Just how woke is South Carolina’s USC 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 University of South Carolina School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that South Carolina taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.
Here’s what the USC 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, the USC School of Medicine has instituted 85.2% 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.
University of South Carolina School of Medicine DICE Inventory score.
South Carolina taxpayers help fund the USC 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 University of South Carolina School of Medicine stops, and soon.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_109003565-scaled.jpg18562560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-26 14:39:292026-05-14 16:26:57We Found Out How Woke the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Really Is
The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) recently held a two-part webinar series that described potential outcome of the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and University of North Carolina cases currently before the Supreme Court.
Do No Harm obtained the recording of Part 2, titled Challenges to Race in Higher Education Admissions: Understanding the Issues and Getting Ready for the Supreme Court’s Decisions in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC. The session, presented by Art Coleman, managing partner of EducationCounsel, advises academic diversity officers on how to prepare for and respond to the upcoming decision, which is considering race-based admissions in the context of “a full array of policy and practice.” He urges participants to keep two core questions in mind: “What are the interests these institutions are trying to advance, and then how are they advancing them through certain race-conscious policies and practices?”
From Challenges to Race in Higher Education Admissions: Understanding the Issues and Getting Ready for the Supreme Court’s Decisions in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC.
Coleman doesn’t stop with providing advice on what an institution must do and how much it must “sacrifice in its design to achieve diversity and not violate the law.” Nothing in the law, he says, requires an institution to sacrifice its mission and essential character to pursue diversity. However, how does “mission and essential character” align with Coleman’s recommendations for maintaining the status quo of race-based admissions?
As a member of its leadership, Coleman urges participants to refer to the College Board Access & Diversity Collaborative as an important digital resource to use in the months leading up to the Court’s decision. A check of the website reveals that the organization is a champion for “comprehensive, evidence-based, and legally sound” policies on access and diversity to support “historically underrepresented populations.” Its Access & Diversity Toolkit contains the section labeled “Making Connections: A Holistic Review of Key Strategies,” which provides recommendations taken from the Association of American Colleges (AAMC) regarding recruitment, admission, and retention of students whose selection is targeted based on holistic review.
From Access & Diversity Toolkit (College Board/EducationCounsel).
Over the course of the 90-minute presentation, Coleman explains how the Court’s decision could result in a “potential tsunami” (precedent is significantly limited, but the consideration of race within the individual’s lived experience is still permitted) and “Armageddon for us” (SFFA wins outright, and the Court overturns the order in its entirety). As an example of “Armageddon,” he commented that future students will “be forced to tell incomplete stories about who they are” on their college applications if the Court decides in favor of SFFA.
From Challenges to Race in Higher Education Admissions: Understanding the Issues and Getting Ready for the Supreme Court’s Decisions in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC.
While Coleman doesn’t want the DEI champions and public affairs officials at the academic institutions to be caught “flat-footed on the day of decision without much to say,” he has an even more intriguing recommendation. “A good catch-all exercise,” he says, “is engaging in the scrub of website language.” This involves avoiding descriptions of the institution’s policies or programs in a way that may communicate more legal risk or vulnerability than exists. This would be, as he put it, an “unforced error.” Coleman also instructs webinar participants to make it clear during on-campus conversations that this is not affirmative action or “a social justice remedial lane.” The primary message Coleman delivers is to “maintain our policies with minimal disruption” by developing a “set of enhancing policies.” He said that the Court’s decision is unlikely to have an effect on pathway programs and recruitment or outreach programs “as long as they are sort of open to all.” Is this an example of how he recommends institutions to “scrub” their website language in advance of the ruling?
Coleman closed the session with an impassioned response to the question, “Is there a proxy for race in admissions?” He replied that this question implies that the individual is “looking for a quick substitute that I don’t really care about, but I’ll do something just to get by with it.” Coleman referred to case law that that demonstrates the importance of being “grounded in authentic, mission-driven institutional interests,” and suggests that “looking for low-income students” or “students who have a specific affinity toward social justice” is a position that will generate more diversity than a neutral strategy.
NADOHE has long been a steadfast advocate of discriminatory DEI initiatives on college campuses and is dedicated to the promotion of practices that consider race in admission decisions. Providing a forum for Art Coleman to promote his brand of gamesmanship in this area is another in-kind contribution by NADOHE to the support of race-based discrimination in higher education institutions.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_216196921-scaled.jpg17002560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-23 19:36:462026-05-14 16:27:19NADOHE is Coaching Institutions to Prepare Their Responses to an Upcoming SCOTUS Decision
One December 17, PBS News Weekend ran a spot titled “How racial biases in medical algorithms lead to inequities in care.” In an interview with Dr. Jayne Morgan, president-elect of the Georgia-based biotech company Southeast Life Sciences, she was asked about “racial biases” in medical diagnostic algorithms. This included a reference to the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a blood test used to evaluate kidney function.
Dr. Morgan completely misunderstands the nature of the eGFR. She states that the use of the correction factor for black patients represents an example of racial bias. In fact, the 15% correction factor for black patients was derived empirically, and is necessary in the original equation in order to get an accurate value. This empirical observation was confirmed in several separate studies which always found the need for this calculation. Its abandonment was based on political ideology rather than a need to improve medical care. There is no evidence that patients were denied any life-saving therapies because of small differences in this calculation. It is well known by nephrologists that there is a great variance in any single determination of eGFR and a 10% to 15% difference would not have a clinical impact.
This is yet another example of misunderstanding and misinterpreting clinical information for the sake of affirming a nonexistent racial bias.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Picture8.png171365Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-23 19:02:362026-02-11 15:33:20PBS Promotes Faulty Racial Politics Over Sound Medical Judgment
We’ve written about how the Indiana University School of Medicine is forcing faculty to prove their woke beliefs to get promoted or tenure. Yet even we didn’t know how bad things really are. IUSM just released a document laying out exactly what it wants to see – and it goes beyond compelled speech to compelled behavior.
The “Example Faculty Activities Toward Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” document is a thoroughly politicized and ideological creation, betraying IUSM’s complete commitment to race-based medicine. It conveys a clear expectation that faculty hold that same commitment and prove it through their actions.
In order to get tenure or promoted, faculty must engage in one or more of the following politicized activities:
Engage in “Curriculum development and/or revision related to DEI topics.”
“Leading/delivering DEI professional development programming.”
“Creating and/or leading programs related to DEI, on campus and/or beyond (e.g., efforts that create spaces/programs that facilitate greater sense of belonging and a welcoming environment for marginalized students, faculty, and/or staff).”
“Activities and consulting work (paid or unpaid) related to DEI community activities and organizations.”
“Providing peer review for journals and conferences that disseminate scholarship related to DEI, as well as granting agencies that fund DEI-related activities.”
Engaging in “Policy development, quality improvement efforts, and other service to the profession that has significant impact on DEI-related outcomes.”
Receive “National, international, local (campus), and/or community-based awards and/or recognitions for DEI research.”
Engage in “Recruitment and/or retention of diverse research teams/personnel.”
Demonstrate “Inclusive teaching practices (e.g., pedagogy, DEI content, multicultural courses, global perspectives).”
The list goes on. In each case, IUSM is indicating that current and prospective faculty need to hold not just specific political views, but translate those views into concrete action.
This is a violation of medical educators’ rights. Here’s hoping a faculty member sues IUSM – or the Indiana state government intervenes. IUSM shouldn’t be allowed to force faculty to engage in political activities.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_1757083934-scaled.jpg17072560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-22 18:23:032026-05-14 16:28:16IUSM Hits A New Woke Low
The activists pushing race-based medicine on America don’t just want to lower standards. They want to cancel and silence anyone who disagrees with their demands.
Do No Harm chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb knows this all too well, having been fired from the leading medical resource UpToDate after speaking out about the dangers of race-based medicine. Now, in the pages of the journal Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, he’s calling out the woke mob for trying to cancel a leading figure in the history of medicine: Abraham Flexner.
Flexner is being targeted for authoring a famous report in 1910 in which he argued for reforming medical schools to uphold the highest standards. Thanks to him, dozens of poor-quality institutions closed, including many that had a majority of minority students. Yet the results were beneficial for American health care: Medical education churned out better physicians who provided better care and conducted better research, leading to a new era of medical progress.
This fact hasn’t stopped woke activists from attacking Flexner and trying to get him written out of the history books – naturally on the grounds that he was racist. Yet as Dr. Goldfarb writes, all such accusations have been proven untrue:
The argument that he should have kept Black medical schools open simply because they trained Black students but were substandard is absurd and is an insult to the schools like Meharry and Howard, which remained open and produced accomplished physicians.
If we want medical education to have high standards, then we need to do the hard work of eliminating programs and even schools that fail to achieve that standard. Flexner understood that change of that sort was hard and demanded discipline and courage. We must speak the truth and reject mediocrity in medical training. Flexner showed the way.
Dr. Goldfarb is right. Not only should we refuse to lower standards in medicine, like the woke mob demands, but we should defend those who have advocated higher standards. That’s exactly what we’re doing at Do No Harm.
Few people think of Utah as a bastion of divisive and discriminatory identity politics – but the University of Utah, home to the only MD-granting school of medicine in the entire state, proves otherwise. The school recently responded to a freedom of information request for DEI-related training materials used during 2021-2022, and we found three items that should deeply worry policymakers in the Beehive State.
To start, the university is pushing so-called “implicit bias training” in the UHealth presentation titled Understanding and Overcoming Unconscious Bias, given by Jose’ Rodriguez, M.D., AVP Health Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion. Yet the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which the presentation includes a link for participants to take, has been widely discredited by the psychology community. Why is the medical school insulting its faculty and staff by promoting this inaccurate and potentially harmful concept?
Figure 1: Understanding and Overcoming Unconscious Bias cover slide.
Second, the school is especially focused on supposed unconscious bias in recruiting. In a 26-slide PowerPoint presentation titled Understanding Bias in the Admissions Process, it accuses the School of Medicine admissions committee members of being “biased from the beginning,” with a specific reference to individuals’ “White Preference.” The inference is that admissions committee members need re-education to overcome their bias, and this course takes another opportunity to promote the IAT.
Figure 2. Understanding Bias in the Admissions Process.
But the presentation goes even further. While discussing implicit associations, the course materials warn about disadvantages to African American applicants if School of Medicine admissions committee members demonstrate “implicit White Preference,” which it claims is “present and measurable.” To ensure the point regarding “what implicit bias looks like” is made, the presenter notes state, “People with this bias unwittingly associate a white face with positive words or feelings and a black face with negative words or feelings – and they may act on those associations.”
Figure 3. Understanding Bias in the Admissions Process.
Figure 4. Understanding Bias in the Admissions Process.
Third, the focus on re-education extends to faculty searches and could even take the form of overt discrimination. We obtained a training video which search committee members are required to complete prior to screening applicants for open faculty positions. In Online Training for Search Committees, participants are directed to practice affirmative action – as in, make choices for new faculty members based in part on gender and skin color. Throughout the course, committee members are again lectured on their implicit biases and are predictably referred to the IAT. But here’s the key language, under the heading of “affirmative action responsibilities”: The school should “have a plan to increase the likelihood that it will get more qualified women and minorities in the applicant pool.”
Figure 5. Online Training for Search Committees course video cover slide.
Figure 6. Online Training for Search Committees course video.
The University of Utah School of Medicine says that it “trains the majority of Utah physicians.” That makes it even more important that it stop practicing divisive ideology and outright discrimination. If administrators won’t act, then policymakers should.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/taylor-brandon-5T2Lz9bYRCU-unsplash-scaled.jpg17072560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-22 12:25:532026-02-11 15:33:19Why Is the University of Utah School of Medicine So Woke?
Just how woke is Texas’s TTU Health Sciences Center 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 Texas Tech University School of Medicine at the TTU Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC). 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 TTUHSC 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.
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, the TTUHSC School of Medicine has instituted 86.4% 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 Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine DICE Inventory score.
Texas taxpayers help fund the TTUHSC 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 Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine stops, and soon.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_1608908608-scaled.jpg17072560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-21 14:23:492026-05-14 16:29:43We Found Out How Woke the Texas Tech University School of Medicine Really Is
A federal civil rights complaint has been filed against the University of North Carolina for illegal race-based discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry filed the complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights for promoting and offering the Fellowship for Exploring Research in Nutrition (FERN), which “aims to increase the diversity of students” in the field of nutrition. Eligibility criteria for the FERN program is limited to students who are from “Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) populations,” which illegally excludes and discriminates against non-BIPOC students on the basis of their race, color, and/or national origin, which is prohibited by Title VI.
FERN program eligibility criteria.
UNC’s participation in this program is in stark contrast to its policy of non-discrimination, which states, “No person, on the basis of protected status [including race, color or national origin], shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation under any University program or activity, including with respect to employment terms and conditions.”
FERN is a paid research fellowship hosted by the Global Food Research Program, which is located within the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. UNC began accepting applications earlier this month.
In November, Do No Harm reported that the UNC School of Medicine devotes significant resources toward indoctrinating its medical students in identity politics and ideologies such as anti-racism and the integration of social justice into the curriculum. With the implementation of the FERN program, it is clear that UNC Chapel Hill is committed to continuing these divisive and discriminatory practices.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_94353541-scaled.jpg17252560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-19 21:39:142026-05-15 14:21:30The University of North Carolina Continues Its Discriminatory Ways
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, the board director of Do No Harm a group of medical professional that work to “protect healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology,” slammed Washington University’s lecture as one that is “undermining” the legacy of the school.
“Washington University of St. Louis is one of the outstanding research institutions in the country. Yet it is undermining that legacy with a racist approach to medical education,” Goldfarb told Fox News Digital.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Media_Mention_.jpg7961550rededge-rachelhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngrededge-rachel2022-12-19 14:21:172026-05-15 14:22:54Washington U lecturer warns medical students not to ‘debate’ her on ‘systemic oppression’: ‘shut that’ down
Just how woke is Kentucky’s UK 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 UKCOM. 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 Kentucky College 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.
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, UKCOM 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.
University of Kentucky College of Medicine DICE Inventory score.
Kentucky taxpayers help fund UKCOM. 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 Kentucky College of Medicine stops, and soon.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_180353402-scaled.jpg18462560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-18 01:32:382026-05-15 14:23:57We Found Out How Woke the University of Kentucky College of Medicine Really Is
Just how woke is Michigan’s MSU College of Human 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 Michigan State University College of Human 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 MSU College of Human 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.
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, the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine has instituted 81.2% 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.
Michigan State University College of Human Medicine DICE Inventory score.
Michigan taxpayers help fund the MSU College of Human 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 MSU College of Human Medicine stops, and soon.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_352907768.jpg18242432Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-17 16:38:302026-05-15 14:24:35We Found Out How Woke Michigan State University College of Human Medicine Really Is
Just how woke is Nebraska’s UN 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 the UN College of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Nebraska taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.
Here’s what the University of Nebraska College 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, the UN College of Medicine has instituted 86.4% 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.
University of Nebraska College of Medicine DICE Inventory score.
Nebraska taxpayers help fund the University of Nebraska College 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 UN College of Medicine stops, and soon.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_1930008506-scaled.jpg17072560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-16 20:48:592026-05-15 14:25:28We Found Out How Woke the University of Nebraska College of Medicine Really Is
Just how woke is the University of Colorado 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 UC School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Colorado taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.
Here’s what the UC 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.
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, the UC School of Medicine has instituted 83.9% 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.
University of Colorado School of Medicine DICE Inventory score.
Colorado taxpayers help fund the UC 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 University of Colorado School of Medicine stops, and soon.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_247581418-scaled.jpg17092560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-16 20:29:432026-05-15 14:26:19We Found Out How Woke the University of Colorado School of Medicine Really Is
Just how woke is Kansas’s KU School of Medicine? 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 KU School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Kansas taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.
Here’s what the KU 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 administratorsareactive within local, regional, and national forumsto promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. This means it’s wasting resources that would be better spent on real medical education.
All told, KU School of Medicine has instituted 70.8% 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.
KU School of Medicine DICE Inventory score.
Kansas taxpayers help fund the KU 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 KUSOM stops, and soon.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_1442496242-scaled.jpg17092560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-16 17:20:182026-05-15 14:26:43We Found Out How Woke the University of Kansas School of Medicine Really Is
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb explains the history of the Hippocratic Oath, its focus on treating patients – no matter who they are – the same, and how it is the foundation of Do No Harm’s work. They examine the question – would Hippocrates feel that his work had failed when looking at the radical woke takeover taking place in our healthcare system today?
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/DNH_PA_01a.png7201280rededge-rachelhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngrededge-rachel2022-12-16 13:22:152026-02-11 15:33:18S1E4: The Hippocratic Oath
Harvard is once again using its ample resources to distribute inflammatory information in service of divisive identity politics. The Harvard Chan School of Public Health recently hosted a one-hour panel discussion, titled The Fight for Equity: Reforming Health Care Systems from Within, that had more to do with indoctrination than medicine – and some moments deserve special attention.
For example, to kick off the webinar, moderator Akilah Johnson of The Washington Post asked the panelists to define “medical racism” and “health equity.” The replies largely set the tone for the presentation. Efram Flores, M.D. from Mass Brigham said he thinks about “the many faces of discrimination and hate.” Kedar Mate, CEO of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, was sure to include unconscious biases in his definition, adding that health equity is “justice.” And Lashyra “Lash” Nolen, a medical student at Harvard, stated that “racism came before race,” and the institution of medicine was the “epicenter” of racism in society.
None of these answers are grounded in medical reality, research, or education. They demonstrate how thoroughly the health care elite have been corrupted by woke ideology: They’re expected to pay lip service to race-based concepts instead of accurately diagnosing the health care system’s actual challenges.
Fortunately, Linda Villarosa, contributing writer at The New York Times Magazine, provided a different definition. “[H]ealth equity means that once you enter that system,” she said, “you get treated fairly, and you get treated justly, and you get treated with care.” This answer actually aligns with traditional descriptions of medical ethics, yet it was overshadowed by the tone of the rest of the panel.
Predictably, the conversation turned to anti-racism training – which is grounded in the idea that racial discriminatory is justified to right historical wrongs. Johnson asked the panel if anti-racism training would be helpful, and Nolen said that “from the first day of class,” medical students learn that “whiteness is the standard in medical education.” Flores suggested that equity must be embedded into “the fabric of the DNA” of everything physicians do every day.
It kept getting worse. Johnson noted that she has received feedback to stories she has published that claim, “doctors can’t be racist,” and asks how “institutional inertia” can be overcome. Mate stated that when organizations implement anti-racism training, resistance must be anticipated. “[I]f we’re not meeting with resistance,” he added, “we’re probably not pushing very hard.”
Yet resistance to anti-racism training is exactly what’s needed. Physicians and medical professionals should absolutely speak out when they are wrongly accused of being racist or encouraged to discriminate by race in pursuit of woke ends. Such resistance shows that medical professionals know that their profession is being corrupted and needs to be saved.
To conclude the webinar, Johnson asked the panelists how the momentum in the health equity movement can be sustained. Villarosa, who is teaching pre-med students at the City University of New York, said that she is instructing them on “how to interview like a journalist,” and informing them that they “are going to be harmed” by attending medical school. “The system isn’t fair to anyone, including you,” she tells the students. Nolen encouraged participants to continue the activism they engaged in “after the murder of George Floyd,” and Mate declared, “Inequity is not our destiny. Equity is.”
Once again, these statements demonstrate that medical education is being turned into indoctrination. The focus isn’t on training the best possible physicians, but rather the best possible political activists – patient care be damned.
This webinar was presented in partnership with the Harvard Public Health Magazine, which, as Johnson noted, “devoted its entire fall issue to structural racism and health.” The publication continues to push the narrative expressed in the Fight for Equity webinar with articles like “Reparations will save Black lives;” “Taking steps toward anti-racist healthcare;” and “What science tells us about structural racism’s health impact.” As with so much else in medical research these days, these pieces and arguments have more to do with a politicized narrative than finding and promoting better treatments, cures, and practices.
Harvard Public Health Magazine fall issue cover.
Harvard Public Health says the system is sick and getting worse, yet it propagates false narratives that that are intended to divide and misinform. Perhaps the institution should make the same diagnosis for itself.
Is your school or organization hosting seminars that promote racial identity politics and divisive concepts? We want to hear from you via our secure platform; you may remain anonymous if you wish.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_1747594877-scaled.jpg19202560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-14 14:07:492026-05-15 14:27:42Harvard School of Public Health Maintains the Health Equity Drumbeat
The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) is now under investigation for its UCSF Fresno Obstetrics and Gynecology Scholarship for Visiting UiM Students – 2022, which illegally discriminates on the basis of race/ethnicity in violation of Title VI and on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation in violation of Title IX.
In response to a complaint filed by Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has opened a federal civil rights investigation into this discriminatory scholarship, as it restricts eligibility to visiting medical students who are “UIM” (underrepresented in medicine). According to the UCSF website, “UIM includes a member of the LGBTQ+ communities or underrepresented minorities as described by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development which includes: Black, African Americans or Africans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians, Native Americans or Alaskan natives, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders and Asians (other than: Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Koreans, Malaysians, Pakistanis, Asian Indian, and Thai).” The application asks students for their preferred name and pronouns and their race/ethnicity.
Figure 1. UCSF Fresno OB/Gyn scholarship for visiting UiM students eligibility criteria.
Applicants who are awarded the scholarship are provided with student housing, application fees, tuition fees, and up to $1,000 for travel and transportation costs.
Because of eligibility criteria that excludes applicants based on race/ethnicity and gender identity/sexual orientation, this program violates both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Title IX, which prohibit such discrimination.
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.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_268043726-scaled.jpg14382560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-12 18:42:562026-05-15 14:28:28UCSF Fresno is Under Investigation for Race-Based Discrimination
The Indiana University School of Medicine is having to account for its violations of students’ civil rights.
Earlier this year, an official complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) regarding IUSM’s Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective – a program that illegally discriminates on the bases of race and sex. As a result of the complaint, filed by Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry, a federal civil rights investigation vs. IUSM has been opened by the Chicago OCR.
Eligibility criteria require applicants to “identify as one or more of the following diversity categories: Black/African American, Hispanic Latinx, LGBTQ+.” This is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibit such discrimination.
Figure 1. Indiana University SOM Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective Program eligibility criteria.
The program, sponsored by IUSM’s Faculty Affairs, Professional Development, and Diversity initiative, offers a $2,000 stipend to out-of-state visiting students, plus “compensation upon successful completion of the rotation.”
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.
https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_728677927-scaled.jpg19202560Laura Morganhttps://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/DNH_Logo_Stethescope-1.pngLaura Morgan2022-12-12 18:35:352026-05-15 14:29:09The Indiana University School of Medicine is Under Investigation for Racial Discrimination
