against Harvard Medical School (HMS), despite clear evidence of racial discrimination.
In 2021, HMS introduced the Black Staff Caucus (BSC) at its Longwood campus to address “the national discourse on racial injustice.” Black staff members at HMS are invited to participate this affinity group, described as “a safe space where Black Staff in the Longwood Medical Area” can collaborate. The Longwood Campus in Boston is the home of Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and the Wyss Institute.
Laura Morgan, Do No Harm’s program manager, filed a federal civil rights complaint against HMS regarding the BCS in February 2023. The complaint asked the OCR to investigate the university for illegal race-based segregation and racial discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
However, instead of investigating the discrimination complaint OCR referred the case to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), citing the complaint as an allegation of “employment discrimination” covered by Title VII (not Title VI) and notified HMS of the referral. OCR could have reviewed the complaint and either requested more information, opened a formal investigation, or dismissed the case outright if the review found no evidence of discrimination. A referral to EEOC is a departure from standard operating procedure.
“In the last year OCR agreed to evaluate eight different Title VI complaints against universities sponsoring segregated race-based affinity groups for faculty and it opened three of those complaints for federal investigations,” said Mark Perry, senior fellow at Do No Harm. One of those federal civil rights investigations was for race-based affinity group sessions for students and employees at Harvard’s T.H. Cham School of Public Health. After the school agreed to discontinue the racially segregated sessions, OCR closed the investigation.
Under Title VII, complaints to EEOC generally require a complainant with legal standing, i.e., a Harvard employee who claims he or she was personally discriminated against on the basis of race. “Referrals to EEOC is a recent departure from OCR’s past practices,” Perry stated, “and might be a strategy to derail a valid complaint.” The Black Staff Caucus is still an active affinity group at HMS, and recently affirmed that its purpose is “to provide a new model of engagement for Black staff members.” BSC members are expected to “promote the values of diversity and inclusion” and “support and uphold” the Harvard Medical School Diversity Statement. The BSC sponsors three “signature programs,” including “equity and social justice.”
Campus affinity groups that segregate faculty, students or staff based on race are examples of racial discrimination under Title VI that the Office for Civil Rights has investigated in the recent past. Why is Harvard apparently getting a pass for its Black Staff Caucus?
Is your school sponsoring discriminatory affinity groups for faculty, staff, or students? Please let us know via our secure online portal.
Just how woke is Kentucky’s University of Louisville School of Medicine (ULSOM)? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.
Here’s the background. In November 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges released a report showing that the vast majority of medical schools have embraced identity politics, despite their divisive and even discriminatory nature. The report was based on surveys of specific medical schools, which the AAMC didn’t name.
For the sake of transparency and accountability, Do No Harm submitted freedom of information requests to public medical schools nationwide, including ULSOM. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Kentucky taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.
Here’s what the University of Louisville School of Medicine has self-reported:
All told, ULSOM reported that it has instituted 78.7% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.
Kentucky taxpayers help fund the University of Louisville School of Medicine. They, and the policymakers who represent them, should ask why they’re giving so much money to an institution that’s putting divisive and discriminatory ideology at the heart of medical education. More importantly, they should ensure ULSOM stops, and soon.
MaineHealth in Portland says it is the state’s largest employer, and its woke footprint is equally prominent.
The organization has a robust Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (ODEI) that has been keeping employees very busy with endless messaging, training, and activities related to its commitment of “advancing DEI across our system.” As noted in the 2022-2026 DEI Strategic Plan, one of MaineHealth’s objectives is to advance DEI education for leadership and all care team members, and there are several methods in place for accomplishing that goal.
These actions have been taking place at MaineHealth since August 2020, when Ryan Polly, Vice President of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion, addressed the organization’s “care team members” in an email signed by 24 company executives. This message states the need for MaineHealth to take “a closer look at our own shortcomings” regarding DEI efforts within the organization.
To establish “lasting cultural change” across the system, the executive team promised to:
The tide of woke rhetoric has continued ever since. In another communication, Polly provided employees with the MaineHealth Inclusive Language Guide for employees “who want to be supportive but feel confused about the [ever-changing] language landscape.” In this guide, users are advised to avoid terms like “mom and dad” and “father and mother” in favor of “parents, adults, family” to prevent the assumption of a “heteronormative family structure.” It also offers a list of “commonly used pronouns” for gender identity such as “Xe/Xem/Xyrs/Xyrself.”
In “Understanding Gender Identity & Pronouns,” employees can consult The Gender Unicorn if they still have questions about gender identities that are outside “the binary ends of the spectrum,” and have access to instructions on adding pronouns to their electronic profiles.
But the most troubling efforts promoted at MaineHealth are the creation of employee groups that are based on race/ethnicity and sexual orientation/gender identity. In an edition of the “Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion” newsletter, Polly introduced “Dream Sessions,” which were reported to be “open to all interested care team members.” However, Polly noted that some of the sessions were for “targeted groups;” specifically, BIPOC and LGBTQ+.
These groups are part of the “DEI at Work” initiative. DEI at Work is the ODEI’s strategy to involve MaineHealth employees in various DEI-related activities and trainings. For example, the “DEI Ambassador” program creates liaisons between the ODEI and local units within the system to help lead the cause and bring it into practice. In addition to Becoming a DEI Ambassador, “care team members” also have access to DEI education courses such as Effective Allyship in the Workplace; The Trans Patient Experience; Understanding Implicit Bias; and Microaggressions and Inclusive Communication. It also involves the current “Care Team Member Networks” (CTMN), which continue to endorse identity politics and segregation at MaineHealth. The BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) CTMN “promotes the success” of patients, staff, and leaders who belong to this group. The goal of the LGBTQ+ CTMN is to “foster an environment inclusive of the LGBTQ+ experience” at MaineHealth.
Why does this major health system need a constant stream of woke messaging to its employees? Importantly, why does it promote employee groups that separate them according to race and sex? Given Maine’s demographics, this entire narrative appears to be more performative in nature rather than producing real changes in health outcomes in the state’s residents. If the objective is to make everyone feel “welcomed, respected, supported, and valued to fully participate,” MaineHealth must reconsider its methods and messaging.
Is your healthcare employer engaging in identity politics by promoting groups that segregate employees based on race or sex? Do No Harm wants to hear from you.
Forget finding the “top doctor” in your area. Castle Connolly, which publishes the famous top doctor rankings, is now interested in connecting patients with physicians based on shared race. It’s the latest example of one of the most worrisome woke trends in health care – the re-introduction of racial segregation.
A tipster sent us an email they received from Castle Connolly, asking physicians to participate in its “diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative.” The email notes that Castle Connolly has never published information about the “diversity of our network.” The initiative will fix that, with the explicit goal of connecting patients by race.
Castle Connolly justifies this move by stating that “studies show patient outcomes and satisfaction in minority populations are higher when patients are able to choose a doctor with a shared background and experience.” That’s code for the company’s desire to pair black patients with black doctors, white patients with white doctors, and so on.
Contrary to the company’s claims, there’s no good evidence supporting this policy, which is known as “race concordance.” Just the opposite: The best and largest studies show that racial concordance has no health benefits. Naturally, woke activists dispute this, and they are willing to manipulate and cherry-pick data to bolster their baseless assertion.
Castle Connolly is also ignoring that racial concordance sows seeds of distrust in the doctor-patient relationship. It discourages black patients from seeing white doctors out of fear that their health may be in danger. It does the same for white patients, who will avoid black doctors. Is this really the message the “top-doctor” company wants to send?
Patients should always be free to pick the physician that’s best for them. But companies like Castle Connolly should never push anyone into race-based doctor-patient relationships, nor should they falsely claim that such a system is better for patient health. Health care is in a bad place indeed when racial segregation is somehow seen as good for patients.
This week, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened investigations into several universities for federal civil rights violations.
Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry was notified of OCR investigations opened at two institutions. Wake Forest University and the University of Virginia were included in a joint complaint for using the schools’ resources “to advertise, promote, host, and partner with” The Perry Initiative, an external third-party organization. As we previously reported, the initiative’s two programs (one for female high school students interested in orthopedic surgery and one for women in medical school) are restricted to applicants who “gender-identity as female or non-binary,” in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Laura Morgan, program manager at Do No Harm, filed complaints that resulted in investigations being opened against the University of Rochester and Thomas Jefferson University, two schools that are participating in unrelated but similarly named programs that are operating in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It’s clear that there continue to be many medical education institutions that engage in discriminatory practices with programs that violate longstanding federal civil rights laws. We look forward to the OCR’s investigations resulting in making the offerings at these four universities available for all students – regardless of race or sex.
If you are seeing programs or scholarships that discriminate on the basis of race or sex at your school, please let us know.
State lawmakers are quickly and correctly moving to restrict so-called “gender-affirming care” for children. Transgender activists are loudly claiming this will cause children to commit suicide. It’s a powerful claim, and at Do No Harm, we are firmly committed to protecting children’s mental and physical health. Yet the claims of suicide due to these laws are as false as they are alarmist.
Transgender activists used to know better. As the Manhattan Institute’s Leor Sapir notes, in 2017, pro-gender-affirming-care groups agreed not to blame “anti-LGBT” laws for causing suicide. Now, however, such accusations are rampant, driven by activists’ fear that they’re losing the policy fight. Yet the data don’t support the argument. As Sapir shows, “actual suicide in this population remains extremely rare,” with one United Kingdom study concluding that 0.03% of clinic-referred, transgender-identified youth committed suicide between 2010 and 2020. To be clear, even one suicide is too many. Digging down deeper further undermines activists’ claims.
It appears that such suicidal behavior is driven by other mental health conditions, and likely not by gender issues per se. Sapir reviews the evidence:
“Claims about trans identification being a proxy for suicidality typically rely on apples-to-oranges comparisons. They compare rates of suicidality among youth with trans identification or gender dysphoria with rates among youth in the general population. An apples-to-apples study would compare suicidality rates in the first group with suicidality among non-gender-distressed youth with similar mental health comorbidities (e.g., depression). A recent study did exactly that and found that the disparities in suicidality between gender-distressed and non-gender-distressed youth all but disappeared.”
It turns out that mental health issues are extremely common among minors with gender dysphoria, further undermining the claim that state policies are driving suicide:
“Studies from multiple countries that offer “gender-affirming care” have shown that the majority of minors referred to pediatric gender clinics are teenage girls with no history of gender-related distress before puberty and with at least one psychiatric diagnosis… In the U.S., one study found, 70 percent of pediatric patients are diagnosed with autism, ADHD, or some other mental-health problem prior to receiving a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.”
The conclusion is both unmistakable and heartbreaking: “It is more likely that teenagers with suicidal tendencies are gravitating toward a trans identity than that some kids are born transgender and are suicidal as a result of being an embattled minority.” In other words, transgender activists are using the suicide narrative to stop states from doing the right thing. State lawmakers should continue to pass laws that restrict gender-affirming care for children, instead of giving into a false, ideology-driven narrative that actually puts vulnerable boys and girls at risk.
Ibram X. Kendi, the most famous advocate of woke racial discrimination, is sad. That fact is clear in his recent CNN interview, which shows that the fight against wokeism has momentum. That’s a good thing, because when Kendi’s vision of “anti-racism” is losing, that means equality and justice are winning.
Why is Kendi sad? Because “the current campaign against what one conservative commentator calls ‘systemic wokeness’ is an effort to halt the antiracist momentum.” He continues: “The momentum was just crushed by a pretty well-organized force and movement of people who are seeking to conserve racism… [they’ve] tried to change the problem from racism to antiracism.”
False. We (and many others) are fighting against anti-racism precisely because it’s racist. Anti-racism demands that minorities be treated differently, for no other reason than skin color. As Kendi himself has said, “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Yet racial discrimination is never justified.
Kendi says that amid his grief, “It’s important to care for yourself as well. I’ve been figuring out ways to do that, particularly around my physical and emotional health.” Thank God he has access to a medical system that provides world-class care – treating everyone equally, regardless of race. We’ll keep fighting to protect that system and the principles that make it possible.
Iowa is the latest state to investigate divisive woke ideology at public universities. Do No Harm chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb sent a letter to the state Board of Regents praising this move, which was announced earlier this month, while urging officials to focus on medical schools. Divisive and discriminatory ideas are especially dangerous in medical education.
Dr. Goldfarb’s letter makes clear the stakes for Iowans:
“My organization has spent the past year investigating the extent to which education has been replaced by indoctrination at medical schools, including in Iowa. We have found that essentially every medical school has, to varying degrees, elevated radical politics at the expense of education, excellence, and ethics.”
“Consider what we discovered at the University of Iowa’s medical school. It offers a so-called “anti-racism resource guide,” which is divisive and has nothing to do with medicine. Anti-racism is grounded in the idea that racial discrimination is required to right past wrongs – a profoundly dangerous view. Additionally, the Department of Pediatrics is being trained on the divisive concept of “implicit bias” when hiring and promoting faculty. This is part and parcel of the ideological push to focus on race at the expense of expertise – a direct threat to the quality of education this Iowa medical school provides.”
Dr. Goldfarb concludes:
“Iowans deserve to know exactly how far the state’s medical schools have gone down this radical road. And this issue goes well beyond education. Ultimately, it affects the health and well-being of everyone who will one day be treated by the physicians these institutions teach. By specifically investigating medical schools, the Board of Regents can help protect Iowans and ensure that everyone in the state has access to the world-class health care they deserve.”
The Board of Regents launched its investigation after State Rep. Taylor Collins introduced legislation that would ban Iowa’s public colleges and universities from funding so-called “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” efforts. That’s a worthy policy, and Rep. Collins may also be interested in tackling woke medical schools in particular.
Kudos to Iowa’s leaders for standing strong on this issue. Let’s hope this is the start of a long-term effort to protect students and patients alike.
Things will be heating up even more than normal this summer at the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix (UACOM) as it launches a new “anti-racist curriculum.”
The UACOM Curriculum Committee has approved the integration of anti-racism principles into its Doctor of Medicine program, which will take effect on July 1, 2023. The Educational Program Objectives (EPO) policy states that outcomes are linked to competencies developed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), “forming the foundation of the educational curriculum.”
Do No Harm obtained a copy of the UACOM Curriculum Committee’s approved additions to the EPOs in Action Step 7 of the Anti-Racist Curriculum, which includes the competency of Medical Knowledge. The original text of objective #7 is “Recognize patient-focused care that considers a patient’s diversity (race, sex, ethnicity, culture, ability, disability, socioeconomic status, talents, language, religion, spiritual practices, sexual orientation, gender identity, biological differences, geographic region, age, country of origin and life experiences).”
However, the Curriculum Committee isn’t satisfied with stopping at “diversity.” The updated objective will read:
Recognize patient-focused care that considers a patient’s diversity/intersectional identities* and social determinants of health such as structural racism, sexism, ableism, ageism, transphobia, etc.
To ensure there is no confusion about the terminology, “intersectionality” is defined after the asterisk:
*Leading feminist and social justice theories and practices acknowledge that intersectionality, first coined by Kimberle’ Crenshaw, as legal terminology to recognize the unique experiences and legal challenges of Black women whom as a group experienced both racism and sexism. It is the ongoing examination of the overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination that communities face based on race, gender, ethnicity, ability, etc. It is our role to continuously examine the multiple forms and kinds of intersectional exclusions. The call for an anti-racist health care system – one which recognizes and addresses the intersectionality of systems of oppression – amplifies every day.
(Association of American Medical Colleges. New and Emerging Areas in Medicine Series: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Competencies Across the Learning Continuum, July 2022).
Is this really what passes as “medical knowledge” at the U of A College of Medicine? Arizona’s taxpayers and lawmakers need university administrators in the College of Medicine to explain why they are forcing their medical students to learn and practice discriminatory and divisive things in their curriculum. “Anti-racism” and “intersectionality” are ideologies invented and promoted by radical activists, not scientific facts based on the best available evidence. The University of Arizona, and other medical education programs that have surrendered their programs to the demands of the woke mob, must return to the business of learning how to recognize and treat illness and injury. The patients who will encounter these future doctors are depending on it.
If you are seeing a shift away from the science and toward wokeness in the healthcare curriculum at your school, Do No Harm wants to hear from you via our secure online portal.
The North Carolina General Assembly is investigating woke ideology at the University of North Carolina. That’s a positive and overdue move, and lawmakers should pay special attention to the UNC School of Medicine. It’s a hotbed of divisive and discriminatory ideas – none of which have anything to do education, but everything to do with radical activism.
We’ve looked into the UNC School of Medicine over the past year, issuing a comprehensive report in November. Our findings, in brief:
“The evidence is clear: Woke ideologies like anti-racism are now embedded pervasively into the curriculum and educational experience at University of North Carolina School of Medicine. The embrace of these radical political ideologies at North Carolina’s flagship medical school and the aggressiveness with which the school imposes them on students raises serious concerns for patients in North Carolina. It also generates questions about the rights of UNC SOM medical students to pursue their education free from being compelled to participate in and express support for political causes.”
We’ve also discovered that the UNC School of Medicine is one of the most woke in the country, scoring a 92% on the AAMC’s survey last year. And we’ve filed federal civil rights complaints against UNC, which offered woke programs that explicitly discriminated by race – as in, no white applicants allowed.
We’ve likely only scratched the surface of what’s happening at the UNC School of Medicine. The General Assembly has instructed the institution to produce an inventory of all training materials and in-house events for UNC employees that cover DEI-related topics. As part of their broader investigation of the institution, lawmakers should ferret out the truth at the medical school in particular. North Carolinians deserve to know what’s being forced upon the state’s future physicians. And the health of the state’s citizens depends on ensuring that medical education upholds the highest standards of ethics and excellence, instead of sinking to the lows demanded by woke activists.
We always knew the woke bureaucracy would fight back against any attempt to reform health care. Yet even we’re taken aback by what’s happening in Missouri and Tennessee. In both states, unelected officials are claiming that common-sense bills would endanger state revenues. Their bogus arguments deserve to be rebutted – and ultimately ignored.
Consider Tennessee. The state legislature is moving forward with a bill that prevents medical schools from forcing students and professors to hold woke views. Medical schools would also be required to list courses, seminars, workshops, and other training sessions in a publicly searchable database. And they would also have to keep using standardized testing in admissions, lest woke activists convince them to lower standards in the name of diversity. The bill has many other praiseworthy reforms.
Enter the woke bureaucracy. On March 12, the Tennessee General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee claimed the bill would incur millions of dollars in annual costs for the state and taxpayer-funded universities and institutions. It further claims: “The proposed legislation may result in increases in state and local expenditures associated with compliance measures, potential civil litigation and could jeopardize federal funding and accreditation status.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Woke bureaucrats simply hate the law – so they’re making outlandish claims to try and stop it.
It’s the exact same story in Missouri. State lawmakers are advancing a similar bill in the name of protecting medical students and patients. But the Committee on Legislative Research is trying to kill the bill using the most absurd statements imaginable. To wit: It says the bill could lead to a “loss of federal funding for non-compliance with DEI provisions and the resulting loss of facilities’ accreditations could be significant.”
How significant? The woke bureaucrats predict a “maximum loss of $2.2 billion annually.” Yes, you read that right – billion with a b.
This is woke fear-mongering at its finest. The bureaucracy doesn’t want lawmakers to bring medical schools back to reality, and they’ll say anything to stop the roll-back of woke domination of higher education. Here’s hoping lawmakers in Tennessee and Missouri ignore everything these bureaucrats say – and do the right thing for medical schools, students, patients, and health care as a whole.
Just how woke is California’s UC Riverside School of Medicine (UCR SOM)? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.
Here’s the background. In November 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges released a report showing that the vast majority of medical schools have embraced identity politics, despite their divisive and even discriminatory nature. The report was based on surveys of specific medical schools, which the AAMC didn’t name.
For the sake of transparency and accountability, Do No Harm submitted freedom of information requests to public medical schools nationwide, including the UC Riverside School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that California taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.
Here’s what the UCR School of Medicine has self-reported:
All told, UCR SOM has instituted 88.2% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.
California taxpayers help fund the University of California system. They, and the policymakers who represent them, should ask why they’re giving so much money to an institution that’s putting divisive and discriminatory ideology at the heart of medical education. More importantly, they should ensure the UC Riverside School of medicine stops, and soon.
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb and Benita Cotton-Orr discuss how we should refocus the health care reform conversation on improving outcomes for all patients rather than the current race-based approach to treatment.
On March 6, Do No Harm chair Dr. Stanley Goldfarb testified before the Missouri House Committee on Government Accountability, chaired by Rep. Doug Richey, about an important bill moving through the Missouri legislature. HB 489, sponsored by Rep. Ben Baker, would begin to root out woke mandates in Missouri’s public medical schools and medical providers – a critical step in the fight to provide world-class care to every individual, regardless of race.
Watch Dr. Goldfarb’s brief testimony here:
Dr. Goldfarb discussed the danger of elevating diversity to an unhealthy degree. He stated: “Diversity should not require that we subjugate quality and merit for the sake of simply having individuals of different skin colors.”
He further criticized woke claims that health care suffers from systemic racism, which activists blame for causing health disparities. Dr. Goldfarb states: “Disparities are real. They are a major problem in American medicine. But they’re not due to the way various ethnic and racial groups are treated in the health care system.”
Finally, Dr. Goldfarb argued against a medical focus on non-medical issues, as woke activists demand:
“One of my great problems with spending large amounts of the medical curriculum on some of these issues of social conditions is that I as a physician can do nothing about equality of housing. I can do nothing about violence that occurs in communities. I can do nothing about food deserts.
I think these are important issues. They’re issues for you all – issues that the government and politicians and advocacy groups can work on. But my job as a physician, and the job we need to teach medical students, is to treat each patient, not as a member of a group, not as a black patient, but as an individual; not as a Jewish patient, but as an individual; not as a white patient, but as an individual who is unique and has unique medical problems.”
Missouri lawmakers are showing real leadership by debating these issues. Hopefully Dr. Goldfarb’s testimony will help pave the way for the bill’s passage – and the restoration of medical education and care grounded in equality and excellence.
Earlier this year, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) developed the Leading Across Multidimensional Perspectives (LAMP) Culture and Climate Survey, citing an objective to “assess the experiences of diverse students, faculty, and staff” in schools of nursing. Do No Harm received a copy of the survey questions from an anonymous tip, and what we found is alarming.
Leaders of the University of Southern Maine (USM) School of Nursing asked its students, faculty, and staff to participate in the survey, which covers five topic areas: Perceptions of Culture and Climate; Fair Treatment and Observations of Discrimination; Belongingness; Value of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; and Campus Services and Clinical Training. The data collected from the “thoughtful input” from these stakeholders is intended to determine what the schools need to do to “create an inclusive learning environment.” But, the questions reveal the AACN’s intention to perpetuate identity politics instead of concentrating on the quality of nursing education.
After asking for a rating on how “friendly, caring, rigorous, affordable, innovative, and safe” the USM School of Nursing is, respondents are asked to indicate how much they agree or disagree with statements such as:
Other questions address the participant’s level of agreement with statements about whether or not various identity groups are treated fairly at the USM School of Nursing.
The AACN survey does not ask if white students, faculty, or staff are treated fairly, but does want to know if “academic performance expectations are the same for Students of Color and white students.”
The Value of Diversity and Inclusion section begins by inquiring about the importance of promoting racial understanding and “enhancing the knowledge of and appreciation for” racial/ethnic and sexual orientation/gender identity groups and concludes by asking for a response to the statement, “My school should hire more faculty of Color.”
The survey ends with several demographic questions, including mandatory responses to “Do you identify as transgender?” and “What is your race/ethnicity?”
Why does the AACN have a need to know this information, and why is the USM School of Nursing asking students and faculty to participate? AACN claims to be “the national voice for academic nursing” while supporting professional nursing education. It is doing neither by conditioning nursing students to think of themselves and their peers as groups that are labeled according to identity instead of seeing them as individuals, which will inevitably be projected onto their future patients. The University of Southern Maine School of Nursing needs to instruct its students on how to be competent and caring nurses, not woke activists who are looking for bias and oppression in every encounter.
Laura Morgan is a registered nurse and is the program manager for Do No Harm.
The U. S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has opened an investigation vs. St. Louis University for a racially discriminatory program. The St. Louis University School of Medicine (SLUSOM) offers the Scholarship Program for Visiting Medical Students Underrepresented in Medicine in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences. According to the program application, applicants must “identify as a member of a group underrepresented in medicine” (URiM). In the eligibility criteria, SLUSOM refers to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) definition of URiM:
Underrepresented in medicine means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population.” This lens currently includes students who identify as African Americans and/or Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American (American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), Pacific Islander, and mainland Puerto Rican.
Medical students who are not members of one of the five designated racial/ethnic groups above in bold are illegally excluded from applying, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.