Tulane Wants Med Students To Turn In Their Teachers

The old Soviet KGB could learn something from the Tulane University School of Medicine. A tipster just sent us the school’s announcement of a new “Bias in Curriculum Reporting Form.” It’s clearly designed to get medical students to report on professors who don’t toe the woke party line.

The reporting system was designed by the “Liaison Committee on Racial and Social Justice in Medical Education,” a student-led group created in 2020 “to enhance education in racial and social justice.” Through this new form, the group is deliberately pushing Tulane’s medical education to focus on divisive identity politics instead of medical education:

“The purpose of this reporting form is to assist in the reviewing of instances of racism and bias experienced within didactics instruction and teaching sessions at the School of Medicine… The purpose is to strategically advocate for restorative change within the curriculum.”

What about the reporting system itself? It says at the outset that it’s focused on finding materials that “express bias,” including in lectures, online materials, and exam questions. It then gives students a checklist of the types of the bias they ostensibly witnessed:

Graphical user interface, text, application Description automatically generated

Nowhere does the reporting system define “bias,” leaving it entirely in the eyes of the beholder. That means students can report their professors for simply offending their feelings or transgressing the ever-lengthening list of woke demands. There’s no limiting principle, so medical educators will live in fear that simply teaching the facts will get them reported and punished. 

Tulane’s new reporting system ensures that professor self-censorship will surely rise, while educational standards will surely fall. That’s what happens when a medical school empowers students to turn in their professors, Soviet style – and it will hurt these future physicians and their patients.

Is your medical school silencing professors or soliciting student complaints about supposed bias? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

The University of Utah School of Medicine is Being Investigated for Race-Based Discrimination

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened an investigation of the Ophthalmology Fellowship for Underrepresented Minorities in Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine. 

Do No Harm filed a complaint for race-based discrimination in the eligibility criteria for this program, which provides second-year medical students with $1,000 scholarships from the Moran Eye Center. Candidates must identify as “Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and/or Native American (American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian)” to apply. Excluding all other races and ethnicities is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.

The Moran Eye Center maintains a Committee for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI). This committee promotes implicit bias testing and anti-racism training on its site, as well as Ibram Kendi’s publication How to Be an Anti-Racist in its book club section.

Graphical user interface, text, application Description automatically generated

Have you been excluded from applying for a similar program at your school or healthcare organization due to race-based inclusion criteria? Please let us know; you may remain anonymous if you wish.

URGENT: Please Comment on This Federal Transgender Policy

The federal government is asking Americans to share their thoughts on what it should prioritize when it comes to transgender research, among other things. Parents, physicians, and policymakers alike should seize this opportunity to oppose anti-scientific woke research that endangers the physical and mental health of children – and that’s why you should submit an official comment.

Here are the details. On October 18th, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services sent out a “Request for Information on Research Opportunities” focused on “Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Populations.” It further states that the “current evidence-based clinical practices are available for health professionals to assist transgender and gender-diverse populations but additional research is needed to advance this area of care.”

That’s absolutely right – but it needs to be true scientific research, not politicized studies with predetermined outcomes. Much of transgender-related research is trending in that dangerous direction, especially when it comes to providing hormone treatments and even sex changes to children.

The federal government is asking for comments from the “scientific research community, clinical practice communities, patient and family advocates, scientific or professional organizations… and other interested constituents.” With such a wide-open door, the government needs to hear from as many people as possible, including you. 

Are you willing to submit a comment? If so, please read the official federal request and follow the instructions:

It is strongly encouraged to submit comments by email to SGMRO@nih.gov. Please include “RFI: Gender-Affirming Care Scientific Workshop” in the subject line.

The federal government should not be pushing divisive and ideological research that hurts vulnerable children. It’s time for you to send that message straight to D.C.

The AMA and AAP Put Ideology Ahead of Children And Science

“Trust the experts.” That’s the refrain every time elected officials or medical boards question the wisdom of providing life-altering treatments to children who believe they suffer from gender dysphoria. The phrase is deliberately designed to squash dissent, yet a new report from the Manhattan Institute proves that the experts literally don’t know what they’re talking about.

Manhattan Institute scholar Leor Sapir examined the transgender care guidelines released by prominent medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and supportive statements from groups like the American Medical Association (AMA). His findings should concern everyone who’s been told to listen to these groups:

“None of these organizations have done systematic reviews of the evidence, a method of review designed to prevent cherry-picking of studies and biased analysis.”

It gets worse:

“The AAP’s position is based on a single non-peer-reviewed policy statement published in 2018 in its own journal, Pediatrics. A peer-reviewed fact-check of that article revealed that it completely misrepresents the research and omits all the studies that undermine the affirmative model.”

This leads to a follow-up question: Has anyone done a thorough review of the evidence? Yes, and as Sapir shows, they reached the opposite conclusion:

“Sweden, Finland, the U.K., and Florida have done systematic reviews, and all four reached the same conclusion: there is no evidence that the benefits of hormones for treating gender-related distress in youth outweighs the risks.”

Not only that, Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. have all taken steps to limit the gender-affirming treatments that children can receive. That makes sense, given the evidence.

Sadly, America is heading in the opposite direction, driven by the most prominent and powerful medical associations. Clearly, policymakers should stop listening to groups like the AAP and the AMA, among others. They are pushing an unscientific ideological agenda on our country’s children – and policymakers should end it, not enable it.

The Office for Civil Rights is Investigating the University of Maryland for Race-Based Discrimination

Do No Harm discovered more evidence of discriminatory medical school scholarships, and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened a new federal civil rights investigation. 

The University of Maryland School of Medicine’s Department of Psychiatry offers a $1,500 scholarship for “visiting students underrepresented in medicine,” which offers fourth-year medical students an opportunity to participate in an elective program; but there’s a catch. To be eligible, applicants must “identify as a group underrepresented in medicine,” as defined by the Association of American Medical Colleges. The university’s informational document states, “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.” That racially restricted eligibility requirement illegally excludes medical students who are white, Middle Eastern, and Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean, Indian, Vietnamese, Hmong, Pakistani, Laotian, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Filipino, Indonesian and all other Asians). 

The complaint, filed by Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry, alleges that the UMSOM program discriminates “on the basis of race, color, or national origin,” which is prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This aligns with the UMSOM Department of Psychiatry’s pledge of “modifying policies and operations to assure our ongoing commitment to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.” 

Have you been unfairly affected by discriminatory scholarships or programs at your institution? If you did not apply because you thought you were ineligible, please let us know – anonymously and securely.

More Wokeness at the University of Florida

Forget teaching medicine: The University of Florida College of Medicine wants students to learn to combat systemic racism. To that end, UFCOM has a dedicated page that offers resources for students and faculty. Shocker: The resources are steeped in divisive woke ideas that don’t belong in healthcare.

The resources page is blunt about its purpose: “Like the COVID-19 pandemic, the racism pandemic is a public health emergency that requires us all to act together to promote the safety and well-being of our community at UFCOM and beyond.” It further states, “as healthcare professionals, scientists, and students, we have a calling to be part of the solution.”

Before listing the resources, UFCOM states that “self-education is key.” But an earlier version of the page went much further, stating “please do not further burden your Black friends and colleagues by asking them to expend the energy necessary to educate you. Rather, do the work and use existing resources to learn more on your own.” The page was later stealth-edited to remove this line.

The resources themselves are thoroughly woke. The list includes online “Antiracism Training,” an “Antiracist Reading List,” a “Guide to Allyship,” and more. It also recommends the “Alachua County Truth and Reconciliation Process,” in a reference to the county where UFCOM is located.

What does any of this have to do with teaching medical students? Nothing. But it has everything to do with instilling divisive ideology in the next generation of physicians. That’s the last thing the University of Florida College of Medicine should do.

Is your medical school teaching you to fight “systemic racism”? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

State AGs: Don’t Criminalize the Child Transgender Debate

America’s leading medical associations want the federal government to “investigate and prosecute” people who question the best way to treat children who suffer, or believe they suffer, from gender dysphoria. But 13 state attorneys general have a message: Don’t. They’re right that we need an open debate on this critical issue, especially since the health and well-being of children hangs in the balance.

The 13 state AGs made this point in a new letter, released on October 12, to Attorney General Merrick Garland. They’re responding to an earlier petition from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Children’s Hospital Association, which all but urged criminalizing and censoring any discussion about gender dysphoria care for children.

Stanley Goldfarb, chair of Do No Harm, criticized these associations and praised the state attorneys general:

“Medical associations should follow the science, not try to stifle public debate – especially when they’re pushing a divisive ideology that could literally ruin children’s lives. The AMA demands that we follow their lead without question, yet these are the same forces who falsely equate psychological counseling for children to “conversation therapy” in order to railroad minors into a predetermined path of drugs and surgery. The better path is to listen to these state attorneys general and let this conversation continue nationwide.”  

The state AGs write that medical associations “are interested not just in preventing violence but also in suppressing ideas with which they disagree.” Yet as they note, “growing concerns about the current treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria make a free and open dialogue urgently necessary.” They cite how countries like the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland are enacting new protections of children, which follows real concerns raised by parents, physicians, and patients.

The state AGs hammer home their point:

“One might expect a bit more intellectual humility from U.S. medical organizations when they address the life-altering, irreversible procedures they are championing as the cure du jour for pediatric gender dysphoria. Last century, leaders of the American Medical Association embraced eugenics as a cure for various social ills. Mid-century, the frontal lobotomy came into vogue as a treatment for psychiatric ailments. Despite these past cautionary tales and recent radical changes in pediatric practices, the medical establishment asks you to forcibly eliminate criticism of the treatment regime for gender dysphoric minors.”

These state leaders conclude by asking the federal government to reject censorship and criminalizing debate. We can’t make their point any better: “Nothing matters more than protecting our children. We need to make sure we are doing that right. The only way to obtain that certainty is through rigorous interrogation of current practices. Criticism must be welcomed, not silenced.”

Have you or someone you know been punished for questioning medical treatment for children with gender dysphoria? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

What This Major Medical School Thinks Passes as “Faculty Educational Development”

A tipster directed us to videos from Indiana University School of Medicine’s “Medicine Grand Rounds.” As described by the school, Grand Rounds are “seminars that foster knowledge and discussion about emerging and important topics in internal medicine.” Some videos can count towards faculty educational development credits at IUSM, and they exist for the public to view as well. 

The videos reviewed by Do No Harm indicate a dangerous slide away from patient-centered medicine toward divisive ideologies and questionable practices, and we’ve highlighted some of those instances below (links for the full videos are also available). 

Exhibit One: “The Pathology of Racism: Living Through Injustice Description: Interrogating Racism in Medicine and Society, and their effects on the outcomes of the most marginalized communities” Edwin Lindo, JD – January 22, 2021

Professor Lindo is not a physician. He is a critical race theory scholar. In his video, Professor Edwin Lindo shares his perspectives on racism in the medical profession, including his assertions that:

  • The medical profession itself was founded in racism
  • It was racism in medicine that spawned racism in other areas of life
  • Some members of the judiciary today continue the legacy of racism
  • Black people in America today are persecuted and if they fled to other countries, they would be considered “refugees”
  • Racism in medicine is causing Black patients to die at disproportionate rates
  • Race is not biological, it is a socio-political construct 
Full Video Available Here

Exhibit Two: “What Can I do – Faculty Actions that Advance Racial Equity in Academic Medicine” Dr. Sylk Sotto – July 31, 2020 

In this video, Professor Sylk Sotto shares her thoughts on advancing racial equity in medicine through academia. She is not a physician. Among other things, she discusses:

  • Support for White Coats For Black Lives, a radical social justice organization, and protesting systemic racism on campus
  • A campus book club discussion on “white fragility” 
  • Eliminating race from clinical notes 
  • Creating standardized response expectations for faulty to address microaggressions or DEIJ issues
Full Video Available Here

Forced to Take Implicit Bias Training? Here’s How To Respond

Many if not most medical professionals are being forced to take so-called “implicit bias” training as a condition of employment. Some states are even requiring it to obtain a medical or nursing license. Do No Harm works with many doctors and nurses who are pushing back, since implicit bias falsely accuses medical professionals of being racist. We want to help you fight this dangerous trend, too.

We’ve put together a list of actions you can take if your medical school, state licensing board, or healthcare employer pushes you to take implicit bias training or testing. Here’s what you can do:

  1. Ask if the training is mandatory, and if so, why. This allows you to avoid it if it’s not required.
  1. Ask if you can receive an alternative accommodation, such as writing an essay on equality or the danger of “anti-racist” discrimination. This allows you to push back on the faulty logic that underlies implicit bias.
  1. Share materials on how implicit bias testing has been discredited. There are many resources you can use to prove that this ideologically driven agenda shouldn’t be forced on you and your fellow medical professionals and employees. For example:

I find it very concerning that you’re promoting the so-called “implicit association test.” It has been thoroughly discredited by diverse and non-partisan psychologists.

Look no further than the recent in-depth article, “Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job.” It says: “A pile of scholarly work… suggests that the IAT falls far short of the quality-control standards normally expected of psychological instruments. The IAT, this research suggests, is a noisy, unreliable measure that correlates far too weakly with any real-world outcomes to be used to predict individuals’ behavior — even the test’s creators have now admitted as such.”

Why are medical professionals like me being pushed to take a test that is widely recognized as faulty? It would be far better to avoid this test altogether — and for that matter, to avoid implicitly or explicitly telling me and my peers that we’re biased because of our skin color. That reeks of discrimination in and of itself and is wholly inappropriate for healthcare.

I hope you make the right call and abandon the Implicit Association Test. Thanks for looking into this urgent and important matter.

  1. Decline to attend an in-person training or complete an online training. Even if the training is required, you should share your concerns with your supervisors.
  1. Take careful notes and obtain copies the training materials. If you are forced to participate, you can share what happened after the fact to help prevent it from happening again.
  1. Ask direct questions that highlight the divisive and discriminatory nature of implicit bias training. That includes asking why “anti-racism” requires you to discriminate on the basis of race, which hotline or agency you should call to report such discrimination, and what evidence exists that proves you are inherently biased or racist. There are many pointed questions you can ask in these trainings:
    • The main proponent of “anti-racism,” Ibram X. Kendi, has explicitly said that racial discrimination is acceptable. Here is his quote: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” What discriminatory actions are you asking me to take in my day-to-day work as a healthcare professional?
    • How does “anti-racist” discrimination square with our duty to provide equal care to all patients, regardless of skin color? Please help me understand which forms of discrimination are acceptable, and which are not, according to our employee handbook and human resources department.
    • The concept of implicit bias is directly tied to the “Implicit Association Test.” Yet diverse psychologists from across the political spectrum have thoroughly discredited the test. Even its own creators have said it can’t actually be used to predict individuals’ behavior. Given these facts, why are we being requested or forced to take this test?
    • The concept of implicit bias is directly tied to the principles of “anti-racism,” which requires some groups of people to discriminate against other groups based solely on skin color. For years, healthcare providers have been trained to treat patients ethically and fairly with no mention of “anti-racism.” Given these facts, why are we being requested or forced to take this course?
  1. Alert your state and federal lawmakers. Tell them what’s happening and why it’s dangerous, so they can investigate and shine a light on the inappropriate and dangerous woke agenda.

The bottom line is that you can push back on implicit bias training. We hope this list helps you avoid – and even end – the kind of ideological indoctrination that has no place in healthcare.

Have you been forced or otherwise pushed to take implicit bias training? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

“How to Respond to Implicit Bias” GraphicDownload

The Kentucky Board of Nursing is Requiring Implicit Bias Training as a Condition of Licensure

Yet another state is accusing its nurses of being racists.

Do No Harm received a tip about a mandate from the Kentucky Board of Nursing (KBN) to more than 100,000 RNs, LPNs, and advanced practice RNs. As a result of state regulations finalized in January, all licensed nurses in the state are required to complete a 90-minute continuing education course which informs them of how their patient care practices are impacted by “historical racism and other forms of invidious discrimination.” 

From the KNA Implicit Bias Curriculum.

The KBN directs licensees to the Kentucky Nurses Association (KNA) for its course titled Implicit Bias in Healthcare. The course curriculum, which can be accessed on the KNA mandatory continuing education information page, claims that “implicit bias is a public health crisis” while relying on the discredited Implicit Association Test (IAT) to measure the extent of a nurse’s bias. Incredibly, the KNA course declares that when nurses lack awareness of their implicit biases, it places their patients’ lives “in jeopardy,” and attributes “levels of oppression and racism” to “white supremacy.”

From the KNA Implicit Bias Curriculum.

At the same time the KBN made its declaration to force nurses to participate in implicit bias training as a condition of licensure, the CEO of LeadingAge Kentucky reported to WTVQ, a local news outlet, that they are “looking for bodies” due to a critical nursing shortage. The deficit of qualified nurses was deemed to be so significant in December 2021 that Governor Andy Beshear declared it to be a state of emergency. Yet, the day after the WTVQ story was published, the KBN implemented the training mandate, which is an unavoidable prerequisite for nurses seeking employment in Kentucky to obtain a license.

The KBN is degrading the nursing profession and the tradition of trust between the public and nurses by implying they are too biased to provide safe care. Kentucky must dispose of this insulting requirement before its nursing shortage reaches a dangerous level of intensity.

If you are a nurse who is subject to this directive in Kentucky or are aware of a similar obligation in another state, please let us know.

Arizona’s Top Medical Schools Are Going Woke

,

Arizona’s best medical schools are fully bought into the divisive and discriminatory woke agenda. That’s what Do No Harm found after doing a deep dive into the policies and practices at University of Arizona and Arizona State University. The state’s patients – and policymakers – should be very concerned.

Consider what’s happening at the University of Arizona, which operates colleges of medicine in Phoenix and Tucson. The leadership of the latter campus has expressed its commitment to “academic excellence through diversity, equity and inclusion,” even though these concepts have more to do with identity politics than medicine. Similarly, the campus uses “targeted recruitment and retention efforts” to promote diversity, which means discriminating against students and faculty based on their skin color.

The Phoenix campus is even worse. It has a “Statement on Racism” that declares “racism [is] a public health emergency,” which is used to justify spreading discriminatory “anti-racist” ideas. It also has an Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion that offers “Twelve Action Steps Toward Inclusive Excellence.” The list includes mandatory (and deeply insulting) implicit bias training for faculty and students, discriminatory scholarships based on race, and the incorporation of identity politics into the curriculum.

It’s a similar story at Arizona State University’s Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, as well as its College of Health Solutions. The former “adopted diversity, equity and inclusion as a core value of a five-year strategic plan” last year, while the latter is embedding DEI “as a transformational force in every aspect of our teaching, research, and service.” Translation: Faculty and students alike will be forced to accept politicized topics instead of focusing on providing the best care to individual patients.

Arizona lawmakers should take note of what’s happening at their state’s best medical schools. They should ask – and better yet, investigate – why UA and ASU think divisive and discriminatory ideas are acceptable in medical education. They’re not.

Are you a student at an Arizona medical school and have you seen woke policies? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

New York City Must Come Clean on Discriminatory COVID Policies

Why is New York City hiding the details surrounding its racially discriminatory COVID policies? That’s the question the Government Justice Center is asking in a new lawsuit. For the sake of patients’ equal access to potentially life-saving care, New York City needs to come clean.

At issue is the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s 2021 Health Advisory on COVID, which stated that a patient’s race should factor into their eligibility to receive antiviral treatment. (New York state has a similar policy.) That’s blatantly discriminatory on its face, yet when the Government Justice Center submitted a freedom of information law request, the city stonewalled.

Instead of sending the requested documents, a bureaucrat directed the department to “send the standard acknowledgement” and put the request “on the sensitive list.” Clearly, the city knew its discriminatory policy was problematic, and after a few months of delays, it denied the request altogether. After an administrative appeal, the city was given until August 31 to disclose the documents, but it missed that deadline, too.

It’s been eight-plus months since the Government Justice Center filed its freedom of information request. Now the center is suing the city to force it comply with the law and provide clarity to citizens. It’s bad enough that New York City is hiding the details about its discriminatory COVID policies. It’s even worse that it refuses to tell the people why it decided to discriminate in the first place.

Virginia’s AG Calls Out A Woke Front Group


Three cheers for Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares. He’s calling out the National Academy for State Health Policy – a supposedly “non-partisan” group – for pushing blatantly divisive and discriminatory woke ideology. This is exactly the kind of leadership physicians and patients need to see from their elected officials.

The National Academy for State Health Policy is as woke as it gets. It has made “health equity” one of its highest priorities, and sure enough, it’s pushing “diversity” in the healthcare workforce while calling for “structural racism” training. As we’ve seen, such efforts typically devolve to accusing physicians of being racist and supporting policies that discriminate on the basis of skin color.

The academy works directly with states to implement policies, which means it’s in a prime position to push identity politics onto states like Virginia. Fortunately, Attorney General Miyares wants nothing to do with the group:

“It’s disturbing to see the National Academy for State Health Policy, which claims to be nonpartisan, embrace a partisan liberal agenda… States should closely examine NASHP’s rhetoric and activities and not embrace more division and divisiveness, particularly around public health.”

More attorneys general (as well as governors) should join Miyares in calling out this group. Not only that, they should block the discriminatory and divisive healthcare policies that the National Academy for State Health Policy and other groups are supporting in their states. Elected officials should be fighting to keep healthcare fair and patient-focused – and Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares shows the way.

Does your state have woke healthcare policies that should be repealed? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

More Changes in Discriminatory Scholarships – Medical Schools Are Now Using Updated Eligibility Criteria

, , , , , , , ,

Four more medical schools have removed or altered their scholarship websites after Do No Harm filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights for discriminatory eligibility criteria. Scholarships that use race-specific eligibility requirements violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

University of Oklahoma – Tulsa: The “Visiting Underrepresented in Medicine Student Elective Program” removed race-specific eligibility and now says that “any MS4 student may apply.” The program still states that preference will be given to applicants who are “underrepresented in medicine.”

University of Utah School of Medicine: The “Underrepresented in Medicine Student Clerkship Grant,” which included race-specific eligibility criteria, has been taken down from the Division of Otolaryngology’s internet pages. The “Ophthalmology Fellowship for Underrepresented Minorities in Medicine”  still requires applicants to identify as “Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and/or Native American (American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian).” 

The Ohio State University College of Medicine voluntarily changed the language that previously listed race-specific eligibility criteria for its “Obstetrics and Gynecology URiM Visiting Student Scholarship,” and Do No Harm withdrew our OCR complaint.

Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine: Following our OCR complaint and website posting, the links to the “GME-to-Faculty Diversity Advancement Pathway (FDAP)” program and application have been completely disabled. The program was featured in OHSUSOM’s September 2022 Belong, Include, Empower newsletter.  

Earlier this month, we reported that the University of Florida College of Medicine eliminated race-specific eligibility requirements for its Visiting Student Diversity Award. 

As recipients of federal financial assistance, medical schools are legally obligated to actively enforce Title VI’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin, and must certify to the Department of Education that they are doing so. The recent removals or alterations of medical school websites for racially discriminatory programs demonstrate that many schools are routinely filing false certifications and are failing in their legal obligations to actively enforce federal civil rights laws. 

Does your medical school offer a discriminatory scholarship? Please let us know – anonymously and securely.

Iowa’s Implicit Bias Insult To Doctors

Iowa is effectively accusing doctors of being racist. That’s the reality following a 2021 meeting by the Iowa Board of Medicine. The minutes indicate that the board recommends that doctors study “implicit bias” as part of their licensing. Implicit bias training has no place in healthcare because it tells doctors they are guilty of racial prejudice simply because of their skin color.

The Board of Medicine is pushing an educational panel hosted by the Federation of State Medical Boards, which engages in woke advocacy nationwide. By listening to the panel, doctors obtain continuing education credit, which is required as part of regular license renewals. But the panel has nothing to do with education and everything to do with race-based ideology:

“At a time when many communities across America are struggling with issues of racial injustice and social unrest, national dialogue about systemic inequities is on the rise. Among the sectors increasingly being discussed is health care, where issues surrounding health equity – and the presence of racism and implicit bias – have been demonstrated…”

“Topics for discussion will include the impact of racism and implicit bias on health disparities and the need for systemic change to eliminate barriers that prevent access to quality care for at-risk communities.”

Implicit bias is just another word for racism. By recommending that doctors study a panel that says they hold such biases, the Iowa Board of Medicine is essentially accusing them of being racist. Yet that’s racially discriminatory in and of itself, and in any case, the evidence clearly shows that implicit bias testing is fatally flawed.

Thankfully, Iowa hasn’t mandated implicit bias training for all doctors – but that may be coming soon. Other states, including neighboring Illinois, already force doctors to take classes that say they’re racist because of their skin color. Let’s hope Iowa lawmakers investigate the Board of Medicine – and stop any mandatory implicit bias training in its tracks.

Is your state forcing medical professionals to take implicit bias training? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

The Advisory Board Company’s Bad Advice

The Advisory Board Company is proud of its “40 years of making healthcare better.” Yet the big consulting firm, which shapes how countless medical providers operate, is now actively making healthcare worse. Look no further than its recent “identity and inclusion” propaganda booklet for hospitals and doctor’s offices.

An anonymous doctor sent us a copy of the booklet (published in January), which is officially titled “how to address conflict related to identity and inclusion in a team setting.” It’s advertised as being a “tool for healthcare providers worldwide,” yet by page two, it’s painfully clear that no one in medicine should use this ideologically driven farce. 

Here’s what the booklet says under its “how to use this tool” instructions. It’s designed for managers responding to the following situations:

  • “A team member uses exclusive language, knowingly or unknowingly. Listen for words or phrases that emphasize differences between privileged social groups and targeted or marginalized social groups.”
  • “Someone acts in a harmful way that can make others feel excluded. For example, a team member may speak or act out against a new diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative.”

Did you catch that? This booklet is meant to force doctors and nurses to buy into the divisive woke concepts of “privilege” and “intersectionality,” among others.

What’s more, bosses should use it to stop medical professionals from criticizing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives – even though such efforts tend toward racial discrimination risk more division and frustration by physicians.

There’s no telling how many medical providers are using this so-called “tool.” The Advisory Board Company should be ashamed of pushing it out, and hospitals and doctor’s offices should keep it out of their practices.

Do you know of a healthcare consultant that’s pushing wokeness on medical providers? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

More Dishonor For The Medical Honor Society

Remember how the national medical honor society caved to woke demands at UPenn’s medical school? The same thing has happened at the University of Utah Medical School, where Alpha Omega Alpha has decided to choose members based on their wokeness instead of just on academic excellence.

An anonymous tipster sent us a copy of an email laying out the new AOA member selection process. It reads:

“The AOA Constitution was changed… the fourth year group is elected based on an application process that tries to assess scholastic achievement, professionalism, research efforts, service, and commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion… we think this is a more fair and appropriate system than academic rank alone.” (Emphases Added.)

Let’s translate: If you want to be part of this prestigious organization, you have to prove you’re woke enough. Yet that’s not what Alpha Omega Alpha was designed to recognize. 

As our chairman, Dr. Stan Goldfarb, has written in his book, AOA was established in 1915 as a race-neutral organization committed to recognizing medical students who distinguish themselves academically. Now some chapters are completely flipping, becoming a race-focused group focused on students who set themselves apart ideologically.

Such is the nature of the woke takeover of healthcare. It’s lowering standards across the board, while claiming to raise them. The next generation of physicians will reflect this decline. Worse, the patients these physicians serve will feel it.

Have you seen divisive woke policies or practices at your medical school? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

NIH Is Funding Race-Based Hires

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to hire people based on their skin color. That’s the reality of what appears to be a new grant program that’s already active at Northwestern University. It’s one more example of the discriminatory, race-based decision-making that’s corrupting healthcare and jeopardizing its quality.

Northwestern just announced that NIH gave it $16 million to “disrupt systemic barriers that impede the full participation of underrepresented groups… in the areas of cancer, cardiovascular, and brain and behavioral sciences.” With this substantial sum, the university will “hire 15 new tenure-track faculty, and will deploy innovative strategies to ensure the success of faculty members from historically underrepresented populations.”

Is race really the most important factor in hiring faculty for key medical fields? Of course not. What really matters is the quality of hires, regardless of skin color, since the best candidates can conduct the best research that leads to medical progress and treatments. By putting race first with these grants, NIH is both abetting discrimination and potentially undermining medical teaching, research, and innovation.

The leadership of the National Institutes of Health should be ashamed, and better yet, investigated by Congress. Why is the federal government using taxpayer money to hire people based on their race? The name for that is discrimination – and taxpayers should never be complicit in it.

Do you know of a government policy that brings discrimination into healthcare? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.