a:9:{s:8:”location”;a:1:{i:0;a:1:{i:0;a:3:{s:5:”param”;s:8:”taxonomy”;s:8:”operator”;s:2:”==”;s:5:”value”;s:14:”content-author”;}}}s:8:”position”;s:6:”normal”;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:8:”modified”;i:1725992621;}
The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published an outright defense of racially discriminatory admissions practices at medical schools, under the guise of “affirmative action.” Our chairman, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, wrote the following response to this disturbing article.
My former colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine have written a defense of race-based medical school admissions that fails on many levels. (Hamilton RH, Rose S, DeLisser HM. Defending Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Undergraduate and Medical School Admission Policies. JAMA. 2023 Jan 10;329(2):119-120. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.23124. PMID: 36477254.) They argue that racial diversity of a medical school class leads to more students entering primary care training positions and more working in medically underserved areas. They also point out that studies show that minority patients are more likely to have “positive experiences with race concordant physicians,” meaning physicians who share the patient’s skin color. These claims are not supported by the evidence.
In a study of career choices of medical students cited by the authors, 55% of black medical students chose primary care fields (Pediatrics, Internal Medicine, and Family Medicine) for residency compared to 43% of white students. Of those, 57% of black students did not initially opt for further training in a medical specialty, but we know that many such residents work in a primary care position for a short time and pursue specialty training later. Some 47% of white students remained in a primary care specialty over the same period. That means, at most, that 31% of black graduates enter into primary care positions. Currently, 7.7% of medical students in the US are black. Under the scenario of equal representation compared to population, 13% of students would be black. Thus, if the cohort of black students was raised to 13% of all medical students, a nearly 100% increase, the percentage of black students entering the primary care fields would at most increase from 2% of the graduating medical students cohort to 4%. Given that some 22,000 students graduate from medical school each year, this would increase the number of black primary care physicians to approximately 800 per year.
Despite efforts to recruit more black students into medical school, the number has only reached 7.7% of all medical students even in the face of a commitment to increase qualified applicants to medical school. Thus, by the data cited above, currently only 400 black students initially enter primary care fields. On the other hand, currently, some 3,700 white and Asian medical students enter primary care fields each year without initially opting for specialty training. If this number were raised by only 9%, for example through incentive programs like student debt forgiveness, the same 400 person increase in the primary care cohort could be achieved without compromising the academic standards for admitting students to medical school now envisioned by advocates of race-based admissions.
Does this trade-off help black patients? Hamilton et al point to studies showing black doctors tend to choose to practice in “medically underserved areas (MUA’s)”. This is true, but do the authors realize that West Philadelphia where the august University of Pennsylvania Medical Center and its over 2000 physicians practice is a “medically underserved area” according to the US government? This is because the population characteristics including areas of poverty and high prevalence of elderly citizens count as much as any health care availability to the MUA designation. Therefore, we really have no idea about the practice characteristics of the cohort of black doctors who focus on serving black patients since the designation “medically underserved area” is more a political concept than related to health care availability. Moreover, studies from California show that the vast majority of physicians currently practicing in “medically underserved areas” are white.
The next question the authors address is whether black patients have better medical outcomes if cared for by black physicians – a phenomenon known as “race concordance.” Do No Harm has proven there is no valid evidence that clinical outcomes will improve if black patients have black doctors. In fact, the largest study of the question shows that not to be the case.
The authors nonetheless argue that black patients feel more “comfortable” with black doctors, but do we really want a country where skin color affects physician choice? For instance, would it be acceptable if white patients demanded white doctors? The criterion for entry into a field in which lives are at stake should only be based on the potential for providing the highest level of care. That capacity is independent of skin color.
Gaining entry into medical school is a privilege and not a right. If we begin to redress years of lack of opportunity with years of unearned benefits, we will have a health care system that may be more colorful yet may not fulfill its true mission of providing the American people with the best trained and most capable health care workforce. The job of medical education’s leaders is not to make sure that anyone who wants to be a doctor gets to achieve that goal. Rather, they should put patient well-being as the central output of medical education. If 25% or 50% of the medical students in the US were black or from some other minority group and were the most qualified individuals, that would be a successful physician workforce. It is not a function of skin color.
Contorting the admission process to medical school to improve health outcomes for black patients is a social experiment, not an evidence-based approach to reducing health care disparities. Why not work to improve access to our health care system through providing more community entry points rather than a wholesale re-engineering of the health care system? A successful outcome of the pending Supreme Court case in which Asian American students are seeking to end affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina could be the restoration of merit as the determining factor for entry into medical school. Patients deserve nothing less.
In response to a federal civil rights complaint filed against Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) for the School of Medicine’s discriminatory Faculty Diversity Scholars Program, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has referred the case to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – a first for Do No Harm’s OCR filings. Citing “government-wide regulations,” OCR sent the case to the St. Louis EEOC district office for investigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.
In WUSTL’s own words, the goal of the program is “to provide incentives to departments and programs that hire and retain faculty” from racial and ethnic populations that have been defined as “underrepresented in medicine” or “underrepresented in research.”
Considering the clear illegality of advertising faculty positions that are restricted to only four racial groups, what is the WUSTL School of Medicine thinking? Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry, who filed the complaint last July, says he has only seen this conduct in medical education. “Medical schools are so blinded by their obsession with diversity initiatives,” he said, “that they are inexcusably unaware of or unconcerned with their legal obligation to enforce Title VI and Title VII’s prohibitions of discrimination.”
Do No Harm is currently cooperating with the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office as it oversees the inquiry.
If you are aware of discriminatory faculty recruitment, hiring, and retention practices at your school, Do No Harm wants to hear from you via our secure portal.
We just discovered that America’s main medical school accreditation organization is forcing medical schools to adopt racial quotas. We unearthed this fact after the University of Utah School of Medicine responded to our FOIA request. Yet what’s also interesting is Utah’s response to race-based demands made by the Liaison Committee for Medical Education.
To put it bluntly, Utah’s premier medical school is doing bureaucratic busywork to make itself seem more woke.
We found that the LCME criticized the Utah School of Medicine for not having enough minorities or women in its faculty and administrative staff, as well as its student body. The LCME also required the school to provide an update on the remedial actions it subsequently took to right this supposed wrong. Here is Utah’s response:
- It created an “Indigenous STEM Youth Outreach Program.”
- It established a “Día de los Muertos/Day of the Dead Pre-Health Conference,” with the purpose of preparing “Underrepresented/Underserved pre-med students interested in a career in medicine or health on their journey.”
- It created a “Medical Admissions Preparatory Program (MAPP),” an 8-week summer program designed to assist premedical students from underrepresented backgrounds to strengthen their medical school application.
- It offered scholarship funding to support underrepresented populations.
These programs should be seen for what they are: An attempt by administrators to prove their woke street cred by pushing around paperwork. What’s more, they represent a waste of Utahn’s taxpayer money, and a weakening emphasis on medical education – at a medical school.
Bizarrely, the LCME seems okay with these activities. Its response to Utah states that the school addressed its concerns in several areas. Now Utah, taxpayers, policymakers, and patients should be the ones who are concerned. Why is the University of Utah School of Medicine wasting its time on woke bureaucracy?
Have you seen the woke bureaucracy at your medical school? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.
Editor’s note: The LCME submitted statements to Congress addressing this issue. Our response to those statements is here.
America’s main medical school accreditation organization is forcing schools to adopt racial quotas.
That’s what we just discovered after getting FOIA responses from the University of Utah School of Medicine. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits every U.S. medical school, criticized Utah for not being diverse enough – and then forced the school to take remedial action. The LCME, which is sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association, is completely out of line.
Our FOIA request found a trove of documents highlighting this issue. To start, we obtained part of the LCME’s accreditation report for the Utah School of Medicine. It made clear that the school was not complying with the LCME’s diversity standards:
“[D]ata show that 38.5% of full-time faculty and 22.2% of senior administrative staff are women. No offers for faculty and senior administrative staff positions were made in several of the school’s diversity categories (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander) for the 2018-19 academic year.”
The LCME also criticized Utah for not having sufficient “diversity/pipeline programs and partnerships,” a reference to the lack of diversity in its student body.
In other words, the LCME expects Utah – and every medical school – to offer jobs to candidates based on skin color and gender. When they fail to do so to a sufficient degree, the LCME pushes medical schools to do its bidding. Sure enough, the LCME told Utah exactly what to do:
“To compensate for unsatisfactory diversity: Provide an update on the activities of the Office of Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion since appointment of the new associate dean in AY 2019-20 and of the new assistant dean in 2020. In the update delineate any changes in programs and/or any new programmatic initiatives related to student, faculty, and senior administrative staff recruitment and retention for each of the school’s identified diversity groups.”
We’ll explore the school’s reaction in a subsequent blog. The bigger issue is this: The organization that accredits medical schools is responsible for putting ideology ahead of education at those some schools. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education should be investigated by state and federal policymakers – now.
Has your medical school been forced to go woke by an outside organization? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.
Missouri is moving to get divisive and discriminatory race-based ideology out of medical schools – and the medical establishment is throwing a fit. Look no further than a recent email Do No Harm obtained, which is from a listserv maintained by the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors (AFMRD).
The email is in response to Rep. Ben Baker’s new bill that seeks to stop medical schools from forcing “Critical Race Theory” and “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” on students and faculty. The bill is a response to the rise of such dangerous ideas at the medical schools associated with Washington University and the University of Missouri, where indoctrination is increasingly common. The bill has been introduced in the Missouri House and Senate, with passage possibly coming later this year.
Cue the outrage from the medical establishment. A subscribing member of the listserv sent out an email to other AFMRD members nationwide attacking the bill and explicitly seeking to stop it. The email asks “if any other states have tried this, or have experience quashing similar proposals.”
Translation: Radicalized medical associations don’t want policymakers or taxpayers keeping medical schools focused on medicine – because they’d rather keep pushing their extreme ideas.
The email lists all the Missouri bill’s provisions, all of which are common sense and would hold medical schools to higher standards – protecting future physicians and patients alike.
The sender then makes an extraordinary statement: “Not requiring learners to study or subscribe to DEI is in direct conflict with the organizations we are responsible to as program directors.” The meaning is clear: The medical establishment thinks radical indoctrination is now a crucial part of its job.
This backlash shows the urgent need for Missouri’s bill – and the same leadership is needed in other states. Here’s hoping Missouri lawmakers pass this legislation as soon as possible, for the sake of the state’s medical schools and patients.
Is your medical professional association forcing woke ideas on you? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.
The American Urological Association (AUA) excitedly announced its upcoming “Celebrating Diversity with the AUA” initiative to its members this week. The AUANews will publish this special issue in April and is seeking submissions “on all content related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in urology.” Among the suggested topic areas are clinical research, healthcare equity, and organizational change, which “are subject to peer review and editorial approval.”
Not all AUA members are as enthused about this announcement, however. Said one urologist: “Put a sock in it, please. I would rather read about urology.”
Put a sock in it, please. I would rather read about urology.
– AUA physician member
That’s sound advice.
Texas medical schools are discriminating on the basis of race – and that needs to stop. So says a new federal lawsuit filed on January 10th. It seeks to end the practice of so-called “affirmative action” at the Lone Star State’s medical schools and supports equality and fairness in applicant admission decisions.
The plaintiff is George Stewart, who “grew up in Texas with the desire to study science, become a physician and serve others with his gifting.” He “graduated from high school with a 4.39/4.0 GPA and from college at the University of Texas at Austin with a 3.96/4.0 unaudited GPA in Biology.” But he was rejected by six Texas medical schools, “while over 450 lesser qualified minority students, ranging as low as a GPA of 2.82 or an MCAT of 495, were offered admission.”
The lawsuit alleges that what’s really happening at these institutions is blatant racial discrimination:
“Each of the defendant medical schools and universities, along with nearly every medical school and university in the United States, discriminates on account of race and sex when admitting students by giving discriminatory preferences to females and non-Asian minorities, and by discriminating against whites, Asians, and men. This practice, popularly known as “affirmative action,” allows applicants with inferior academic credentials to obtain admission at the expense of rejected candidates with better academic credentials.”
Such discrimination is not only rampant, but also in clear violation of federal law:
“These race and sex preferences are illegal under the clear and unambiguous text of Title VI and Title IX, which prohibit all forms of race and sex discrimination at medical schools and universities that receive federal funds and make no exception for diversity-based affirmative-action programs.”
Do No Harm was quoted as part of a similar argument to the Supreme Court in a 2022 brief in the case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. The Court is set to decide that case soon, potentially ending affirmative action at universities nationwide – including medical schools.
Racial discrimination is unacceptable in medical school admission and anywhere else. Here’s hoping the federal courts return the principles of objectivity and merit to the process.
Have you been denied admission to a medical school because of affirmative action? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.
The Biden administration is withholding taxpayer money from hospitals that aren’t sufficiently woke – essentially bribing them to adopt divisive and discriminatory policies. That’s the reality of a little-known yet far-reaching rule the administration finalized last year. With a new Congress underway, investigating such blatant identity politics overreach is urgently needed.
The Biden rule comes from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Secretary, Xavier Becerra, who promised to make “equity” a central part of the department’s mission. The concept of equity demands that any differences in outcome be eliminated, even to the point of using racial discrimination. Within the context of health care, equity threatens to lower the quality of care for some patients in the name of making care equal for all.
The Biden rule accomplishes this goal by tying federal money that hospitals receive to their level of wokeness. To get reimbursement rate increases under Medicare and Medicaid, hospitals have to send the federal government data proving their commitment to health equity. In other words, this regulation is forcing hospitals to fixate on patients’ race instead of just their individual medical needs.
At 720 pages long, the rule mentions equity 380 times – or more than once every two pages. It is predicated on the idea that health outcomes indicate racism and bigotry by health care professionals, despite a complete lack of valid evidence. Even so, the rule creates a system in which the more woke a hospital is, the more taxpayer money it gets.
The Biden administration received significant pushback from health care providers about the draft version of the rule. Most notably, hospitals and doctors rightly pointed out that it could hurt patient health. HHS acknowledges this fact in the final version of the rule, stating in one place:
“Several commenters stated that linking payment to equity is inconsistent with the statutory requirements for calculating payment reductions. Some of these commenters observed that the payment system was designed to ensure equitable payments for hospitals that treat high-risk patients, not to advance patient level equity in outcomes.”
In other words, the Biden administration is endangering the health of high-risk patients in service to divisive and discriminatory ideology. Another section states the problem even more bluntly:
“A commenter expressed concern that linking payment to performance on equity
measures would change hospitals’ focus to factors outside of each patient’s medical diagnosis, thereby decreasing the quality of care.”
This criticism is spot on. By bribing hospitals to focus on race, the Biden administration is jeopardizing the world-class care that every patient of every race deserves. The only question now is when will Congress investigate this woke injustice?
Is the quality of care at your hospital or medical provider suffering due to woke mandates? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.
Bemidji State University (BSU) in beautiful northern Minnesota has been infiltrated by some ugly philosophies that are intended to divide, indoctrinate, and misinform its students.
Do No Harm was contacted by a parent who, while researching the school for a family member with an interest in healthcare, became quite concerned about the degree of divisive and radical ideology seen on the BSU website. Indeed, a visit to the BSU Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion confirms the school has a dedication to “transformative change” and “practices that center racial inequities within the classroom.” The strategic plan makes this even clearer with its priorities of infusing DEI into “academic curriculum and classroom conversations” and encouraging DEI-focused collaborations among campus departments.
Those departments include several health sciences programs. The Psychology department places a particularly troubling emphasis on radical ideologies and anti-racism. An example of its social justice position is featured on its home page and features a link to “strategies and steps to be anti-racist.” This letter to BSU psychology students (signed by nine faculty members) directs them to some highly controversial websites and instructs them to “learn about white supremacy and anti-racism” by accessing resources “on how white people can help dismantle racist oppression.”
Our research also uncovered six scholarships or programs at BSU that excludes certain applicants on the basis of race/ethnicity, sex, or both. A federal civil rights complaint has been filed by Mark Perry, senior fellow at Do No Harm, for multiple violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The complaint asks the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate Bemidji State University for illegal discrimination.
It’s not surprising that our parent tipster eliminated BSU from consideration, and told us:
I have an interracial marriage and my child is of mixed race. My whole family does not subscribe to this DEI agenda and would like people to be judged on their merits as a human being and not by their race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.
These are words to live by, and Bemidji State University should take note. And, the Minnesota taxpayers who support this school must insist on it.
Have you found radical ideologies at colleges and universities that offer education in the healthcare sciences? Let us know about it via our secure platform.
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb and Senior Fellow Benita Cotton-Orr discuss how, when studies are corrupted to support a certain predisposed outcome or political ideology, trust in the quality and accuracy of research at large wanes.
Good news: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis just ordered all state colleges and universities to detail their work on “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and Critical Race Theory.
This is especially important for medical schools, which are using divisive and discriminatory DEI and CRT ideologies in dangerous ways. Hopefully this investigation will kickstart the process of stopping woke indoctrination in Florida’s medical education.
The Governor’s order is crystal clear: All institutions must provide “a comprehensive list of all staff, programs, and campus activities related to diversity, equity, and inclusion and critical race theory.” Furthermore, “each institution must detail the costs of associated with the administration of each project or activity.” These responses are due on January 13th.
The order doesn’t explicitly name medical schools, but they should absolutely be covered. We’ve detailed how Florida state medical schools are some of the most woke in the nation:
- The University of Florida College of Medicine is infusing Critical Race Theory “anti-racism” into its entire Doctor of Medicine program, as we proved in a comprehensive report.
- The UF College of Medicine also offered a scholarship that explicitly banned whites from applying, causing us to file to federal civil rights complaint that forced the school to abandon the scholarship.
- Florida Atlantic University Schmidt College of Medicine forces applicants to prove how they believe in “anti-racism” and oppose “systemic racism.”
- The FAU College of Medicine also offers extremely offensive and divisive staff training videos, which include statements like “Whites, your life reflects and reproduces whiteness” and “Systemic racism is you.”
The list goes on. It’s all but certain that every Florida state medical school is pushing DEI and CRT on faculty and students. Kudos to Governor DeSantis for digging into this crisis. It’s the first step to getting divisive and discriminatory ideology out of medical school and all of health care.
Do No Harm recently reported about our federal civil rights complaint filed against the University of North Carolina for promoting and offering the Fellowship for Exploring Research in Nutrition (FERN) program. Eligibility was limited to “Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC)” students, which is prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. UNC administrators acted to correct the information within 24 hours of learning about the complaint.
Yet, UNC-Chapel Hill has not addressed all its discriminatory programs. Mark Perry, senior fellow at Do No Harm, has filed an additional federal civil rights complaint against the university for multiple violations of Title VI, as well as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
- The Light on the Hill Society Scholarship Program is a single-race, Black-only scholarship that illegally excludes non-Black students in violation of Title VI.
- The Joseph Cooley and Kathleen Cullins High Endowed Scholarship Fund is a single-race, Black-only scholarship that illegally excludes non-Black students in violation of Title VI.
- The Julius Peppers Endowed Scholarship Fund is a single-race, Black-only scholarship that illegally excludes non-Black students in violation of Title VI. From the original announcement:
- The Well-Being Initiative for Women Faculty of Color to Promote Professional Advancement in Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Research discriminates on the basis of both race and sex.
- UNC-CH is using its Scholarship Resources page to assist its students to find external, third-party scholarships that discriminate on the basis of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color or national origin.
- The Gillings School of Global Public Health held a racially discriminatory event on August 11, 2022, titled BIPOC New Student Meet and Greet. Non-BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) students, staff, and faculty were not invited to the event.
This complaint is asking the Office for Civil Rights to promptly investigate and correct the illegal activities the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill is engaging in with its scholarships and sponsored programs.
Have you been excluded from a scholarship or fellowship at your medical or nursing school because of discriminatory inclusion criteria? Do No Harm wants to hear from you, and you may remain anonymous if you wish.
The University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine is the latest medical program in the UC system to be investigated by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for illegal race-based discrimination. The investigation was opened in response to a federal civil rights complaint filed by Mark Perry, senior fellow for Do No Harm.
OCR is responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race by academic programs that receive federal funding. UCSF School of Medicine is violating Title VI with its Racial Affinity Caucusing Groups (RACG; archived page here), which advertises its purpose on the School of Medicine’s website (bold added):
RAGC (sic) recognizes that the work that Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) are doing to process, heal, and dismantle racism is different from the work thaft (sic) white people need to do. This article explains the importance of having protected spaces for people to process.
UCSF School of Medicine is using these “protected” (i.e., segregated) spaces to engage in “anti-racism work.” Ibram X. Kendi, the main proponent of anti-racism, says, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” What types of discriminatory activities are the UCSF Racial Affinity Caucusing Groups conducting in these “protected spaces?” But the better question is the one the UCSF School of Medicine actually asks itself: Why have affinity groups based on race? The taxpayers of California deserve an answer.
In response to a federal civil rights complaint filed in August by Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened an investigation into illegal race-based discrimination by the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine.
The Diversity in Medicine Visiting Clerkship Award supports fourth-year medical student groups who are “traditionally underrepresented in medicine (URiM).” The USC Keck School of Medicine defines URiM as “black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.”
Discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Further evidence that the clerkship is restricted to specific racial/ethnic groups is seen in the scholarship application link.
Recipients of the Diversity in Medicine Visiting Clerkship Award in the Department of Emergency Medicine will receive a stipend of up to $2,000 to cover travel and housing.
Are you aware of a scholarship or fellowship at your medical or nursing school that contains discriminatory inclusion criteria? Do No Harm wants to hear from you, and you may remain anonymous if you wish.
Just how woke is Michigan’s Wayne State University School of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.
Here’s the background. In October 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 Wayne State University School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Michigan taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.
Here’s what the WSU School of Medicine has self-reported:
- It has adopted racially discriminatory admissions practices under the guise of “affirmative action.” This means it’s potentially lowering standards in the name of diversity, thereby threatening patient health.
- It has a “dedicated office, staff, or resources” dedicated to DEI. This means there’s a permanent woke bureaucracy pushing ideology on faculty and students.
- It lobbies for woke policies at the federal, state, and/or local levels. This means it’s wading into toxic public debates instead of fully focusing on educating future physicians.
- Its administrators are active within local, regional, and national forums to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. This means it’s wasting resources that would be better spent on real medical education.
All told, WSUSOM has instituted 87.0% 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.
Interestingly, WSUSOM reported on its DICE Inventory that it does not provide scholarships for students from diverse backgrounds. However, the Department of Emergency Medicine sponsors the Detroit-Regional Elective Scholarship for Underrepresented Students, which has eligibility criteria that include self-identification as “Traditionally underrepresented racial/ethnic minority group (Black, Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander)” and/or “Gender/sexual orientation minority group (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender).”
These eligibility criteria violate Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits such discrimination. Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry has filed a federal civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights for this discriminatory scholarship, which provides a $2,000 stipend to awardees. The application requires the submission of gender and race/ethnicity information, which is reviewed by emergency medicine residents and medical faculty on the Diversity & Inclusion Committee.
Michigan taxpayers help fund WSUSOM. 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 Wayne State University School of Medicine stops, and soon.
Just how woke is Texas’s TAMU School of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.
Here’s the background. In October 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 Texas A&M University School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Texas taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.
Here’s what the TAMU School of Medicine has self-reported:
- It has adopted racially discriminatory admissions practices under the guise of “affirmative action.” This means it’s potentially lowering standards in the name of diversity, thereby threatening patient health.
- It has a “dedicated office, staff, or resources” dedicated to DEI. This means there’s a permanent woke bureaucracy pushing ideology on faculty and students.
- It lobbies for woke policies at the federal, state, and/or local levels. This means it’s wading into toxic public debates instead of fully focusing on educating future physicians.
- Its administrators are active within local, regional, and national forums to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. This means it’s wasting resources that would be better spent on real medical education.
All told, Texas A&M University School of Medicine has instituted 86.5% 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.
Texas taxpayers help fund the TAMU 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 the Texas A&M University School of Medicine stops, and soon.
Just how woke is Texas’s University of Houston College of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.
Here’s the background. In October 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 UHCOM. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Texas taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.
Here’s what the University of Houston College of Medicine has self-reported:
- It has a “dedicated office, staff, or resources” dedicated to DEI. This means there’s a permanent woke bureaucracy pushing ideology on faculty and students.
- It lobbies for woke policies at the federal, state, and/or local levels. This means it’s wading into toxic public debates instead of fully focusing on educating future physicians.
- It offers tenure and promotion to faculty who prove their commitment to extreme identity politics and woke priorities. This is a litmus test that requires faculty to toe the party line instead of teaching medicine at the highest level.
- Its administrators are active within local, regional, and national forums to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. This means it’s wasting resources that would be better spent on real medical education.
All told, UHCOM has instituted 85.1% 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.
Texas taxpayers help fund UHCOM. 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 University of Houston College of Medicine stops, and soon.