American Medical Society for Sports Medicine Offers Racially Discriminatory Grant

The American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) Foundation is restricting eligibility for a research grant to members of certain racial groups.

The grant, called the Minority Research Grant, is designed “to provide research opportunities specifically for historically underrepresented minorities in biomedical research to advance representation across diverse backgrounds and promote health equity in sports medicine research,” and offers $10,000 in total funding.

The AMSSM also encourages applications to address “health disparities within sports medicine.”

Figure 1. Screenshot of AMSSM grant listing.

But there’s just one catch: eligibility for the grant is restricted by race. 

“The Principal Investigator (PI) of the grant must be an AMSSM member at the time of grant submission and meet the criteria for underrepresentation provided below,” the listing reads, noting that previous grants used the National Institutes of Health (NIH) definition of “underrepresented” which has since been deleted. 

“Since that page no longer currently exists, AMSSM would like to clarify eligibility for the 2025 grant cycle to include all of the following categories with active current references: Individuals from racial and ethnic groups shown to be underrepresented in biomedical research including Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders,” the grant listing reads, mirroring the NIH’s definition.

Figure 2. Screenshot of AMSSM grant listing.

The listing also defined “underrepresented” as including individuals with disabilities and various economically disadvantaged groups.

Unfortunately, these discriminatory grants are all too common as major medical associations prioritize DEI ideology over excellence and merit; the American Heart Association, for example, restricted eligibility for a research grant by requiring “at least 25% of key personnel of the research team must be from groups who are under-represented in science and medicine.”

The best and most ethical way to broaden opportunities for underrepresented groups is simply to reward the most deserving applicants, rather than those who happen to check the correct racial boxes.

Medical University of South Carolina Rebrands Discriminatory DEI Programs

The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) might be figuring out which way the wind is blowing; the school appears to have renamed several of its initiatives to downplay their DEI-related purposes.

Take its division dedicated to “inclusive” resources and mentoring.

The old version of the web page, dated February 10, reads as follows: “To support our mission and our vision to become a nationally recognized model of excellence for U.S. medical schools, the PRIME (Pathway Resources & Inclusive Mentoring and Excellence) Division works to support all students, residents, and faculty by implementing mentorship and professional development programs designed to ensure that we are providing the best health care teams for all South Carolinians.”

The current version, meanwhile, reads as follows: “To support our mission and our vision to become a nationally recognized model of excellence for U.S. medical schools, the PRIME (Pathway Resources & Impactful Mentoring and Excellence) Division works to support all students, residents, and faculty by implementing mentorship and professional development programs designed to ensure that we are providing the best health care teams for all South Carolinians.”

Notice anything different? MUSC renamed its “PRIME” division to remove mention of “inclusive mentoring.”

It’s doubtful that this represents a significant shift in MUSC’s DEI priorities, given that several programs explicitly geared toward “underrepresented groups” appear to remain active.

But perhaps MUSC realizes that the DEI branding is a little too toxic in this day and age.

For instance, the archived web page of MUSC’s Summer Institute, dated February 10, states that the Institute’s objective is to increase representation of racial and ethnic minorities in the medical profession.

“The purpose of the Summer Institute is to increase the number of underrepresented groups, to include racial/ethnic minorities, rural and/or first-generation college students, as well as other students interested in further diversifying the physician workforce from South Carolina who are matriculating into the medical profession,” the archived web page stated.

However, the current web page omits mention of “underrepresented groups” entirely, instead just describing the program’s details.

As another example, the archived web page, from November 2024, for MUSC’s residency programs highlighted the “major recruitment effort for under-represented in medicine (URiM) residents” that the school had undertaken. It also discussed the work of the “Resident Diversity Transition Forum” and how the McClennan-Banks Resident Society worked to “enhance diversity within the College of Medicine.”

The current web page omits these references, with the Resident Diversity Transition Forum renamed as simply the “Resident Transition Forum.”

Again, it’s difficult to imagine this rebranding represents an institutional departure from DEI, considering how ingrained it is in MUSC’s programs and infrastructure.

The school shelled out a $370,000 annual salary for a “chief equity officer” just last year; meanwhile, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) launched an investigation into MUSC over several discriminatory scholarships and programs, prompting the school to alter its discriminatory eligibility criteria.

If MUSC is serious about abandoning DEI, there should be no half-measures.

Courts Pause Trump’s Gender Executive Order – Here’s the Path Forward

In recent days, many friends and members of Do No Harm have asked: What do we do now that multiple federal courts have paused President Trump’s executive order protecting children from transgender medical interventions?

Our answer is simple: Keep fighting.

First, these pauses are simply part of the long process of change. They were expected – and the path forward is clear. Do No Harm has and will continue to push for legislative reforms at the federal level, regardless of which way the courts come down on the executive order. Our mission and our strategic priorities haven’t changed, and neither has our goal of codifying protections for our country’s children through Congress.

We have the momentum. These pauses won’t affect that. Just this week, Kansas lawmakers overrode the governor’s veto to pass a law banning child sex change interventions, and the Department of Health and Human Services rescinded Biden-era guidance that supported medical providers performing these procedures.

Second, it’s important to understand that no federal court has permanently halted the President’s executive order. They’ve issued what’s known as a “temporary restraining order.” These limitations can only last for a few weeks at most – and they don’t indicate that a court will permanently block the policy in question. They simply give judges some extra time to understand the policy before issuing their rulings, which may go our way.

And third, there’s already precedent for the best possible outcome. After President Trump issued his federal employee buyout plan, a judge issued a temporary restraining order that he quickly repealed within days. The President’s buyout plan is now in effect. Federal courts could take the same road with the President’s order protecting children.

Some courts may go the opposite route, issuing permanent injunctions once temporary restraining orders expire; in fact, the plaintiffs in the lawsuits over the executive orders are now seeking preliminary injunctions, with the Department of Justice due to respond Tuesday. Transgender activists and their allies are hoping for that, which is why they’ve filed many of their cases in the most liberal courts in the country. But such cases aren’t likely to survive on appeal.

We’re disappointed that activist federal judges are already trying to block President Trump’s commonsense order keeping children safe from extreme gender ideology.

But whatever happens in the courts, we’re confident that our country’s children will soon be protected.

We’ll continue to fight for quick resolutions to these lawsuits, while pushing for federal legislation that enshrines the President’s policy in law.

The fight to protect America’s children is far from over. In fact, it’s only just begun.

University of Washington Injects DEI into Psychiatry

Would you want your psychiatrist viewing your treatment through the lens of historical racial inequities? Should your psychiatrist have spent their time learning how to incorporate “equity-focused language” into their practice?

The answers to these questions may seem obvious, but not to the University of Washington (UW).

The UW School of Medicine’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences has a “toolkit” for how to promote “equity, diversity, and inclusion” (EDI) within medical education. 

The toolkit is specifically for the UW Psychiatry Residency Program, which has a “dedicated EDI module” within its didactic curriculum to promote DEI topics in medicine. According to the department’s DEI page, the module includes topics such as “structural competency, social determinants of mental health, bias in the clinical encounter, the Cultural Formulation Interview, an LGBTQ series, religion & psychiatry, ableism, the history of racism and sexism in psychiatry, cultural psychiatry, and global mental health.”

Additionally, the residency program also elects an “EDI Lead” in charge of the EDI/DEI initiatives within the program, including organizing “Antiracism Committee meetings,” organizing the “URM Support Group,” and assisting with recruiting efforts for “underrepresented applicants,” and improving the EDI didactic curriculum.

The URM Support Group appears to be a racial affinity group of some kind that the department describes as a “safe space for residents who are under-represented in medicine” that is “led by underrepresented alums of the program.” 

It’s unclear what the membership criteria is for this group, and it does not appear similar resources exist for groups not deemed to be “underrepresented.” And the reference to recruiting efforts for “underrepresented applicants” smells like preferential treatment for individuals based on race.

But that’s not all; the toolkit encourages residents to prioritize DEI concepts in medical education. For instance, the toolkit features a checklist that includes a reminder to “reflect on your identities and biases and on the historical context and systems of inequities that played a role in your topic.” 

Figure 1. Screenshot of UW’s Checklist for Incorporating EDI into Didactics.

The toolkit further urges residents to “address equity by discussing how these systems of oppression came to be, continue to exist, and the ways we can help our patients overcome them.” 

Residents can further advance DEI by “celebrat[ing] achievements made by diverse people and groups in psychiatry and mental health.”

The toolkit also includes a section on “gender equity,” in which it encourages the use of “inclusive terminology such as “people with the capacity for pregnancy” rather than “women” since, quote, “not all people who can become pregnant are women.”

In summation, the UW School of Medicine wants to reshape psychiatric education around a radical and divisive agenda that encourages discriminatory policies and beliefs.

These are not the best practices to treat patients’ mental health; rather, they are the hallmarks of ideologues using psychiatry to advance their worldview.

Medical Associations Pledge Support for DEI in Response to President Trump’s Executive Orders

Since taking office, President Trump has signed several executive orders that will likely transform the medical landscape, especially regarding medical associations’ involvement with DEI and gender ideology. These orders target discriminatory DEI programs in the private sector, as well as federal funding of DEI initiatives.

Major medical associations like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Association of American Medical Colleges have largely elected to remain silent, despite their institutional commitments to DEI, and not outwardly oppose the executive orders.

However, several major medical associations have pledged to continue their DEI advocacy in response to President Trump’s executive orders.

American College of Physicians

The American College of Physicians (ACP) has pledged to advocate for its “equity” agenda in response to President Trump’s executive orders cracking down on DEI, particularly among medical associations.

On February 7, ACP issued a statement and organizational guidance explaining its posture toward the Trump administration. The guidance particularly focused on President Trump’s DEI executive orders, and doubled down on the organization’s commitment to DEI while pledging further advocacy efforts.

“We’re reaffirming our commitment to equity, compassion, inclusion and justice as our core values,” Shari Erickson, ACP’s “chief advocacy officer and senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy,” said in the statement.

The guidance also contained an item stating that the organization will “Reaffirm That Equity Is an Essential Bedrock of ACP Policy.”

“Equity is such an integral part of our policies and principles that we needed to reaffirm our positions,” Erickson said.

American Nurses Association

Do No Harm obtained a February 12 email from Angela Beddoe, Chief Executive Officer of the American Nurses Association (ANA) Enterprise, pledging to support policies that advance diversity and equity.

“First, let’s talk about the efforts to eliminate DEI. For us it is not just an acronym. It’s about making sure every individual has access to quality healthcare and tapping into all populations to develop a nursing workforce that is representative of the communities served. It’s about embracing the differences everybody brings to the table regardless of race, age, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ability, socio-economic status, or even geographic location. Equity means treating everyone fairly, recognizing that everyone does not start from the same place, and we must acknowledge and make necessary adjustments to imbalances for every American.  

We will stand in support of policies which guarantee that all individuals are being taken care of, and we continue to lean into our values to safeguard nursing workforce policies which create opportunities for all Americans, including drawing discouraged workers into the labor force and supporting equitable health care access and outcomes for all.” 

American Society of Hematology

Do No Harm also obtained a February 14 email from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) President Belinda R. Avalos to ASH members that included a column from Avalos vowing to continue DEI activities in response to the executive orders.

“I want to share an early look at my next column (for the March/April issue) with you here because it addresses topics I believe we’re all following: the changes coming from the new presidential administration related to science and research, and its treatment of anything perceived to be a ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ program. It’s important for you to know that ASH remains committed to its mission of improving access to quality care and supporting the growth and development of an expanding field of professional researchers and clinicians in hematology.

Keep Your Eyes on the Prize

‘And that brings us to commitment. Our core values do not have their roots in politics, nor will they be abandoned by policy shifts. Remember ASH’s mission: “Fostering high-quality, equitable care, transformative research, and innovative education to improve the lives of patients with blood and bone marrow disorders.”

We’ve advanced that mission under multiple presidential administrations and Congresses, irrespective of the party in power. We will continue to do so. And ASH will not waver in its commitment to combating discrimination and fostering fairness in health care, nurturing a hematology workforce that is reflective of and better serves the larger population, and welcoming a wide variety of perspectives, experiences, and expertise to the fight against blood diseases.

We may have to consider new approaches and be more creative in how to advance those goals, but our work remains vital and necessary.’”

ASH has a long history of promoting DEI and discriminatory programs; the organization rebranded its discriminatory Minority Recruitment Initiative (MRI) after Do No Harm filed civil rights complaints against 20 medical schools that advertised the program.

American Academy of Family Physicians

American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) President Jen Brull, MD, wrote a blog expressing dismay over President Trump’s executive orders and actions. 

“In the past two weeks, we have seen an unprecedented number of executive orders and actions that threaten the health of our patients, the practice of family medicine and the well-being of the communities we serve. The pace and scope of these changes are concerning, and I want to be clear: The AAFP shares your concerns, and we are taking action,” the blog reads.

Brull does not explicitly mention the executive orders regarding DEI and gender ideology. 

But it’s worth noting that the AAFP is a staunch advocate for DEI and child sex changes, even publicly opposing state efforts to protect children from harmful transgender medical procedures.

National Association of School Psychologists

In response to the executive orders, National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) President Peter Faustino sent an email to members doubling down on the organization’s DEI activities. 

While the NASP declined to overtly oppose the executive order, it did reiterate its commitment to “equity, diversity, and inclusion” in spite of the executive order.

Additionally, the NASP linked to its “Resolutions” webpage which includes resolutions to pursue divisive agenda items such as “anti-racism” (which, in practice, invariably involves racial discrimination).

The anti-racism resolution include commitments to “prioritize the perspectives and viewpoints of BIPOC students, families, and communities,” to “provide opportunities for implicit bias training and education for school psychologists and graduate educators,” to advocate for hiring policies so that school psychologists are “reflective of the demographics of the school community,” and many more.

Editor’s note: This list will be updated in the future.

University of Colorado Settles with Do No Harm, Changes Discriminatory Scholarship Criteria

RICHMOND, VA; February 14, 2025 – This week, the University of Colorado School of Medicine agreed with medical watchdog Do No Harm to reform the school’s discriminatory race-based scholarship that excluded white and Asian American applicants. Do No Harm sued the medical school in December 2024 on behalf of a member who was excluded from the scholarship due to race.  

“We are pleased that University of Colorado eliminated the racial requirement for this scholarship,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Racial discrimination is immoral and has no place in medical education. Medical scholarships should go to the most qualified candidate based on merit, not race.” 

Background: 

  • The University of Colorado School of Medicine’s Radiation Oncology Department offered a $2,000 “Underrepresented Minority Visiting Elective Scholarship.”
  • However, the Underrepresented Minority Visiting Elective Scholarship was available only to students from groups that are “historically underrepresented in medicine,” excluding white and Asian American students. 
  • In December 2024, Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against the medical school on behalf of one of its members who was otherwise eligible for the scholarship, but was disqualified based on race. 
  • On February 13, the University of Colorado agreed with Do No Harm that it should drop the racial requirements for this scholarship, also changing the scholarship’s name to the “Radiation Oncology Visiting Elective Scholarship.” In connection with the lawsuit, the University of Colorado also removed discriminatory requirements from another scholarship program, opening up the GEMS Program to students of all races.

More information on the lawsuit can be found at Do No Harm v. University of Colorado. 

The joint stipulation of dismissal can be found here. 

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 15,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

American College of Physicians Pledges to Fight for DEI in Response to Trump Executive Orders

The American College of Physicians (ACP) has pledged to advocate for its “equity” agenda in response to President Trump’s executive orders cracking down on DEI, particularly among medical associations.

On February 7, ACP issued a statement and organizational guidance explaining its posture toward the Trump administration. The guidance particularly focused on President Trump’s DEI executive orders, and doubled down on the organization’s commitment to DEI while pledging further advocacy efforts.

“We’re reaffirming our commitment to equity, compassion, inclusion and justice as our core values,” Shari Erickson, ACP’s “chief advocacy officer and senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy,” said in the statement.

The guidance also contained an item stating that the organization will “Reaffirm That Equity Is an Essential Bedrock of ACP Policy.”

“Equity is such an integral part of our policies and principles that we needed to reaffirm our positions,” Erickson said.

It’s worth noting that the ACP has been the beneficiary of millions in federal funding through grants and contracts that have enabled the organization to operate several advertised programs. For instance, in the first Trump administration, the organization received over $2 million in federal funding for its “I Raise the Rates” vaccination program.

The ACP further pledged to further its advocacy efforts in response to the executive orders.

“We need to strike the right balance and have meaningful impact on the implementation of policies or their reversal,” Erickson said. “There are various ways that we can respond: through public statements, responses regarding regulations and letters to the administration and members of Congress, and by filing friend-of-the-court briefs in court cases.”

President Trump’s executive order asked the heads of federal agencies and departments to produce a strategic enforcement plan to deter illegal DEI programs and practices, with each agency tasked with identifying “nine potential civil compliance investigations” of private-sector organizations. Moreover, the executive order explicitly mentions “medical associations” as targets of enforcement action.

Do No Harm previously reported that many medical associations who have openly embraced DEI and gender ideology had opted to avoid public disavowals of the Trump executive orders. However, some organizations, like the National Association of School Psychologists, have taken public stances defending their DEI practices.

The ACP is no stranger to activism and advocacy that strays away from its organizational purview of medicine and into identity politics. For instance, the ACP proposed a framework for health equity that included criminal justice and law enforcement reforms.

We hope the ACP ends its DEI advocacy and abandons this discriminatory and regressive ideology.

AAMC Webinar Instructs Pediatricians to be ‘Antiracist’ Activists

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), undeterred by the deluge of media coverage exposing its radical activism and the recent executive actions targeting DEI, hosted a webinar last week on pediatrician competencies that included a lengthy discussion on anti-racist activism.

The webinar, titled Competency-Based Medical Education: A Framework for Advancing Equity for our Learners and Our Patients, featured discussions on how the “competency-based” approach to medical education can be used to drive “equity” in the medical field.

The speakers included the Vice President of Competency-Based Medical Education at the American Board of Pediatrics, Dr. David Turner, and the webinar specifically focused on how pediatricians can work to advance equity. 

One speaker, Dr. Patricia Poitevien, referenced a slide explaining that a critical “function” of a pediatrician was “dismantling processes/systems rooted in racism and/or discrimination thereby eliminating inequities and achieving optimal health outcomes for all children.” A key curricular component of medical education assessing that function requires pediatricians to “promote[] antiracism and work[] to eliminate the impact of all forms of racism on health outcomes.”

A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated
Figure 1. A screenshot of the AAMC webinar on Competency-Based Medical Education.

“What skills would they be able to demonstrate? What behaviors would they have to participate in? Which behaviors would we have to assess in a critical learning environment to say ‘yes, you are entrustable in actually doing this function and becoming a pediatrician,’” Poitevien said, referring to assessing a pediatrician’s competencies regarding “antiracism.”

The claim here, that a pediatrician must “promote antiracism” to properly function as a pediatrician, is absurd and disturbing. 

Antiracism is a divisive and harmful ideology that explicitly endorses racial discrimination as a tool to right past wrongs. The goal of antiracism is to achieve equity by disadvantaging certain racial groups and preferencing others. As its most prominent advocate Ibram X. Kendi has said: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

In essence, the webinar’s takeaway is that pediatricians must be trained to promote this toxic worldview in order to properly live up to their station.

The context of the webinar is critical: One of the AAMC’s larger focus areas is Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME), an educational framework that assesses students, physicians, and other learners on performance outcomes across several core “competencies.”

In particular, the AAMC is working on a joint initiative with the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM), and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) called the Foundational Competencies for Undergraduate Education; the AAMC report on the Foundational Competencies for Undergraduate Education lists six core competencies.

Additionally, the webinar is part of the AAMC’s IDEAS educational series, which stands for “Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, [and] Anti-racism” and features presentations and courses intended to advance DEI in medicine. According to the IDEAS homepage, “improving inclusion, diversity, equity, and anti-racism is a critical priority for the academic medicine community.”

In another IDEAS webinar, the AAMC pushed to “institutionalize” DEI among all the major organizations in medical education.

Unfortunately, this institutional commitment to DEI and racially discriminatory ideology on the part of the AAMC is nothing new; Do No Harm exposed the AAMC’s wholesale embrace of radical identity politics in our landmark report in December. The report exposed how the AAMC has embedded DEI into every facet of medical education, and sparked a wave of negative media attention and investigation into the AAMC’s practices.

It seems that, despite the backlash to its radical activism, the AAMC has learned nothing.

CAP Survey Grills Members on Race, DEI Policies

Should a medical association care about the racial and sexual composition of its membership?

Do No Harm obtained a copy of the College of American Pathologists’ (CAP) December 2024 DEI survey, administered by CAP’s DEI Committee. The survey asks members to report their race, sexual identity, sexual orientation, pronouns and more. 

Additionally, the survey asks them to rate the effectiveness of CAP’s DEI programs and activities. (For the record, CAP has won awards for its DEI efforts).

“The race and sexuality of CAP’s members should have no legitimate organizational purpose.

But combine that with CAP’s stated goal to pursue DEI and it becomes even more problematic.”

Figure 1. CAP’s DEI survey.
Figure 2. CAP’s DEI survey.

Moreover, CAP DEI Committee’s goals are to “facilitate the development of a pipeline to build a CAP leadership that reflects the rich diversity inherent in the community of board-certified pathologists and pathologists-in-training” and to “grow and strengthen the diversity of the CAP membership and promote engagement with the CAP being mindful of equity and inclusion.”

The committee is also charged with a duty to “explore interest in affinity groups (such as an African American group).”

The term “affinity groups” refers to groups within an organization centered around a particular racial or ethnic identity that, explicitly or implicitly, are often segregated.

It’s concerning that CAP would structure its organizational priorities around DEI and race.

Racial divisions are toxic, detrimental to the larger mission of medicine, and outright prejudicial. 

CAP should ensure it does not engage in racial discrimination in the name of “diversity,” and that it replaces its fixation on race with a commitment to merit and excellence.

The National Association of School Psychologists Doubles Down on DEI

The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) appears to be doubling down on its commitment to DEI in the wake of President Trump’s executive order targeting DEI at medical associations.

President Trump signed an executive order last month that, among other things, asked the heads of federal agencies and departments to produce a strategic enforcement plan to deter illegal DEI programs and practices, with each agency tasked with identifying “nine potential civil compliance investigations” of private-sector organizations.

Moreover, the executive order explicitly mentions “medical associations” as targets of enforcement action; Do No Harm previously reported that many medical associations who have openly embraced DEI and gender ideology had opted to avoid public disavowals of the Trump executive orders.

In response, NASP President Peter Faustino sent an email to members doubling down on the organization’s DEI activities. 

While the NASP declined to overtly oppose the executive order, it did reiterate its commitment to “equity, diversity, and inclusion” in spite of the executive order.

Figure 1: Screenshot from an NASP email.

Additionally, the NASP linked to its “Resolutions” webpage which includes resolutions to pursue divisive agenda items such as “anti-racism” (which, in practice, invariably involves racial discrimination).

The anti-racism resolution include commitments to “prioritize the perspectives and viewpoints of BIPOC students, families, and communities,” to “provide opportunities for implicit bias training and education for school psychologists and graduate educators,” to advocate for hiring policies so that school psychologists are “reflective of the demographics of the school community,” and many more.

Figure 2: Screenshot from an NASP email.

The email links to the NASP Policy Platform, which also includes multiple references to efforts to advance the DEI agenda.

For instance, the platform includes avowals to oppose policies that would “condition the receipt of federal funds on the prohibition or censorship of curricula, instruction, discussion, or professional development related to: equity, diversity, culturally responsive practices, cultural humility, systemic racism, mitigating implicit bias, social-emotional learning, or any other topic of relevance in K-12 schools and within the higher education system.”

In a three-part series, Do No Harm cataloged the NASP’s embrace of DEI and gender ideology, and its attempts to inject its agenda into every facet of the school psychologist profession.

For instance, the NASP put out a press release in 2023 announcing that it “condemns recent legislative efforts and executive actions in states across the country that seek to discourage, criminalize, and endanger transgender and gender diverse students.”

The organization also defended the teaching of critical race theory in public schools and promoted implicit bias trainings for the school psychologist profession.

Moreover, the NASP’s continuing professional development mandate requires certified individuals to undergo DEI training and indoctrination.

It’s concerning that the NASP is reaffirming its commitment to these ideals and practice, considering how enthusiastic its support for divisive, discriminatory, and radical politics has been.

We urge them to take stock of how unpopular this regressive ideology is, and commit themselves instead to providing the best possible mental health care.

Medical Associations Should Read the Room: Identity Politics are on the Way Out

,

Since taking office, President Trump has signed several executive orders that will likely transform the medical landscape, especially regarding medical associations’ involvement with DEI and gender ideology.

But many medical associations who have advocated strongly for child sex change interventions and DEI initiatives have yet to issue any real substantive public statement on the executive orders.

The American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Association of American Medical Colleges, for example, have not voiced their opposition to the orders despite the focus on several main areas of their political activism.

It’s almost certainly too optimistic to read this as a sign of any meaningful change in organizational priorities. But it’s not nothing.

Medical associations should take this opportunity to focus instead on the valuable and rewarding work of promoting knowledge and best practices within their specific domain, and ditch their divisive activism once and for all.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, on the other hand, may be charting a different course.

AAFP President Jen Brull, MD, wrote a blog Monday expressing dismay over President Trump’s executive orders and actions. 

“In the past two weeks, we have seen an unprecedented number of executive orders and actions that threaten the health of our patients, the practice of family medicine and the well-being of the communities we serve. The pace and scope of these changes are concerning, and I want to be clear: The AAFP shares your concerns, and we are taking action,” the blog reads.

Brull does not explicitly mention the executive orders regarding DEI and gender ideology. 

But it’s worth noting that the AAFP is a staunch advocate for DEI and child sex changes, even publicly opposing state efforts to protect children from harmful transgender medical procedures.

Moreover, in 2022, at several of the organization’s events, the AAFP held numerous DEI-focused sessions and panels, such as presentations on anti-racism. Anti-racism explicitly calls for racial discrimination to right past historical wrongs. In 2023, the AAFP’s vice president of medical education bemoaned the Supreme Court’s decision that found race-based university admissions unconstitutional, instead calling for alternative means of racial discrimination.

“Our advocacy efforts are focused on protecting patient care, defending evidence-based medicine and science, and ensuring that family physicians can continue to provide the full spectrum of care our patients need,” the blog continues. “We are pressing members of Congress to intervene where necessary, advocating for key health care programs and funding, and engaging in public and media outreach to highlight the real-world impact of these policy changes. We are also working to give you the resources and support you need to navigate this uncertain landscape.”

Do No Harm also obtained messages from an internal Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors (AFMRD) listserv expressing anger and dismay at many of the administration’s actions, including taking down resource pages regarding abortions procedures and HIV treatments.

Several users even compared Elon Musk and the Trump administration to Adolf Hitler and the regime of Nazi Germany.

Figure 1. A screenshot of a post from the AFRMD listserv.
Figure 2. A second screenshot of a post from the AFRMD listserv

Like the AAFP, the AFMRD is no stranger to DEI activism. The two organizations held a joint presentation on DEI milestones, while the AFMRD established a task force in 2020 “to measure diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in medical residencies across five domains: curriculum, evaluation, institution, resident pathway, and faculty pathway.”

The organization also urged its members to “get involved” with efforts to oppose anti-DEI laws and policies, including pressuring state lawmakers taking action against DEI. 

This is a make-or-break time for medical associations. 

They must choose: will they continue to double down on unpopular, divisive, and harmful practices out of ideological zeal, or will they commit to the principles of merit, excellence, and evidence-based medicine?

The End of Kendi-Ism at Boston University

Prominent “anti-racism” activist and “scholar” Ibram X. Kendi is leaving Boston University for a position at Howard University while the Center for Antiracist Research, which Kendi founded, will shut its doors later this year, the university announced.

The center’s closure is welcome news for healthcare professionals, students, and patients everywhere. Kendi preached a discriminatory philosophy that sought to eradicate racial disparities in society through racial preferences.

Kendi himself made his embrace of racial discrimination explicit: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

His center’s failings have been well-documented; The Washington Free Beacon reported in 2023 that the center, in its three years of existence at the time, had only produced two original research papers and was laying off a large portion of its staff. This came after raking in major donations from prominent figures.

Nevertheless, Kendi’s ideas have pervaded modern medical orthodoxy to a disturbing degree. The logic of anti-racism undergirds many DEI policies and practices.

Do No Harm has reported on how Kendi-ism has led to overtly discriminatory policies at medical schools that disadvantage students based on their race. In addition, anti-racist philosophy undergirds the justification for prioritizing certain racial groups when administering COVID-19 vaccines.

Once-respected medical associations and professional societies began promoting Kendi’s work and echoing his rhetoric in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests and riots of 2020.

As our Director of Research Ian Kingsbury wrote in 2023, “anti-racism has subverted the intellectual underpinnings of the medical enterprise, replacing scientific rigor with racial obsession.”

It’s a positive sign for merit and excellence that the Center for Antiracist Research will be no more. Hopefully, we will soon close the chapter on this shameful period and medicine will ditch its embrace of racial discrimination once and for all.

Hospitals Across the Country Pump the Brakes on Child Sex Changes After Trump Executive Order

, , ,

It’s a sign of the times. Earlier this week, President Trump signed an executive order halting taxpayer funding to healthcare facilities that perform sex change procedures on minors.

In response, several hospitals in various states have affirmed that they will no longer provide child sex change interventions to minors in order to continue receiving federal funding. 

Denver Health in Colorado confirmed to the Associated Press that, to comply with the executive order, it would no longer perform sex change surgeries on minors.

VCU Health and Children’s Hospital of Richmond are no longer providing surgical procedures as well as gender transition drugs to minors.

Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C. has paused prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors to comply with the order.

Not all hospitals have adopted this approach, however. Oregon Health & Science University, one of the country’s leading providers of so-called “gender-affirming care,” says it will not change its policies.

President Trump’s executive order directs federal agencies to “immediately take appropriate steps” to prevent institutions receiving federal research or education grants from performing child sex change interventions.

Crucially, the order also targets federal health benefit programs, directing the Secretary of Defense to exclude child sex change procedures from coverage through TRICARE and directing the Office of Personnel Management to exclude coverage for child sex change procedures, including transgender surgeries and cross-sex hormones, from certain federal health benefit programs.

With any luck, this cascade of hospitals ending these harmful practices is just the beginning. 

Pfizer Formally Ends Discrimination in Fellowship Program, Resolves Lawsuit by Do No Harm

RICHMOND, VA; January 31, 2024 – Today, Pfizer agreed to end its dispute with Do No Harm over Pfizer’s racially discriminatory “Breakthrough” fellowship. In response to Do No Harm’s federal civil-rights lawsuit, the pharmaceutical giant opened its fellowship to applicants of all races.

“While Pfizer would like to quietly sweep their unlawful discrimination under the rug, their settlement acknowledges what we said all along: racially discriminatory programs are unlawful and will not go unchallenged. For far too long, companies like Pfizer have allowed political ideology to hijack their core responsibilities,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “We are thrilled to have come to a positive resolution to one of our earliest and most important cases and believe this marks an important victory for the future of meritocracy in medicine. Do No Harm will continue to challenge racial discrimination wherever it exists in the medical field to restore integrity and excellence in healthcare.”

Background

  • On September 15, 2022, Do No Harm first sued Pfizer on behalf of two of its members over Pfizer’s Breakthrough Fellowship Program, which excluded Asian American and white applicants.
  • According to the lawsuit, the Breakthrough Fellowship Program’s exclusion of Asian American and white applicants violates the Civil Rights Act, the Affordable Care Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
  • In December 2022, the district court dismissed Do No Harm’s case, citing lack of standing. Do No Harm appealed that decision and in October 2023, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. 
  • In March 2024, the Second Circuit ruled that Do No Harm must identify, by name, the members on behalf of which it is suing to have standing.
  • On January 10, following a petition by Do No Harm to rehear that ruling, the Second Circuit reversed its previous decision.

More information on the lawsuit can be found here: Do No Harm v. Pfizer.

The joint stipulation of dismissal can be found here.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 15,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

The Society of Hospital Medicine Promotes Exclusionary DEI Scholarship

In a bid to advance DEI, the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) is promoting a scholarship aimed at “underrepresented” medical students and sponsored by an organization with a history of racial discrimination.

SHM’s “Hospital Medicine Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Scholarships for Students” provide two third-year medical students with $25,000 awards.

SHM developed this scholarship fund “to support the growth of a more diverse hospital medicine workforce by identifying medical students who have been traditionally underrepresented in the field,” the scholarship announcement states.

However, it appears that to achieve this goal of diversity, SHM is restricting the scholarships to individuals of certain backgrounds.

The scholarship eligibility criteria note that applicants must be “underrepresented in medicine or from an economically disadvantaged background who demonstrates academic excellence and is in good academic standing in their program of study.”

SHM does not define “underrepresented in medicine.” As Do No Harm has shown, this term has been used in other contexts to refer to certain racial and ethnic minority groups.

There’s a further wrinkle to this story: the scholarship is sponsored by Vituity, a medical staffing agency with a history of promoting racial discrimination. 

Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against Vituity in 2023 over the “Bridge to Brilliance Incentive Program” which was solely offered to Black physicians along with a sign-on bonus of up to $100,000.

Following our lawsuit, Vituity removed the advertisement for the Black Physician Leadership Incentive from its website.

Given these factors, SHM’s scholarship raises concerns of racial discrimination. 

SHM should make it abundantly clear that this scholarship is available to applicants of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.

No student should be denied an opportunity or an award – especially one so sizeable – because of their race.

Yet Another Review Finds Racial Concordance Fails to Improve Health Outcomes

Prominent medical associations have long promoted the theory that racial concordance – when a patient is treated by a physician of the same racial group – leads to improved health outcomes. Proponents of this theory have used it to advocate for initiatives aimed at increasing racial diversity in the physician pool.

However, as Do No Harm demonstrated in our report “Racial Concordance in Medicine: The Return of Segregation,” this theory is bunk. Four out of five existing systematic reviews of racial concordance in medicine found no improvement in health outcomes, and the fifth is fraught with methodological problems. 

Now, there’s even more evidence against this theory.

A new systematic review published in the Substance Use & Addiction Journal found inadequate evidence to support the notion that racial concordance improves health outcomes for black patients in addiction treatment.

The review examined 11 articles published between 1971 and 2016 that explored the effects of racial concordance on black patients in addiction treatment.

“The studies identified in this review did not provide adequate evidence that racial concordance improved treatment access, experiences, or outcomes for Black patients,” the authors concluded.

This review is further evidence that racial concordance does not improve health outcomes.

Arguments advocating for racial concordance in healthcare settings are irresponsible at best and downright harmful at worst.

Too often, we’ve seen racial concordance used to justify discriminatory hiring policies or admissions criteria.

Medical associations, medical schools, and other healthcare institutions that continue to push these unsupported theories are betraying fundamental ethical principles of medicine.

Trump Administration Takes Action to Restrict Harmful Child Sex Change Procedures

RICHMOND, VA; January 28, 2025 – On Tuesday, President Trump signed an executive order to protect minors from harmful sex change interventions.

The executive order halts taxpayer funding of these procedures through federal grants and health benefit programs, and directs federal agencies to take appropriate action to restrict access to child sex change interventions.

These actions are essential to protect our country’s children. Child sex change procedures are not supported by existing evidence, and they carry unknown dangers and uncertain long-term effects.

“Children and teenagers will be better protected, and parents will be better informed, thanks to President Trump’s comprehensive executive order to limit the availability of and end taxpayer involvement in experimental, unscientific medical sex change interventions performed on minors,” said Kristina Rasmussen, Executive Director of Do No Harm. “We commend President Trump for putting in place a robust regulatory framework that prioritizes safety, scientific integrity, and family autonomy.”

First, the executive order cuts off taxpayer funding of these procedures by directing federal agencies to “immediately take appropriate steps” to prevent institutions receiving federal research or education grants from performing child sex change interventions. Agencies are further instructed to end reliance on standards of care drafted by the activist organization WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Care).

The executive order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “take all appropriate actions” to end child sex change interventions. The order then tasks HHS to come up with guidance protecting whistleblowers who speak up regarding compliance with this order.

Crucially, the order targets federal health benefit programs, directing the Secretary of Defense to exclude child sex change procedures from coverage through TRICARE and directing the Office of Personnel Management to exclude coverage for child sex change procedures, including transgender surgeries and cross-sex hormones, from certain federal health benefit programs.

Moreover, the executive order directs the Department of Justice to “prioritize investigations and take appropriate action to end deception of consumers” relating to the long-term effects of transition drugs and procedures.

Do No Harm applauds these actions as valuable steps toward protecting children from these harmful practices.

Yale Medical School Pushes Students into DEI Activism

Yale School of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical schools in the country, is using its platform to encourage students to engage in radical activism.

The school offers a “Team-Based Learning Program” for a wide variety of subjects in the medical field. This program operates according to an alternative type of pedagogy in which instructors provide students with content before meetings, and students apply the material during class.

Included in the list of the Class of 2027’s academic programming is a lab titled “Social and Reproductive Justice,” which includes a learning module consisting of several DEI-related videos. In one video, students are urged to “take action” to “eradicate health inequities” through “collective action”.

What types of collective action should medical students take? According to Yale:

  • “Advocate for changes to curriculum at your institution and promoting increased recruitment and retention from underrepresented minorities at every level of training;
  • Implement justice-informed research or service projects that prioritize and center community perspectives;
  • Use the strategies presented in this curriculum to call out biased behavior when you see and educate your peers;
  • Join a medical-legal partnership to help address structural causes of health inequities;
  • Advocate for policies that will advance health equity in your community;
  • Patron stores and businesses in communities where your patients live;
  • Attend a conference centered on health equity to build a community of support with other clinicians; and
  • Engage with social and digital media featuring through leaders dedicated to equity and the dismantling of systems of oppressions.“

In other words, Yale is urging its medical students to become DEI activists.

And the background materials informing the program reveal the kind of divisive politics that students may be encouraged to push.

For example, one background reading document is entitled “Black Lives Matter: Claiming a Space for Evidence-Based Outrage in Obstetrics and Gynecology.” 

The article opines on how modern medicine is a “broken, racist system” which requires “evidence-based outrage” as an “objective, logical conclusion,” and recommends overhauling medicine to prioritize health equity:

“Instead of sitting back on the reflexive defense that racial disparities are too complex for us to do anything about, what if we decided to try anyway? What if every obstetrics and gynecology department made racial equity in known areas of disparity the priority of all quality improvement projects? For researchers, how would your study designs change if the primary metric was whether they helped Black women? How would your interventions be modified if you could not claim success without racially equitable outcomes?”

Moreover, the program’s “Readiness Assessment Quiz” attributes disparities in health outcomes to “structural oppression.”

“The US legacy of structural oppression and US laws, policies and systems that treat certain groups of people differently have led to the creation of invisible barriers to the access of high-quality appropriate care, free of stigma and discrimination for certain groups resulting in inequities in sexual, reproductive and perinatal care,” the quiz states. 

“Can you think of 2 examples of historical events, laws or policies that may have resulted or facilitated such outcomes?” the quiz asks.

Unfortunately, as Do No Harm has documented, Yale is no stranger to the world of DEI and identity politics.

This includes Yale abandoning a test to diagnose and manage kidney disease on the grounds that it is “racist,” a Yale mental health clinic inquiring about experiences with racism, and Yale’s partnership with the discriminatory Perry Initiative, leading to the filing of a federal civil rights complaint against the university.

Put simply, Yale has a long track record of bending over backwards to not only accommodate the DEI agenda, but to actively advance it at the expense of legitimate medical knowledge.