The National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the federal government’s chief agency tasked with supporting cancer research.
That makes it all the more disturbing that the NCI has actively promoted racially discriminatory policies and practices through its own initiatives as well as its grantmaking activities.
Do No Harm conducted a deep dive into the NCI’s DEI obsession; several of these findings were covered in a report by Fox News that drew upon Do No Harm’s research.
Since the Trump administration took over from the Biden administration, many of these resources and statements have since been scrubbed from the NCI’s website, and given President Trump’s executive order targeting DEI in the federal government, it’s unclear the current status of the NCI’s DEI efforts.
However, Do No Harm has archived the most egregious examples of the NCI’s infatuation with DEI and racial discrimination. Taken as a whole, these statements and initiatives represent a damning indictment of the prior administration’s ideological commitment to racial discrimination, and should be prime targets for an administration concerned with restoring merit and fairness to the medical field.
Institutional Commitments
First and foremost, the NCI published a statement expressly committing itself to “Attract and recruit talented scientists from diverse backgrounds to increase the diversity of the cancer research workforce.”
To define “diverse” individuals, the statement referred to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) definition of “underrepresented” (which has since been removed as well) that included the following racial groups: “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.”
In other words, the NCI’s hiring policy explicitly prioritizes certain racial groups over others.
As if an agency-wide policy of racial discrimination wasn’t enough, the NCI also operates an “Equity Inclusion Program” overseen by the “NCI Equity Council” (NEC) and five working groups.
“Equity and inclusion are not issues we address in isolation—they cut across everything NCI does and are integral to how the institute operates,” the archived web page reads.
The Equity Inclusion Program “strives to increase the diversity of the cancer research workforce, build a more inclusive and equitable NCI community, address cancer disparities, and advance health equity,” according to the program’s archived “About” page.
To accomplish this, the NCI appears to be tracking racial demographic data among its workforce, as well as engaging in several DEI-related initiatives.
Then there’s the Diversity Career Development Program (DCDP), which aims to “provide postdoctoral fellows from diverse backgrounds with leadership skills and tools to achieve their full potential at NCI and advance in their research careers.” The program strongly encourages candidates from “underrepresented” backgrounds to apply, again referring to the NIH’s racially discriminatory definition of “underrepresented.”
The NCI also maintains race-focused groups, such as the “Black Cancer Researchers” group that aims to “enhance the environment and experiences of Black cancer scientists at the National Cancer Institute.”
Meanwhile, these DEI sentiments have been echoed by NCI personnel.
For instance, during a 2021 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, former NCI Director Dr. Norman Sharpless presented a panel on advancing equity in the field of cancer research.
“NCI believes increasing diversity in all areas of cancer research will lead to faster progress that will redefine what cancer means for everyone,” the description of the panel reads.
This is saying the quiet part out loud: the NCI’s position is that prioritizing race over merit will improve the quality of cancer research. It’s unclear how this argument is supported, whether by facts or basic logic.
Divisional DEI
Practically every NCI division has its own laundry list of statements and initiatives in support of DEI and/or racial discrimination.
This demonstrates the sheer scope of the NCI’s DEI commitments and the extent to which the ideology has pervaded the agency at even the most granular levels.
Take the Center for Cancer Research; an archived version of the center’s DEI statement includes a commitment to “be intentional in our efforts to recruit and retain faculty underrepresented in biomedical research.” This is in addition to state
The Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis (DCTD) makes a similar commitment, stating it has implemented “procedures for broadly advertising DCTD job openings and promoting targeted outreach/engagement with candidates from underrepresented groups” and is “collaborating with the NCI Equity and Inclusion Program” to “provide NCI staff with the resources and training required to ensure DEIA in every aspect of the hiring process.”
Given the NCI’s endorsement of racially discriminatory policies, we don’t need to speculate what “DEIA in every aspect of the hiring process” looks like.
In addition to promoting race-conscious hiring practices, the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (DCEG) pledged to engage in a division-wide cultural revolution in which it would be “Weaving DEIA into the Fabric of DCEG.”
This includes an “Inclusivity Minute” email project featuring discussions on a variety of DEI-related topics including structural racism and “microaggressions,” as well as the DCEG’s anti-racism working group.
The Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities (CRCHD) is another leader in NCI’s DEI efforts, explicitly focusing its mission on racial disparities and “health equity.”
The center funds several initiatives and grants to increase the “diversity” of the cancer research workforce through what appear to be discriminatory hiring and recruiting practices, targeting individuals as young as middle school and high school age.
This discriminatory DEI ideology is evident in the blue chip cancer research programs sponsored by the NCI. For instance, the CRCHD’s “Cancer Moonshot Scholars” program is part of the Biden administration’s ambitious Cancer Moonshot program to expedite cancer research.
“The program seeks to diversify the NCI R01 portfolio by enhancing the number of applications submitted by Early Stage Investigators from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups identified as underrepresented (NOT-OD-20-031) in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and social sciences research workforce,” the Cancer Moonshot Scholars description reads, again referencing the NIH definition of “underrepresented.”
The Early Investigator Advancement Program also references that same definition in its bid to increase diversity among cancer researchers.
Leadership Complicity
To illustrate the extent of DEI’s grasp on the NCI even further, many of the NCI’s leaders also serve in a dual capacity as advocates of DEI.
There are too many to count, but to provide a small sample, Do No Harm scoured the public statements of the NCI.
For example, in 2024, the CRCHD announced the Cancer Equity Leaders (CEL), a “diverse team of premier cancer research leaders who will reimagine and transform the future of cancer health equity.” The statement said the initiative “will be co-chaired by NCI CRCHD Director Sanya A. Springfield, Ph.D.,” and the statement mentions that numerous NCI officials will also have roles in the team.
As another example, Jackie Lavigne, Ph.D., M.P.H., the DCEG training director, has received numerous awards for her work on diversity in previous administrations.
“With the hiring of Jackie Lavigne, Ph.D., M.P.H., to direct the Office of Education (OE) in 2007, DCEG expanded beyond gender to focus on recruiting and retaining individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in the biomedical and scientific workforce,” a 2022 DCEG statement reads. “While we have borrowed some of the approaches to gender parity, a series of events in 2020 galvanized the community and stimulated a series of steps to re-orient the journey. In addition, the work of Professor Ibram X. Kendi has inspired many across the Division to take up the mantle of becoming anti-racist.”
An endorsement of noted pro-racism advocate Ibram X. Kendi is hardly a reassuring sign.
It’s clear that the NCI has become firmly committed to a radical and discriminatory ideology.
For the good of the country’s health, the current administration should do everything in its power to restore the NCI to its true mission, rather than allowing it to remain a vehicle for a toxic and regressive political agenda.
Do No Harm Moves to Intervene in Case Over Trump Orders on DEI and Gender
Uncategorized United States DEI, Gender Ideology Federal government Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; March 5, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm filed a motion to intervene in a case challenging President Trump’s executive orders on DEI and gender identity brought by the National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance, and AIDS Foundation of Chicago.
Do No Harm is asking the court to become a defendant in the case, giving Do No Harm the right to file briefs, take discovery, and present arguments to help defend the orders alongside the U.S. Department of Justice.
“We at Do No Harm have unique experience in challenging illegal DEI policies and the expertise to understand the medical issues surrounding gender identity,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “We are asking the court for the opportunity to bring our experience to bear, and explain why these orders targeting harmful and discriminatory practices are necessary.”
The plaintiffs in this case – activist groups who receive federal funding and support harmful DEI programs based on race and gender identity – are challenging the following executive orders:
This lawsuit directly threatens Do No Harm’s mission and its ability to protect its members – medical professionals, patients, and students – from discrimination and other harms. The court should permit us to intervene.
To read the motion to intervene, click 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 16,000 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.
Do No Harm Sues Medical Society for Discriminatory Scholarship
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association, Medical School Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; March 5, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against the American Chemical Society (ACS) for operating a discriminatory scholarship.
The ACS Scholars Program awards students interested in the chemical sciences up to $5,000 per academic year to help pay for college tuition and fees. However, the scholarship program is only open to black, Hispanic, and indigenous students. White and Asian applicants are not eligible.
Due to these discriminatory restrictions, the Scholars Program violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, because ACS receives tens of millions of dollars from federal contracts, it is ignoring President Trump’s executive order demanding that federal contractors end discriminatory programs.
“The American Chemical Society is blatantly discriminating against aspiring chemists simply based on their skin color,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman at Do No Harm. “It is shameful for a congressionally chartered nonprofit that accepts tax-deductible charitable contributions to push radical identity politics in medicine at any level of education. ACS should open its Scholars Program to students of all races, and we are prepared to bring the full force of our resources to bear on ACS and any organization that flouts the law to divide and exclude students from opportunities on the basis of race.”
Do No Harm is filing this lawsuit on behalf of a high school senior who meets all qualifications for the program except the racial requirement and is therefore ineligible.
To read the full complaint, click 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 16,000 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.
Do No Harm’s January Littlejohn Honored at Joint Address to Congress
Uncategorized United States, Washington DC Gender Ideology Federal government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffIf you watched President Trump’s joint address to Congress last night, you probably noticed a familiar face: Do No Harm Parent Advocate January Littlejohn!
The president thanked January for her work as a “courageous advocate” protecting children from the harms of gender ideology, and January even received a standing ovation.
“A few years ago, January Littlejohn and her husband discovered that their daughter’s school had secretly socially transitioned their 13-year-old little girl; teachers and administrators conspired to deceive January and her husband while encouraging her daughter to use a new name and pronouns,” Trump said. “They/them pronoun[s] actually.”
“All without telling January, [who is] here tonight and is now a courageous advocate against this form of child abuse. January, thank you.”
“Stories like this are why shortly after taking office, I signed an executive order banning public schools from indoctrinating our children with transgender ideology,” Trump continued, adding that he “signed an order to cut off all taxpayer funding to any institution that engages in the sexual mutilation of our youth.”
“Now I want Congress to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body,” Trump concluded.
We’re so thrilled for January to receive this honor, and hope you join us in congratulating her for everything she’s done for parents across the nation.
“I was incredibly grateful and humbled by the invitation to attend the Joint Address to Congress from First Lady Melania Trump,” January said. “I was there to represent not only my family and the nightmare we endured, but for all families who have been harmed by the lies of gender identity ideology.”
“I am incredibly grateful to President Trump for the strong stance he has taken to protect parental rights and vulnerable children like my daughter,” January added. “President Trump said ‘our message to every child in America is you are perfect, exactly the way God made you’ and I couldn’t agree more.”
Castle Connolly Doubles Down on Racial Concordance
Uncategorized United States DEI Private company Commentary Do No Harm StaffDoctor-ranking company Castle Connolly is back at it again with the latest iteration of its report promoting discredited racial theories.
Recently, Castle Connolly announced the 2025 edition of its “Top Black Doctors” report which highlights the organization’s picks for the best black doctors in 2025; these 338 doctors were evaluated by the Castle Connolly research team.
“This distinction is designed to honor top clinicians and enable patients to find Castle Connolly Top Doctors who have shared backgrounds and experiences,” the report states.
Explicit in this message is the endorsement of the discredited notion that health outcomes improve when patients and physicians are of the same racial background, a dynamic called “racial concordance.” The existing research demonstrates that racial concordance is not associated with any improvements in health outcomes.
Castle Connolly is hardly the only medical organization to engage in these types of practices. Other purportedly reputable organizations like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Association of American Medical Colleges have endorsed similar views in recent years.
Additionally, Castle Connolly has published previous “Top Black Doctors” reports, with Do No Harm covering these publications in 2024 and 2023.
Beyond the organization’s obsession with racially-focused medicine, the quote featured on their rankings page highlights a more deeply-rooted problem.
The quote by Dr. Jacqueline Jones states, “My inclusion on the Castle Connolly Top Black Doctors list has increased the diversity in my practice. Since the list came out, I have seen an increase in the number of Black professionals who are seeking out physicians of color to provide their care.”
This is a bizarre and disturbing sentiment, and sets a troubling precedent. We as a society should not be encouraging people to choose their physicians based on race.
That is the road toward segregation and division, and is antithetical to principles of inclusion.
I’m a Surgeon, and I’ve Never Been More Alarmed About My Profession
Uncategorized Op-Ed Richard Bosshardt, MDToday’s surgical residency graduates are increasingly unprepared for professional practice.
I have been a surgeon for 38 years. Three of those I spent as a general surgeon in the Navy, the remainder as a plastic surgeon in private practice. I have never been more alarmed about the state of my profession than I am today.
Read more on City Journal.
The National Cancer Institute’s DEI Obsession
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the federal government’s chief agency tasked with supporting cancer research.
That makes it all the more disturbing that the NCI has actively promoted racially discriminatory policies and practices through its own initiatives as well as its grantmaking activities.
Do No Harm conducted a deep dive into the NCI’s DEI obsession; several of these findings were covered in a report by Fox News that drew upon Do No Harm’s research.
Since the Trump administration took over from the Biden administration, many of these resources and statements have since been scrubbed from the NCI’s website, and given President Trump’s executive order targeting DEI in the federal government, it’s unclear the current status of the NCI’s DEI efforts.
However, Do No Harm has archived the most egregious examples of the NCI’s infatuation with DEI and racial discrimination. Taken as a whole, these statements and initiatives represent a damning indictment of the prior administration’s ideological commitment to racial discrimination, and should be prime targets for an administration concerned with restoring merit and fairness to the medical field.
Institutional Commitments
First and foremost, the NCI published a statement expressly committing itself to “Attract and recruit talented scientists from diverse backgrounds to increase the diversity of the cancer research workforce.”
To define “diverse” individuals, the statement referred to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) definition of “underrepresented” (which has since been removed as well) that included the following racial groups: “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.”
In other words, the NCI’s hiring policy explicitly prioritizes certain racial groups over others.
As if an agency-wide policy of racial discrimination wasn’t enough, the NCI also operates an “Equity Inclusion Program” overseen by the “NCI Equity Council” (NEC) and five working groups.
“Equity and inclusion are not issues we address in isolation—they cut across everything NCI does and are integral to how the institute operates,” the archived web page reads.
The Equity Inclusion Program “strives to increase the diversity of the cancer research workforce, build a more inclusive and equitable NCI community, address cancer disparities, and advance health equity,” according to the program’s archived “About” page.
To accomplish this, the NCI appears to be tracking racial demographic data among its workforce, as well as engaging in several DEI-related initiatives.
Then there’s the Diversity Career Development Program (DCDP), which aims to “provide postdoctoral fellows from diverse backgrounds with leadership skills and tools to achieve their full potential at NCI and advance in their research careers.” The program strongly encourages candidates from “underrepresented” backgrounds to apply, again referring to the NIH’s racially discriminatory definition of “underrepresented.”
The NCI also maintains race-focused groups, such as the “Black Cancer Researchers” group that aims to “enhance the environment and experiences of Black cancer scientists at the National Cancer Institute.”
Meanwhile, these DEI sentiments have been echoed by NCI personnel.
For instance, during a 2021 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, former NCI Director Dr. Norman Sharpless presented a panel on advancing equity in the field of cancer research.
“NCI believes increasing diversity in all areas of cancer research will lead to faster progress that will redefine what cancer means for everyone,” the description of the panel reads.
This is saying the quiet part out loud: the NCI’s position is that prioritizing race over merit will improve the quality of cancer research. It’s unclear how this argument is supported, whether by facts or basic logic.
Divisional DEI
Practically every NCI division has its own laundry list of statements and initiatives in support of DEI and/or racial discrimination.
This demonstrates the sheer scope of the NCI’s DEI commitments and the extent to which the ideology has pervaded the agency at even the most granular levels.
Take the Center for Cancer Research; an archived version of the center’s DEI statement includes a commitment to “be intentional in our efforts to recruit and retain faculty underrepresented in biomedical research.” This is in addition to state
The Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis (DCTD) makes a similar commitment, stating it has implemented “procedures for broadly advertising DCTD job openings and promoting targeted outreach/engagement with candidates from underrepresented groups” and is “collaborating with the NCI Equity and Inclusion Program” to “provide NCI staff with the resources and training required to ensure DEIA in every aspect of the hiring process.”
Given the NCI’s endorsement of racially discriminatory policies, we don’t need to speculate what “DEIA in every aspect of the hiring process” looks like.
In addition to promoting race-conscious hiring practices, the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (DCEG) pledged to engage in a division-wide cultural revolution in which it would be “Weaving DEIA into the Fabric of DCEG.”
This includes an “Inclusivity Minute” email project featuring discussions on a variety of DEI-related topics including structural racism and “microaggressions,” as well as the DCEG’s anti-racism working group.
The Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities (CRCHD) is another leader in NCI’s DEI efforts, explicitly focusing its mission on racial disparities and “health equity.”
The center funds several initiatives and grants to increase the “diversity” of the cancer research workforce through what appear to be discriminatory hiring and recruiting practices, targeting individuals as young as middle school and high school age.
This discriminatory DEI ideology is evident in the blue chip cancer research programs sponsored by the NCI. For instance, the CRCHD’s “Cancer Moonshot Scholars” program is part of the Biden administration’s ambitious Cancer Moonshot program to expedite cancer research.
“The program seeks to diversify the NCI R01 portfolio by enhancing the number of applications submitted by Early Stage Investigators from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups identified as underrepresented (NOT-OD-20-031) in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and social sciences research workforce,” the Cancer Moonshot Scholars description reads, again referencing the NIH definition of “underrepresented.”
The Early Investigator Advancement Program also references that same definition in its bid to increase diversity among cancer researchers.
Leadership Complicity
To illustrate the extent of DEI’s grasp on the NCI even further, many of the NCI’s leaders also serve in a dual capacity as advocates of DEI.
There are too many to count, but to provide a small sample, Do No Harm scoured the public statements of the NCI.
For example, in 2024, the CRCHD announced the Cancer Equity Leaders (CEL), a “diverse team of premier cancer research leaders who will reimagine and transform the future of cancer health equity.” The statement said the initiative “will be co-chaired by NCI CRCHD Director Sanya A. Springfield, Ph.D.,” and the statement mentions that numerous NCI officials will also have roles in the team.
As another example, Jackie Lavigne, Ph.D., M.P.H., the DCEG training director, has received numerous awards for her work on diversity in previous administrations.
“With the hiring of Jackie Lavigne, Ph.D., M.P.H., to direct the Office of Education (OE) in 2007, DCEG expanded beyond gender to focus on recruiting and retaining individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in the biomedical and scientific workforce,” a 2022 DCEG statement reads. “While we have borrowed some of the approaches to gender parity, a series of events in 2020 galvanized the community and stimulated a series of steps to re-orient the journey. In addition, the work of Professor Ibram X. Kendi has inspired many across the Division to take up the mantle of becoming anti-racist.”
An endorsement of noted pro-racism advocate Ibram X. Kendi is hardly a reassuring sign.
It’s clear that the NCI has become firmly committed to a radical and discriminatory ideology.
For the good of the country’s health, the current administration should do everything in its power to restore the NCI to its true mission, rather than allowing it to remain a vehicle for a toxic and regressive political agenda.
National Science Foundation Bankrolls Discriminatory Program for ‘Underrepresented’ Scholars
Uncategorized United States DEI National Science Foundation Federal government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe National Science Foundation (NSF), the federal agency responsible for funding a large chunk of scientific research, states that its mission is “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; and to secure the national defense.”
Yet one of its most prolific grantmaking programs, the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP), seems more concerned with the racial makeup of the individuals achieving these goals than the goals themselves.
LSAMP is a grantmaking program that invests in colleges and universities to further education in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields.
The description of LSAMP on the NSF website makes clear that the goal of the program is explicitly discriminatory.
“LSAMP is an alliance-based program, whereby a group of institutions of higher education (IHEs) work together to diversify the nation’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by increasing the number of STEM baccalaureate and graduate degrees awarded to persons from LSAMP populations,” the description reads.
“LSAMP populations are defined as persons from groups underrepresented in the STEM enterprise: Blacks and African-Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders,” the description continues.
According to the NSF website, LSAMP has funded over 140 projects at universities across the country.
However, many of these awards are to institutions located in states that have passed laws restricting DEI and racially discriminatory practices.
For instance, the Bridges Across Texas – Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (BAT-LSAMP) is a partnership of Texas Tech University, The University of North Texas at Dallas, Dallas College – El Centro Campus, South Plains College, and Texas Southmost College.
The program description states that the project “aims to increase the number of STEM degrees awarded to historically underrepresented groups, including African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native Pacific Islanders.”
It’s worth noting that on January 1, 2024, the Texas law preventing public universities from “promoting differential treatment of or providing special benefits to individuals on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity” went into effect.
The NSF has funded $25 million in active awards through LSAMP in Texas alone, along with nearly $20 million in each of Georgia and Florida, according to the NSF’s website.
There is no legitimate scientific reason for the NSF to target specific racial groups in its grantmaking strategy.
Prioritizing race over talent and competence invariably leads to worse scientific outcomes and is clearly unethical. To continue doing so is not only immoral but contrary to the NSF’s larger mission to pursue the achievement of human knowledge.
UMass Chan Medical School Imposes Identity Politics on Faculty, Polices Language
Uncategorized Massachusetts, United States DEI, Gender Ideology University of Massachusetts T.H. Chan School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffAt the UMass Chan Medical School, “inclusive” seems to have a concerning meaning.
One of the school’s programs, the “Inclusive Identity Project” sponsored by the school’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, enables faculty members to select their own pronouns in the school’s human resource system and mark their sex as “X.”
“Recognizing that sex is not a binary, nearly half of U.S. states, including Massachusetts, allow individuals to have an X on their birth certificates and/or driver’s licenses to indicate that they identify as a sex other than female or male,” the school’s Inclusive Identity web page states. “Enabling UMass employees to have an X as their sex respects the diversity of our society and is in keeping with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts offering X as a legal sex on driver’s licenses.”
The program also encourages faculty members to use individuals’ preferred pronouns and “gender identity” nomenclature.
“The best thing to do if you realize you just used the wrong pronoun for someone in a conversation with them is to say something right away, such as ‘Sorry, I meant they,’” the FAQ reads. “Fix it, but do not call special attention to the error. If you realize your mistake after the fact, apologize to the person at your next opportunity. Please do not go on and on to the misgendered person about how bad you feel that you made that mistake or how hard it is for you to get it right.”
Other initiatives promoted by the school diversity office include racial and sex-oriented “affinity groups.”
For instance, the “People of Color Affinity Group” aims to “create a safe space where those who have experienced structural oppression, marginalization and/or other microaggressions can share their experiences with others who have a shared sense of identity.”
As another example, the “AALANA” affinity group “represents African American, Latinx, Asian and Native Americans” and “seeks to support and advance faculty of color through collaboration, celebration, and knowledge.”
Do No Harm is no stranger to UMass’s concerning vision of inclusivity; in 2023, Do No Harm filed a complaint with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights over the school’s Pipeline for underrepresented Students in Medicine (PRISM) program, which included discriminatory eligibility criteria.
The previous eligibility criteria stated that applicants “must be a member of historically underrepresented groups in medicine e.g., Blacks, Mexican Americans, Native American (American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), and of Hispanic origin.”
The current eligibility criteria for the PRISM program state that “Individuals historically underrepresented in STEM, health science and medicine are strongly encouraged to apply,” and that “[p]riority will be given to students that identify from one of the following underrepresented groups in STEM, health science and medicine: Black/African Americans, Hispanic or Latinx, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders.”
Then there’s the UMass Chan Medical School Summer Learning Opportunity (SLO) program.
[The p]rimary goal of this program is to increase representation of men of color, particularly Black men[,]into medicine. All students are welcome to apply[.] Priority will be given to URiM,” the program description states.
“The AAMC defines URiM students as ‘those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population … which includes African Americans, Hispanics/Latinx, American Indians, Alaska Natives, native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders,’” the description continues.
To be clear, these individuals are not underrepresented as a percentage of qualified applicants, only as a percentage of individuals in the population. Qualified individuals who are members of these racial groups are readily accepted to medical school and numbers out of proportion to their academic performance as undergraduates and on MCAT exams
It’s clear that for UMass Medical School, “inclusivity” is often a proxy for radical ideology and identity politics that treat people less as individuals and more as members of specific groups.
Needless to say, this is not conducive to effective medical education. Individuals should be viewed through the lens of their achievement and merit, and not their group identity.
Do No Harm Files Amicus Briefs in Support of President Trump’s Gender Executive Order
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Federal government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffToday, Do No Harm filed two amicus briefs in support of President Trump’s executive order aiming to cut off taxpayer funding of child sex change interventions.
Earlier this month, LGBT interest group PFLAG National and several Democrat-led states sued the Trump administration over the executive order, arguing it discriminated against “transgender” children in violation of federal civil rights law.
Now, the plaintiffs in the lawsuits are seeking preliminary injunctions against President Trump’s executive order.
Do No Harm’s briefs support the Trump administration’s position opposing the preliminary injunction and lay out the scientific evidence – or lack thereof – behind so-called “gender-affirming care.” They further explain why the court must protect children by denying the request for a preliminary injunction.
The briefs explain how systematic reviews are the highest form of medical evidence, and that every major systematic review has found no reliable evidence to justify the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as a treatment for gender dysphoria in minors.
These include reviews performed in multiple countries like Sweden and Finland, and by researchers at York University that were in turn incorporated into the Cass Review, the 388-page report commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS) of England examining the efficacy of medical treatments for gender dysphoria. The Cass Review found “remarkably weak evidence” to support the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for gender distressed children.
Next, the briefs dismantle the underpinnings of the plaintiffs’ arguments, citing evidence to disprove the claim that denying minors access to sex change interventions increases the rate of suicides. The briefs also cite Do No Harm’s Stop the Harm Database to disprove the notion that minors aren’t regularly receiving sex change surgeries.
Finally, the briefs use statements made by the plaintiffs’ own experts to illustrate how little is known about gender dysphoria and its so-called “treatments.”
In October, Do No Harm filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging the justices to uphold Tennessee’s law restricting minors’ access to sex change interventions, and refuted similar arguments made by the plaintiffs in that case.
The fact of the matter is this: there is no reliable evidence to justify medical interventions as treatments for gender-distressed children.
Courts must do the right thing for our country’s children and allow common-sense protections to go into effect.
NIH Funds $1.3 Million Study on ‘Teen Pregnancy Prevention’ for ‘Trans-Identified’ Kids
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Federal government Commentary Kurt Miceli, MDHow far has society gone when we’re raising adolescents who don’t recognize the nature of their own biology?
That’s the crux of a $1.3 million National Institutes of Health (NIH) study for Transcendent Health with more than two years remaining. It aims to “[adapt] an LGB+ inclusive teen pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys – youth who are assigned female at birth (AFAB) and identify as transgender (e.g., as non-binary or as trans boys).”
Is this the type of ideological study tax dollars should be funding?
The study claims that these 14- to 18-year-old biologic girls are “effectively excluded from sexual health programs because gender-diverse youth do not experience the cisgender, heteronormative teen sexual education messaging available to them as salient or applicable.” The study suggests that because these children view themselves as boys, they are naïve to the fact pregnancy is possible.
No wonder President Trump needed to make clear in one of his first executive orders the definitions of male and female. We’re failing our children when they don’t understand the fundamentals of their own biology and are ignoring the realities of their bodies.
And, we’re failing them further when society speaks to sex being “assigned” at birth as if it were simply changeable. Instead, as is the case with this study, further confusion is imparted by providing teenage respondents with thirteen different choices to describe their gender identity. So much for biology.
Building on the particulars of a youth-focused gender ideology, the grant has two primary aims. The first looks through the lens of “health equity” to adapt Girl2Girl, a “text messaging-based sexual health program designed for cisgender sexual minority girls,” for gender inclusivity. The grant uses focus groups and advisory teams to adjust the program content for “AFAB trans-identified youth.”
The second aim then offers a national randomized control trial testing the resulting adaptation in these teenage girls, with use of birth control and pregnancy as examples of measured outcomes.
Studies like this are anchored in a gender ideology that entraps our youth into believing an irreality, which will only do them harm spiritually, emotionally, and physically. Building an even more “comprehensive sexual health program,” as the study suggests, will do little to address the true health care needs of these adolescents. Our focus should be on biological truths and providing authentic compassion, love, and care for these children and their families. NIH funding should be put to better use. Let’s save taxpayer dollars for studies that will truly make a difference.
American Medical Society for Sports Medicine Offers Racially Discriminatory Grant
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe 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.”
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.
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
Uncategorized South Carolina DEI Medical University of South Carolina Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe 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
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Federal government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffIn 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
Uncategorized Washington DEI University of Washington School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffWould 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.”
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
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffSince 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.
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.
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
Uncategorized Colorado DEI University of Colorado School of Medicine Medical School Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, 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:
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
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe 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
Uncategorized United States DEI Association of American Medical Colleges Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe 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.”
“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.