Over the last decade or so, many of the chief culprits responsible for advancing DEI initiatives in the medical field have been federal health agencies.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is no exception, pushing guidelines requiring diversity commitments in grant applications to outright funding DEI initiatives. By manning the faucet of federal funding that many universities use to bankroll their research initiatives, the NIH can exert a significant influence over these grantee institutions.
Enter the NIH’s Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation (FIRST) Program.
First announced in December 2020, the FIRST Program is designed to “transform culture at NIH-funded extramural institutions” by “building a self-reinforcing community of scientists committed to diversity and inclusive excellence (IE).”
In other words, the goal of the program is to advance DEI at institutions of higher education through financial incentives, specifically focused on hiring and personnel.
The NIH’s FIRST Program has distributed grants to 16 universities and medical schools, including prestigious and influential institutions such as Cornell University, Northwestern University, the University of Michigan, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. These schools established school-centered FIRST programs that in turn pursue DEI through hiring initiatives.
Officially, the FIRST Program prohibits racial discrimination in the hiring process.
But in practice, the incentives of the FIRST Program to hire candidates from underrepresented groups predictably resulted in overt racial discrimination.
John Sailer, senior fellow at the National Association of Scholars, documented instances of explicit racism at grantee institutions in The Wall Street Journal.
For instance, faculty members discussed the race and sexual orientation of applicants to determine their fit; one professor at the University of New Mexico even explicitly said they “don’t want to hire white men for sure.”
A grant proposal from Vanderbilt University, which received funding from the FIRST Program, explicitly stated the intent to “focus on the cluster hiring of faculty from minoritized racial and ethnic groups, specifically Black, Latinx, American Indian, and Pacific Islander scientists.”
“Successful candidates will be early stage investigators who are Black, Latinx, or from a disadvantaged background (as defined by NIH),” a description of an Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai job read, according to The Wall Street Journal.
In addition to these examples of explicit racial restrictions, many of the grantee institutions say they prioritize “underrepresented” candidates for FIRST Program hiring initiatives.
Cornell’s $5 million award, for instance, “will support the hiring and retention of 10 new assistant professors from groups underrepresented in their fields, while transforming institutional climate into a culture of inclusive excellence.”
The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s $16 million award supports, among other things, a “cohort cluster hiring” initiative to bring on 12 early-stage investigators, targeting those “underrepresented in science and medicine.”
The NIH defines “underrepresented” groups in biomedical research as “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.”
Northwestern University even explicitly says it is using this definition for its FIRST-funded program, stating that, while it will grant equal consideration to applicants regardless of race, “[w]e especially encourage applications by members of groups underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral, engineering, physical, and social sciences as defined by the Notice of NIH’s Interest in Diversity.”
It’s hard to see how racial discrimination was not the inevitable result of the FIRST Program’s aim to incentivize hiring of “underrepresented” candidates, especially considering the NIH’s own definition of “underrepresented.”
And the FIRST Program is hardly the only instance of the NIH’s diversity initiatives leading to discriminatory programming. The agency has routinely
The Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Educational Diversity (ESTEEMED) grant program, for example, is designed to help undergraduates from “diverse” backgrounds pursue careers in biomedicine. The program, which began in 2017, specified that the grantors should target “individuals from groups identified as underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral and social sciences” such as racial minorities and disabled individuals.
The NIH currently lists 16 active ESTEEMED grant programs on its website; each program’s eligibility criteria contains varying degrees of racial preference.
For instance, Clemson University’s “Call Me Doctor ESTEEMED Scholars Program” stipulates that applicants are eligible if they are from the following ethnic backgrounds: “Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native.”
The University of Georgia, meanwhile, requires students to be “from a diverse background, including from one or more groups underrepresented in the sciences” to be eligible for its ESTEEMED program.
The University of Texas San Antonio’s program requires applicants to be “ethnically underrepresented in the sciences (Hispanic, African American, American Pacific Islander, Alaskan),” disabled, or financially disadvantaged.
And as mentioned previously, the NIH’s grant requirements also encourage racial discrimination.
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Kevin Jon Williams, a professor of cardiovascular sciences at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, highlighted an NIH grant listing’s discriminatory guidelines in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.
The grant listing stated that the funding agency “expects applicants to recruit individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from underrepresented groups for participation in the study team.” The updated listing for the grant later dropped the discriminatory language.
If the NIH truly wishes to advance human knowledge and innovation in the biomedical field, these policies and grant programs simply cannot be tolerated.
They are unethical, cruel, and incompatible with the pursuit of excellence. There is no evidence that diversity among scientific personnel produces better outcomes. These initiatives will only lead to the devaluation of merit.
The incoming administration should make it a priority to turn off the DEI funding faucet.
Pfizer Formally Ends Discrimination in Fellowship Program, Resolves Lawsuit by Do No Harm
Uncategorized United States DEI Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, 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
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
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffIn 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
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffProminent 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
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Federal government Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, 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
Uncategorized Connecticut DEI Yale University Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffYale 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:
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:
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.
More DEI-Driven Discrimination from the American Urological Association
Uncategorized Maryland, United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffA chapter of the American Urological Association (AUA) is operating discriminatory programs and scholarships.
The Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the AUA operates a “Pre-Medicine Enrichment Program” which offers students an eight-week mentorship experience focused on developing key skills and advancing research in the urology field.
Students who are selected to participate in the program will receive a stipend of $5,000. However, the program is limited to “historically underrepresented minorities” who are “first generation students.”
This is blatant discrimination, and disqualifies candidates who aren’t first generation “underrepresented minorities” (a term which the application page fails to precisely define).
Not surprisingly, the MA-AUA also offers a “Visiting Student DEI Scholarship” worth $1,500 in an effort to further the organization’s goal that “increasing diversity in the field of urological medicine is a top priority that will strengthen our profession, workplaces, and communities.”
The scholarship is also only available to “underrepresented minorities.”
This is hardly the first instance in which the AUA has demonstrated an adherence to DEI philosophy. In 2023, Do No Harm highlighted the AUA’s intent to publish their third annual “Celebrating Diversity with the AUA” publication.
The AUA has an entire section of its website dedicated to DEI, complete with a DEI committee, a DEI video podcast series, a diversity statement, and much more.
Do No Harm has also cataloged racial discrimination throughout the urology field.
For example, Emory University previously administered a DEI scholarship within its urology program solely available to individuals that met certain racial and ethnic criteria – a program which earned the school a federal civil rights complaint from Do No Harm.
The sooner professional organizations like the AUA ditch DEI, the more swiftly various medical organizations and universities can return to imparting knowledge in the subject areas that truly matter, instead of engaging in discriminatory programs.
As one AUA physician member said regarding the AUA’s drift towards DEI, “Put a sock in it, please. I would rather read about urology.”
Rep. Crenshaw Introduces Bill Banning Medicaid Funding for Child Sex Change Interventions
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Federal government Commentary Do No Harm StaffThis month, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) introduced a bill to prohibit federal Medicaid funding for child sex change interventions.
The bill, titled the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, would prohibit Medicaid funds from going toward sex change surgical procedures, cross-sex hormones, and puberty blockers.
These surgical procedures include genital surgeries such as phalloplasties, as well as chest surgeries such as mastectomies.
“Dangerous and irreversible sex change interventions for children should have no place in the American medical system,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “These harms only compound when American citizens are forced to fund these procedures. Prohibiting federal Medicaid funding of sex change interventions for minors is essential to protect this country’s children.”
The existing evidence does not support the use of sex change interventions to treat gender-distressed children. The Cass Review, an exhaustive review of gender medical services in the United Kingdom, found “remarkably weak evidence” to support the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for gender-distressed children.
Many of the most frequently-cited studies supporting so-called “gender-affirming care” are rife with methodological errors. Meanwhile, countries including the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland have each restricted minors’ access to these procedures due to the lack of evidence supporting their efficacy.
“We applaud Rep. Crenshaw’s efforts to curtail these harmful practices, and we will continue working with Congress and the Trump administration to create a medical system where no child is harmed by those who should be trusted to heal,” said Dr. Goldfarb.
Do No Harm Challenges Minnesota Department of Health’s Discriminatory Racial Quota
Uncategorized Minnesota DEI Minnesota Department of Health State government Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; January 24, 2025 – Medical watchdog Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against Dr. Brooke Cunningham, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health, over the department advisory council’s discriminatory membership criteria.
Currently, Minnesota law requires the Department’s Health Equity Advisory and Leadership Council to include representatives of certain racial and ethnic groups.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Do No Harm by the Pacific Legal Foundation, alleges that the racial mandate is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Do No Harm seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction preventing Commissioner Cunningham from enforcing or attempting to enforce the racial mandate.
“Patient care should never be sacrificed on the altar of identity politics, and state medical councils cannot properly safeguard public health when membership is based on the color of their skin over their medical expertise,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “This blatant racial discrimination is demeaning, patronizing, and unconstitutional. President Trump’s recent DEI executive order should motivate public officials to eliminate this type of racism.”
“Racial quotas deny public service opportunities to qualified professionals based solely on their race,” said Wilson Freeman, attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. “That’s racial discrimination and it’s a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”
Do No Harm is asking the court for:
Read the full complaint 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 over 15,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 11,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.
Mississippi Bill Would Force Physicians to Submit to Implicit Bias Trainings
Uncategorized Mississippi DEI State government Commentary Do No Harm StaffLegislation introduced in Mississippi would force physicians to undergo implicit bias and “cultural competence” training to renew their license.
The bill was introduced by state Rep. Zakiya Summers, who has led campaigns to advance “educational equity, healthcare access, and racial justice.”
If enacted, the bill would force physicians or osteopaths in general practice, pediatrics, obstetrics, or gynecology to provide proof that they had complete continuing medical education in “implicit bias” and “cultural competence” to renew their license.
The bill defines cultural competence as “the ability to address the health issues of individuals from diverse backgrounds effectively by applying knowledge, empathy, and insight into the views on health that those backgrounds present.”
The bill defines implicit bias as “bias in judgment or behavior that results from subtle cognitive processes, including implicit attitudes and implicit stereotypes, that often operate at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control.”
But the justification for this bill relies on dubious science.
Implicit bias is not a well-supported scientific concept; the existence of implicit bias is often inferred from metrics on Implicit Association Tests, which are not reliable and do not correlate with real-world behavior. Ohio State University psychology professor emeritus Hal Arkes described the test as “an extremely feeble predictor of behavior.”
Based on these unreliable metrics, implicit bias trainings assert that individuals have hidden prejudices against other races. This creates unwarranted paranoia and inhibitions, which are detrimental to effective healthcare.
Despite this, some states have considered requiring implicit bias training as a condition of medical licensure. Many have rejected these mandates as unnecessary and unwanted.
Many Mississippi medical professionals agree that they should not have to put up with necessary and even harmful trainings to simply practice their profession.
Indiana Bill Cracking Down on DEI Passes Committee
Uncategorized Indiana DEI State legislature Commentary Do No Harm StaffIndiana is one step closer to enacting legislation cracking down on DEI activities, with a particular focus on medical education and licensing boards.
The bill, SB 235, prohibits state agencies from funding DEI offices or employees. Additionally, the bill prohibits the state from handing out contracts or grants to organizations that mandate DEI training.
As it pertains to medicine, the legislation would prohibit health licensing boards from requiring DEI training or using DEI material as part of the licensure process. Boards cannot require healthcare professionals to have familiarity with DEI principles as a condition of licensure.
Several states require healthcare professionals to submit to DEI trainings, such as implicit bias trainings, to renew or obtain their license. Do No Harm created a “non-woke” implicit bias training program that allows Michigan healthcare professionals to satisfy their state’s requirement while providing accurate, evidence-based information on implicit bias.
The Indiana bill also targets institutions of higher education like medical schools that offer certain health education programs, requiring them to use standardized admissions tests “focused on knowledge and critical thinking around science and medical training.”
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that race-based admissions are illegal, many medical schools have turned to so-called “holistic admissions” that favor other factors over standardized academic achievement in order to admit candidates of certain races.
The bill, authored by state Sens. Tyler Johnson and Gary Byrne, passed Indiana’s Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. Sens. Liz Brown, Eric Koch, Scott Alexander, James Buck, Brett Clark, Aaron Freeman, and Susan Glick voted to advance the legislation.
The legislation follows on the heels of executive orders by President Trump aimed at ending the federal government’s promotion of DEI and engagement in racially discriminatory practices.
Those orders also targeted institutions of higher education that practice race-based admissions despite the Supreme Court’s decision that such practices are illegal, as well as DEI practices in private sector organizations.
Do No Harm has previously reported on several instances of Indiana medical schools pushing DEI and engaging in discriminatory practices.
For instance, the Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) was investigated by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for violations of Title VI and Title IX thanks to a Do No Harm complaint.
The school’s Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective had the eligibility criteria that restricted enrollment to those belonging to specific racial/ethnic groups and/or sexual orientation identities. After the investigation was opened by the OCR in December 2022, IUSM changed the eligibility language, removing the race/ethnicity and sexual orientation criteria.
In another instance, the school promoted a 10-week course for individuals who wish to be “certified” in DEI “leadership.” The school also instructed job search committee members to consider their “implicit bias” and “whiteness” in the course of evaluating applicants.
NYU Langone Health Promotes Race-Based Engagement Groups
Uncategorized New York DEI Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffIn a bid to promote “equity” and “inclusion”, many medical schools have instead returned to segregation.
Schools across the country promote race-based “affinity” and engagement groups that are targeted toward students and faculty of certain races. These groups are explicitly intended to promote the interests of favored racial groups.
For example, a flyer obtained by Do No Harm advertises “BIPOC Engagement Groups” hosted by the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (DCAP) at NYU Langone Health. BIPOC refers to individuals who are “black, indigenous, and/or people of color.”
The flyer notes that the purpose of the group is to advocate for “equity, inclusion, and systemic change” and to facilitate “personal and professional growth.”
Additionally, the flyer includes a survey in which prospective group members indicate their “racial identity.” Curiously, “white” is not an option they can select.
The flyer was included in an email sent out by the department advertising a “DCAP BIPOC Faculty, Trainee, and Staff Mixer.”
The email noted that the mixer was open to “all,” while at the same time promoting the “BIPOC Engagement Groups.”
“Also, we want to ensure that all BIPOC faculty, trainees, and staff are aware of the BIPOC Engagement Groups that meet monthly, an additional way to develop community.” the email read. “We are doing a survey to understand ways in which we can tailor the groups to make them more accessible and engaging.”
Oftentimes, the existence of these groups reflects a larger institutional commitment to DEI.
For instance, the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, which is part of NYU Langone Health, maintains its Office of Diversity Affairs Visiting Elective Fund award which targets “underrepresented students.”
Although the opportunity is open to students of “all backgrounds,” the description of the fund noted that “students from underrepresented backgrounds, including but not limited to those who identify as Black or African American, Latinx, Native American, Native Pacific Islander, or Native Alaskan, are encouraged to apply.”
The medical school also promotes unconscious bias training, which purports to address unconscious racial prejudice, and the Implicit Association Test, which is not considered reliable.
“We conduct unconscious bias training for faculty and hospital departments to assist in the faculty hiring and resident selection processes,” the medical school’s website reads. “Our team provides guidance and supports efforts to recruit diverse talent for faculty positions.”
Rather than view its faculty through this racialized lens, NYU Langone Health should promote opportunities that are friendly to all, no matter their race, sex, or creed.
It should not promote pathways to professional development that are definitionally divisive.
Do No Harm Applauds President Trump for Targeting DEI in Medical Organizations
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; January 22, 2025 – President Trump has issued an executive order targeting DEI’s clutch on federal agencies and publicly funded institutions, including medical schools and associations.
The order requires “all executive departments and agencies to terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements.” It also mandates that all agencies must enforce civil rights laws and “combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”
The executive order has enormous ramifications for medical schools, medical associations, and other healthcare institutions. Many of its broader provisions will directly impact the medical field, while the order makes explicit reference to DEI activities at healthcare institutions as well.
“This order sends a strong message to the American people that our medical professionals will be guided by merit and excellence, not identity politics,” said Kristina Rasmussen, Executive Director at Do No Harm. “For too long medical schools and associations have embedded DEI in admissions, hiring, curriculum, and scholarships, compromising the integrity of the medical profession and the quality of patient care. We commend President Trump for taking this action to restore trust in our institutions and hope in the American Dream.”
The order revokes six previous executive orders that encouraged “illegal discrimination in the federal government.” Additionally, President Trump ordered federal agencies to produce a “strategic enforcement plan” that identifies “potential civil compliance investigations,” specifically mentioning “medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars.”
President Trump also ordered the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education to issue guidelines ensuring federally funded institutions of higher education comply with the Supreme Court’s 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruling that struck down affirmative action in school admissions. This week, Do No Harm published a report identifying medical schools that likely continue to practice discriminatory admissions.
The executive order explicitly calls out “the medical industry” for using “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) that can violate the civil-rights laws of this Nation.” It continues to say that the medical community’s DEI policies “threaten the safety of American men, women, and children across the Nation by diminishing the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work.”
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 over 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.
Three Things You Need to Know About President Trump’s DEI Executive Order and Healthcare
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffOn Tuesday, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at tackling DEI in the private sector and enforcing compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling that race-based university admissions are illegal.
The executive order has enormous ramifications for medical schools, medical associations, and other healthcare institutions. Many of its broader provisions will directly impact the medical field, while the order makes explicit reference to DEI activities at healthcare institutions as well.
The order has three main areas of focus: race-based admissions at institutions of higher education like medical schools, DEI practices in private sector organizations such as medical associations, and DEI in the federal contracting and grantmaking process.
“This order sends a strong message to the American people that our medical professionals will be guided by merit and excellence, not identity politics,” said Kristina Rasmussen, Executive Director of Do No Harm. “For too long medical schools and associations have embedded DEI in admissions, hiring, curriculum, and scholarships, compromising the integrity of the medical profession and the quality of patient care. We commend President Trump for taking this action to restore trust in our institutions and hope in the American Dream.”
Medical School Admissions
The executive order directed the Attorney General and Secretary of Education to issue guidance ensuring universities’ compliance with Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the landmark Supreme Court case that ruled race-based “affirmative action” admissions were illegal for most institutions of higher education.
Shoring up compliance with SFFA is essential to tackle discriminatory practices at medical schools. Do No Harm has published two reports in the “Skirting SCOTUS” series laying out how medical schools are likely circumventing the Supreme Court’s ruling in SFFA.
More rigorous enforcement of existing civil rights laws will ensure that capable students will not have life-changing opportunities denied to them on the basis of race.
Private Sector DEI
President Trump asked the heads of federal agencies and departments to produce a strategic enforcement plan for federal civil rights laws identifying the “most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners” in their respective areas of concern.
This plan will include specific steps 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” and “institutions of higher education” with endowments over $1 billion, thereby covering many of the most prolific advocates of DEI and racial discrimination in the medical field.
Tackling the discriminatory practices of medical associations is crucial to restoring merit and fairness in the medical field. Do No Harm has cataloged dozens of discriminatory scholarships and opportunities doled out by medical associations on the basis of race.
Do No Harm’s bombshell report on the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) further exposed how the AAMC has injected DEI into nearly every facet of medical education.
Contracting and Grantmaking
The executive order further directed federal agencies to eliminate DEI language and discriminatory practices in the federal contracting and grantmaking process.
The abuse of the federal grantmaking process as a mechanism to advance DEI has been well-documented.
Grant programs backed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), for instance, explicitly discriminate against applicants on the basis of race.
Moreover, NIH research grant listings have included language directing applicants to prioritize certain races when constructing their research team.
Eliminating these discriminatory abuses is necessary to promote excellence and merit in the scientific and medical fields.
Altogether, these steps will go a long way toward restoring Americans’ trust in the medical profession.
Do No Harm Releases Second Report Documenting Medical Schools Skirting SCOTUS Ban on Race-Based Admissions
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical School Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; January 21, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm published a report titled “Skirting SCOTUS: How Medical Schools Will Continue to Practice Racially Conscious Admissions.”
The report, a follow-up to Do No Harm’s first “Skirting SCOTUS” report, reveals evidence that medical schools have continued to use race-based admissions after the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) that such practices violate the law.
Before SFFA, Asian and white students were subjected to harsher admissions standards than Hispanic and black students. After SFFA, admission standards should have been applied equally across all races. However, in 2024, matriculating Asian students averaged an 89th percentile score on the MCAT, compared to the 84th percentile for white students, 67th percentile for Hispanic students, and 68th percentile for black students. These statistics suggest that medical schools are still unfairly requiring higher standards for Asian and white applicants than for Hispanic and black applicants.
Because affirmative action created dramatically harsher admissions standards for white and Asian applicants compared to black and Hispanic applicants, proper implementation of race blind admissions should have culminated in a pronounced shift in medical school demographics. That transformation has been observed at some medical schools. However, others have seemingly ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling. At Texas Christian University (TCU), University of Cincinnati, University of Washington, and Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine, the class of 2028 had a higher percentage of black or Hispanic students than the class of 2027. Similarly, Quinnipiac University, University of Maryland, University of Chicago, and Duke University medical schools had an increased percentage of “underrepresented” students in the class of 2028 as compared to 2027.
Many of these schools still boast about using race-based considerations in admissions. For example:
Given the unexpected post-SFFA matriculant statistics, and several schools’ renewed commitment to DEI-centered admissions, the report concludes that medical schools are circumventing the Supreme Court’s decision.
“Clearly, medical schools are finding workarounds to factor in race and ethnicity when they should be focused on aptitude and merit,” said Ian Kingsbury, Director of Research at Do No Harm. It is not only qualified students who pay the price for these discriminatory practices, but also patients. Failing to prioritize medical expertise will further erode trust in the doctor-patient relationship and undermine the integrity of the entire healthcare system.”
Click here to read the report.
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 over 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 Latest Attack on the Cass Review Comes Up Short
Uncategorized United Kingdom, United States Gender Ideology Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffSince the publication of the Cass Review, an exhaustive review of gender medical services in the United Kingdom that found “remarkably weak evidence” to support the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for gender-distressed children, many who are committed to so-called “gender-affirming care” have attempted to downplay its findings.
The latest salvo comes from an article that argues the Cass Review “transgresses medical law, policy, and practice, which puts it at odds with mainstream U.S. expert guidelines.”
The article, published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), is titled “The Future of Gender-Affirming Care — A Law and Policy Perspective on the Cass Review,” and is authored by Daniel G. Aaron, M.D., J.D., and Craig Konnoth, J.D.
The scope of the article is limited to procedural critiques. The authors specifically criticize the Cass Review on the grounds that it “lacked peer review, transparency of authorship, and equitable selection of nonauthor contributors.”
Yet these criticisms are misguided, and many of the supporting arguments lack coherence.
One of the article’s central critiques of the Cass Review is that it fails to adequately prevent “antitransgender bias” in “invitations to oversee and participate in the report.”
This argument is flawed for several reasons.
First, as the cited source in the NEJM article notes, the updated terms of reference for the Cass Review’s assurance group clarify that “members are independent of NHS England and NHS Improvement and of providers of gender dysphoria services, and of any organisation or association that could reasonably be regarded as having a significant interest in the outcome of the Review.” In other words, the purpose of these terms is to prevent people who already perform child sex change procedures from influencing the review’s conclusions.
This makes sense. To include them would be to simply allow in a party with a significant bias – though not the kind of bias with which the authors are so concerned.
The authors’ position seems to be that the Cass Review is remiss for not allowing individuals with obvious conflicts of interest to steer its conclusions. That is hardly a convincing argument.
Second, the authors equate “antitransgender bias” with the position that a child cannot be transgender. This statement is simply not true. A position on whether a child can adequately understand their gender identity in no way implies prejudice against transgender individuals.
And third, if eliminating antitransgender bias meant only permitting healthcare professionals who believe that children can be transgender to provide input for the review, then the review would include only people already predisposed to endorsing so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. The existence of transgender children presupposes, at the very least, the legitimacy of theoretical procedures to “affirm” that child’s transgender identity.
The authors also criticize the evidentiary standards of the Cass Review as too high, arguing that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not the standard by which research supporting so-called “gender-affirming care” should be conducted.
Nowhere in the authors’ critique of the Cass Review’s evidentiary standards is there an argument that the evidence for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat gender-distressed children is robust.
Rather, the authors point to the fact that many drugs used in pediatric medicine have been “prescribed off-label on the basis of limited evidence.”
This is comparing apples to oranges. Off-label use of, say, acetaminophen and off-label use of Lupron have vastly different potential harms. The off-label use of certain drugs without robust evidence does not necessarily imply that all off-label uses of all drugs without robust evidence should be permitted – or why have pharmaceutical regulatory bodies at all? Puberty blockers, for instance, have potential side effects including diminished bone density, cognitive impairment, and increased risk of infertility.
The off-label use of a drug to treat a serious illness that endangers a child is not comparable to the off-label use of a drug that lacks evidence of its effectiveness and, in fact, is demonstrably dangerous itself. There is no proof that gender transition drugs are the correct treatment for gender dysphoria – the evidence in fact shows the opposite – and referencing the off-label use of other drugs does not change this fact.
Moreover, the central criticism of the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat gender dysphoria isn’t procedural – in the sense that these drugs haven’t checked the right FDA boxes – but substantive: the evidence supporting their efficacy is weak, and they have known harms and unknown long-term risks. Nothing in the NEJM article contests that criticism.
The authors launch another critique at the Cass Review for lack of transparency in authorship, and for not submitting the report’s conclusions to peer review. Indeed, the authors assert that the Cass Review would have violated U.S. federal law requiring peer review for government-funded scientific information that will impact policy decisions.
First, peer review does not guarantee accuracy, nor does its absence imply inaccuracy: as Do No Harm has previously revealed, many of the peer-reviewed studies used to support child sex change interventions on minors are themselves rife with methodological flaws. And, as we’ve seen with the NEJM itself, too often, peer review can be an instrument of ideological enforcement.
Second, the authors’ apparent implication that a review published in the U.K. might possibly fail to comply with U.S. regulatory standards somehow calls its conclusions into question is absurd.
And finally, the authors assert that the Cass Review serves to help enforce the “gender binary,” and that “similar calls for higher standards are not applied to cisgender young people receiving gender-affirming care.”
This is a simple category error; it’s misleading to equate treatments aimed at ensuring proper hormonal development with “gender-affirming care.”
Boys who have decreased testosterone, for example, may need hormone treatments for proper bone and muscle development. It would be incorrect to dismiss the purpose of this treatment as an effort to affirm their maleness.
Addressing the harms associated with improper development is conceptually different from a child who wishes to change their appearance to match the opposite sex or appear more androgynous.
All in all, the authors rely on these faulty premises to lodge their procedural complaints while hurling accusations of antitransgender bias.
And that’s not very convincing.
Trump Administration Takes Crucial First Steps Toward Tackling DEI in Medicine
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffOn Monday, President Trump signed several executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the federal government.
The most comprehensive executive order, Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing, directed the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management to terminate “all discriminatory programs,” including DEI mandates and activities, in the federal government.
The order also directed federal agency heads to terminate all DEI offices, positions, and policies within their respective agency.
Additionally, President Trump signed an executive order to ensure merit-based hiring in the federal workforce. The order ensures that federal agencies “prevent the hiring of individuals based on their race, sex, or religion” going forward.
And finally, President Trump signed executive orders rescinding Biden-era directives that embedded DEI practices in federal agencies.
These included Executive Order 13985, which directed federal agency heads to promote “racial equity” in their respective departments, Executive Order 13988, which aimed to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, and Executive Order 14127, which more aggressively promoted DEI through developing a government-wide “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan” and directing each agency to implement this plan.
“Do No Harm commends President Trump’s actions to roll back DEI practices in the federal government and restore merit-based hiring,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Do No Harm will work with the incoming administration in its efforts to remove politics from medicine.”
Do No Harm has worked diligently to expose federal health agencies’ roles in advancing DEI and racially discriminatory practices in the medical field. From lawsuits challenging discriminatory policies to research and comments on the negative effects of the Biden administration’s “health equity” agenda, we have worked to rid healthcare of these harmful practices.
We are optimistic that these policies and ideologies will be sent to the dustbin of history.
The FIRST Program: The NIH’s DEI Money Machine
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffOver the last decade or so, many of the chief culprits responsible for advancing DEI initiatives in the medical field have been federal health agencies.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is no exception, pushing guidelines requiring diversity commitments in grant applications to outright funding DEI initiatives. By manning the faucet of federal funding that many universities use to bankroll their research initiatives, the NIH can exert a significant influence over these grantee institutions.
Enter the NIH’s Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation (FIRST) Program.
First announced in December 2020, the FIRST Program is designed to “transform culture at NIH-funded extramural institutions” by “building a self-reinforcing community of scientists committed to diversity and inclusive excellence (IE).”
In other words, the goal of the program is to advance DEI at institutions of higher education through financial incentives, specifically focused on hiring and personnel.
The NIH’s FIRST Program has distributed grants to 16 universities and medical schools, including prestigious and influential institutions such as Cornell University, Northwestern University, the University of Michigan, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. These schools established school-centered FIRST programs that in turn pursue DEI through hiring initiatives.
Officially, the FIRST Program prohibits racial discrimination in the hiring process.
But in practice, the incentives of the FIRST Program to hire candidates from underrepresented groups predictably resulted in overt racial discrimination.
John Sailer, senior fellow at the National Association of Scholars, documented instances of explicit racism at grantee institutions in The Wall Street Journal.
For instance, faculty members discussed the race and sexual orientation of applicants to determine their fit; one professor at the University of New Mexico even explicitly said they “don’t want to hire white men for sure.”
A grant proposal from Vanderbilt University, which received funding from the FIRST Program, explicitly stated the intent to “focus on the cluster hiring of faculty from minoritized racial and ethnic groups, specifically Black, Latinx, American Indian, and Pacific Islander scientists.”
“Successful candidates will be early stage investigators who are Black, Latinx, or from a disadvantaged background (as defined by NIH),” a description of an Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai job read, according to The Wall Street Journal.
In addition to these examples of explicit racial restrictions, many of the grantee institutions say they prioritize “underrepresented” candidates for FIRST Program hiring initiatives.
Cornell’s $5 million award, for instance, “will support the hiring and retention of 10 new assistant professors from groups underrepresented in their fields, while transforming institutional climate into a culture of inclusive excellence.”
The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s $16 million award supports, among other things, a “cohort cluster hiring” initiative to bring on 12 early-stage investigators, targeting those “underrepresented in science and medicine.”
The NIH defines “underrepresented” groups in biomedical research as “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.”
Northwestern University even explicitly says it is using this definition for its FIRST-funded program, stating that, while it will grant equal consideration to applicants regardless of race, “[w]e especially encourage applications by members of groups underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral, engineering, physical, and social sciences as defined by the Notice of NIH’s Interest in Diversity.”
It’s hard to see how racial discrimination was not the inevitable result of the FIRST Program’s aim to incentivize hiring of “underrepresented” candidates, especially considering the NIH’s own definition of “underrepresented.”
And the FIRST Program is hardly the only instance of the NIH’s diversity initiatives leading to discriminatory programming. The agency has routinely
The Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Educational Diversity (ESTEEMED) grant program, for example, is designed to help undergraduates from “diverse” backgrounds pursue careers in biomedicine. The program, which began in 2017, specified that the grantors should target “individuals from groups identified as underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral and social sciences” such as racial minorities and disabled individuals.
The NIH currently lists 16 active ESTEEMED grant programs on its website; each program’s eligibility criteria contains varying degrees of racial preference.
For instance, Clemson University’s “Call Me Doctor ESTEEMED Scholars Program” stipulates that applicants are eligible if they are from the following ethnic backgrounds: “Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native.”
The University of Georgia, meanwhile, requires students to be “from a diverse background, including from one or more groups underrepresented in the sciences” to be eligible for its ESTEEMED program.
The University of Texas San Antonio’s program requires applicants to be “ethnically underrepresented in the sciences (Hispanic, African American, American Pacific Islander, Alaskan),” disabled, or financially disadvantaged.
And as mentioned previously, the NIH’s grant requirements also encourage racial discrimination.
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Kevin Jon Williams, a professor of cardiovascular sciences at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, highlighted an NIH grant listing’s discriminatory guidelines in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.
The grant listing stated that the funding agency “expects applicants to recruit individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from underrepresented groups for participation in the study team.” The updated listing for the grant later dropped the discriminatory language.
If the NIH truly wishes to advance human knowledge and innovation in the biomedical field, these policies and grant programs simply cannot be tolerated.
They are unethical, cruel, and incompatible with the pursuit of excellence. There is no evidence that diversity among scientific personnel produces better outcomes. These initiatives will only lead to the devaluation of merit.
The incoming administration should make it a priority to turn off the DEI funding faucet.
Do No Harm Files Federal Complaint Against Johns Hopkins for Discriminating Against Medical Students
Uncategorized Maryland DEI Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Medical School Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; January 16, 2025 – Do No Harm and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a federal complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights against Johns Hopkins University for discriminating against medical students on the basis of race and sex.
Johns Hopkins University’s School of Medicine, a top-ranking medical school that relies on taxpayer funding, offers certain education programs for third and fourth-year medical students, where they gain valuable hands-on experience across a variety of medical disciplines.
However, the university restricts access to these programs to medical students from racial groups deemed to be “underrepresented” in medicine.
These discriminatory programs are aligned with Johns Hopkins’ mission to prioritize race and “increase diverse representation.” For these reasons, Do No Harm and WILL have asked the HHS to investigate the university for violating the Affordable Care Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Johns Hopkins, an institution that promulgated an absurdly offensive and racist definition of privilege, is also responsible for racially discriminatory programs,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “We are filing these Office for Civil Rights complaints to bring Johns Hopkins’ discrimination to light. Johns Hopkins should drop all unlawful racial requirements for programs and focus on providing the best education possible to future medical professionals.”
“America’s hospitals and medical training institutions face a reckoning,” said Cara Tolliver, Associate Counsel at WILL. “The healthcare system cannot function effectively when healthcare education opportunities and experiences are reserved for certain individuals based on race and factors other than merit. Healthcare organizations that continue to ignore long-established anti-discrimination laws may soon find the new Trump-Vance Administration taking a firm stance.”
In 2022, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into Johns Hopkins School of Medicine over a discriminatory elective program in response to a complaint filed by a Do No Harm senior fellow. Additionally, Do No Harm has called for the university to close its DEI department after the chief diversity officer claimed that all whites, heterosexuals, and Christians are privileged – that officer has since resigned.
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 over 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.