The federal government is one of the more overlooked culprits behind efforts to embed DEI into the healthcare profession, as well as into medical education and research. The policies and guidance of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as well as various health agencies inform how the medical field acts with regard to certain issues. So when these agencies embrace DEI, they encourage – and often coerce – medical institutions to do the same.
For instance, when fielding applications for grant funding, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) effectively considered the racial makeup of a research team, and mandated that applicants include how their research will advance DEI. This would naturally create incentives for grant recipients to engage in racial discrimination in order to receive funding.
While many of the federal government’s DEI actions follow executive orders from President Joe Biden tasking federal agencies to implement equity action plans, health agencies’ engagement with DEI predates the current administration and is much more endemic.
Here are several of the positions within the federal government that play a pivotal role in advancing DEI:
Director, Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion at the National Institutes of Health
The NIH has been one of the federal government’s chief drivers of DEI in the medical field, through such efforts as the aforementioned discriminatory grants as well as equity initiatives.
The agency currently maintains its office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) that, per the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access), directly guides the NIH director’s DEI strategy and initiatives. The office has over 50 employees, according to City Journal, and is led by its director Kevin Williams, who earned roughly $200,000 in salary in 2020.
What’s more, the office is pretty up-front about its goal to impose racial preferences and racial discrimination through the euphemisms of increasing “diversity,” improving “equity,” and increasing participation of groups “underrepresented” in medicine. The NIH has defined groups “underrepresented” in biomedical research as “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.”
The office explicitly says its mission concerns “improving the outreach, recruitment, and retention of people of color, women, sexual and gender diverse people, and persons with disabilities.”
The agency also intends to embed DEI into clinical research by enhancing “consideration of DEIA in the biomedical and behavioral research funding cycle.”
“Integral to this, over the next 5 years, NIH is committed to the goal of enhancing the consideration of DEIA at all stages of the funding cycle, including the application process, peer review, funding decisions, and pre and post-award grant management,” the equity plan reads.
The agency also plans to “expand existing efforts and develop new approaches in research funding to promote increased participation of underrepresented and other marginalized groups
in biomedical and behavioral research.”
And as mentioned previously, the NIH considers the racial composition of research teams when awarding grants and requires that applicants explain how their research will advance DEI.
What’s more, the NIH already funds the Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Educational Diversity (ESTEEMED) grant program, whose recipients explicitly restrict grant funding to applicants of certain races.
Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity, NIH
As it turns out, the NIH’s DEI efforts are not restricted to one central office.
The Manhattan Institute’s Chris Rufo recently reported on how Marie Bernard, the agency’s chief officer for scientific workforce diversity, has helmed multiple DEI initiatives and efforts during the Biden-Harris administration. She directly oversees ten employees.
For instance, NIH UNITE, which styles itself as a DEI “think tank,” has originated numerous funding opportunities intended to funnel taxpayer dollars toward DEI research.
This includes the “Assessment of Climate at Institutions Award,” which “solicits applications to conduct institutional climate assessments using validated survey instruments and to develop action plans for positive change in the recruitment, hiring, retention, and advancement of faculty, including those from groups underrepresented in biomedical and behavioral research.”
Another program aims to “increase career opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups underrepresented in biomedical research.”
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Here’s an excerpt from Rufo’s article:
The most important of these initiatives is the NIH Common Fund’s Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation (FIRST) program, which was created in 2021 and “aims to enhance and maintain cultures of inclusive excellence in the biomedical research community” by funding the “recruitment of a diverse group of faculty” at research universities. NIH FIRST has subsidized such programs at 16 universities, including Cornell, USCD, Northwestern, and Drexel. The agency says that its efforts to make faculty more “diverse” will help to “ensure[] that the most creative minds have the opportunity to contribute to realizing our national research and health goals.”
According to the most recent salary data from Open the Books, Bernard’s annual salary was $300,000 in 2020.
Director for the Centers for Disease Control and Management’s (CDC) Office of Health Equity
The CDC has also ramped up its DEI initiatives in recent years. In 2021, CDC launched “CORE,” an “agency-wide health equity strategy and CDC’s umbrella framework to transform its work by engaging and challenging every part of the agency to incorporate health equity and diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and belonging (DEIAB) as a foundational element across all of its work.”
Key to this effort is the Office of Health Equity, currently led by director Dr. Leandris Liburd. According to data from Open the Books, her annual salary in 2023 was roughly $240,000.
According to the Office of Health Equity’s mission statement, the director is responsible for a vast array of duties that invariably involve embedding DEI into public health.
These include leading “the advancement of intersectional health equity practices,” incorporating “health equity into existing and future agency policies and programs building on current efforts that have been effective in achieving equity” and leading “the advancement of intersectional health equity practices and principles across the agency.”
Needless to say, this is an enormous amount of power over a federal agency that plays a crucial role in the health of everyday Americans. And as history has shown, the CDC’s equity decisions and agenda have proven to directly impact not just the health but the lives of Americans.
For instance, in 2020, the CDC advised states to give essential workers access to the mRNA vaccine over elderly Americans, reasoning that older Americans are disproportionately white. Several states did, in fact, prioritize minority residents when allocating COVID vaccines.
It is unconscionable for the CDC to subject Americans’ lives to its identity politics agenda, but this is the end result of allowing DEI to run rampant in such a critical public health agency.
Chief Health Equity Officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Director of the CMS Office of Minority Health
The current Chief Health Equity Officer at CMS is Dr. Martin Mendoza. According to Mendoza’s biography, he is “the primary author of the pivotal FDA guidance recommending that clinical trial sponsors submit a diversity action plan to FDA. Dr. Mendoza’s original idea and recommendation became federal public law in December 2022.” Mendoza’s annual salary was roughly $170,000 in 2023, according to data from Open the Books, with 32 employees working within the Office of Minority Health.
CMS may not be the first agency one would associate with health equity initiatives; but earlier this year, the Washington Free Beacon reported that CMS released a proposal to prioritize low-income patients for kidney transplants. It turns out this decision was spurred by an attempt to address “health equity” and close racial gaps in health outcomes.
“The organ transplant industry, like every other part of society, is not immune to racial inequities,” Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Xavier Becerra said, according to the Free Beacon. “Black Americans disproportionately struggle with life-threatening kidney disease, yet they receive a smaller percentage of kidney transplants. The Biden-Harris administration is taking concrete steps to remove racial bias when calculating wait times and rooting out profiteering and inequity in the transplant process.”
Deciding who should receive an organ transplant based on race is morally reprehensible; but unfortunately, the proposal appears in line with CMS’ larger health equity agenda.
According to the CMS Framework for Health Equity, CMS’ goals are to “explicitly measure the impact of our policies on health equity, to develop sustainable solutions that close gaps in health and health care access, quality, and outcomes, and to invest in solutions that address health disparities.” The agency also seeks to “help organizations embed health equity in their programs to reduce disparities.”
Knowing what that looks like in practice, it’s clear that these equity initiatives will lead to future racial discrimination in the name of ideology.
Needless to say, these practices are harmful to medicine, but also contrary to basic principles of fairness and morality. Although presidential actions and cabinet appointments are by far the most impactful factors in this trend, the aforementioned positions within federal agencies are key to their day-to-day operations.
S3E10: Balancing Bugs and Bills: A Conversation with Representative Jeremy Faison
Uncategorized PodcastIn this episode of the Do No Harm podcast, host Ian Kingsbury welcomes Representative Jeremy Faison, a Republican member of the Tennessee House of Representatives. Join them as they delve into Faison’s unique political journey from pest control business owner to state legislator. Discover how he navigates the challenges of balancing public service with his entrepreneurial endeavors. Faison shares his candid views on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and its impact on identity politics and systemic racism. Gain insights into the legislative process in Tennessee and Faison’s commitment to representing his constituents while staying true to his values. Tune in for an engaging discussion that highlights the intersection of personal conviction and public duty in today’s political landscape.
Listen in via Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.
New Do No Harm Report Exposes Increasing Politicization of Medical Establishment
Uncategorized DEI, Gender Ideology Medical association Press Release Do No Harm StaffRichmond, VA; November 19, 2024: Medical watchdog Do No Harm released a new report, Outside Their Lane: Mission Creep in Medical Specialty Societies exposing the increasing politicization of medical associations.
Medical specialty societies, like the American Academy of Pediatrics, are key players in American healthcare and are responsible for developing clinical guidelines and providing continuing medical education. But according to Do No Harm’s report, these organizations routinely participate in political advocacy on topics unrelated to medicine.
The report tracks the medical societies’ official public stances on hot-button issues including affirmative action/racism, climate change, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, immigration policy, and conflict between Israel and Hamas. Since 2010, 93% of specialty societies published statements on affirmative action or racism, 57% on climate change, 50% on immigration, 39% on Ukraine, and 18% on the ongoing war in the Middle East.
“The politicization of medical societies represents a betrayal of the public’s trust in healthcare,” said Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “Dues-paying members of the societies and the public they serve should expect nothing less than institutional neutrality from all specialist groups.”
The full report can be found here.
Report Methodology:
To track the societies’ politicization, Do No Harm identified 28 core medical specialties and then identified the related medical associations. Do No Harm then searched the organizations’ websites for official statements, such as press releases, open letters, or position statements published in academic journals, on political issues and events.
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 14,000 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.
Americans Increasingly Back Restrictions On Child Sex Change Procedures
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Federal government, State government Commentary Do No Harm StaffAmericans are becoming more and more in favor of restricting child sex change interventions, according to a poll released Monday.
The poll, released by Napolitan News Service and conducted by RMG Research, found that 72% of Americans believe it should be against the law to provide “children under 18 with puberty blockers, drugs, and/or surgery to help them transition from one gender to another,” with just 18% saying the interventions should be legal.
This is a marked increase from just a few months ago; in August, only 62% of Americans supported banning child sex change interventions, and 24% supported their legality, according to the poll.
What’s more, it coincides with heightened attention to and awareness of the child sex change issue and gender ideology more broadly. In October, Do No Harm launched our Stop the Harm database that catalogs child sex change interventions performed by hospitals around the country.
We’ve been working tirelessly to bring attention to the dangers posed by these experimental and unsupported medical procedures, and it looks like the public is increasingly catching on.
States have in turn sought to crack down on child sex change procedures, with 26 states passing laws restricting so-called “gender-affirming care” for children.
The poll also asked respondents if teachers and schools should be required to notify a student’s parents if the student wants to change his or her gender, name, and pronouns. A vast majority said “yes” at 73%, while only 17% said “no.”
The poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters online on November 13 and was conducted by Scott Rasmussen, president of RMG Research. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1%.
Equity Over Exams: Why the AAMC’s Arguments for Devaluing Test Scores Don’t Add Up
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has long been a proponent of so-called “holistic review” medical school admissions that devalue test scores and grades to make room for other, less merit-based factors. This approach is often justified on the grounds of pursuing “equity,” and holistic review can be an end-around for race-based admissions.
In its 2024 report on how to interpret MCAT scores, the AAMC argues that admissions officers should take into account students’ “educational opportunities, lived experiences, attributes, and other factors” to demonstrate their commitment to “equity in medical education.”
Buttressing this argument is the following claim:
“Research suggests the differences in MCAT scores for examinees from groups underrepresented in medicine based on race/ethnicity and other background characteristics reflect societal inequalities in income, education, and other factors rather than test bias,” the report reads.
To support this claim, the AAMC cites a 2013 article co-authored by two AAMC officials and published in the AAMC’s journal, Academic Medicine, that identifies several studies finding socioeconomic disparities between racial groups and linking these disparities to gaps in academic achievement.
There is, of course, a credible element to this statement: that students with higher socioeconomic status may have better MCAT scores due to better access to academic resources (e.g. MCAT tutoring) and the ability to afford the opportunity cost of studying.
But coupled with the AAMC’s recent defense of explicit race-based admissions (and current support of “holistic review” admissions that are often a proxy for considering applicants’ race), the implication is clear: MCAT scores should be weighted differently depending on the applicant’s race.
In fact, elsewhere in the report, the AAMC cites a 2020 article published in Academic Medicine called “The Consequences of Structural Racism on MCAT Scores and Medical School Admissions: The Past Is Prologue.” That article’s authors were Drs. Catherine R. Lucey and Aaron Saguil, who chaired the AAMC’s MCAT Validity Committee and provided recommendations for broadening access to medical education. The article argues that “equitable interpretation of MCAT scores requires consideration of the context in which each applicant earned those scores, rather than assuming that all applicants had equal opportunities.”
There’s a few problems with the AAMC’s approach and its underlying premises.
First, the argument for devaluing MCAT scores relies on the aforementioned claim that racial disparities in MCAT scores can be explained by disparities in socioeconomic status and opportunity.
However, as the AAMC itself notes in a 2024 report, MCAT scores predict students’ performance better than undergraduate GPAs and, when coupled with GPAs, are the best predictor of student success. In particular, there is a strong correlation between MCAT scores and clerkship or “shelf” exams, as well as United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) clinical knowledge exams.
This means that, in general, the better a student’s MCAT scores, the better they will perform in medical school and the more mastery of clinical knowledge they will exhibit. In short, students with better MCAT scores tend to be better medical students. While it’s certainly possible that, because of socioeconomic hardships, a student scores poorly on their MCAT and then goes on to be an excellent student, this is most definitely not the general trend.
Crucially, this trend cuts against the AAMC’s core argument, and instead indicates that disparities in MCAT scores simply reflect disparities in merit. At a certain point, a student’s academic performance is just reflective of their competence. If the AAMC wants to argue that disparities in competence are due to socioeconomic factors, so be it, but that does not support its argument for devaluing scores.
Second, even if we were to grant the AAMC’s premise, its conclusion and prescription is bizarre. Why should we just consider previous instances of racism when weighting students’ scores? Why not factor in the litany of other historical injustices that may have had cascading effects on the fortunes of today’s prospective medical students? Why not weight scores by parent income, or by whether or not the student grew up in a single-parent household, or whether their community had a public library?
Taking the AAMC’s argument to its logical conclusion reveals how unfeasible and absurd it is. There is no way to properly curve applicants’ scores in an “equitable” manner, and if fairness is the desired outcome, there’s no reason other than racism to make applicants’ race the determinative factor.
Third, the Supreme Court just ruled that race-conscious admissions are illegal. Considering the context in which a student obtained their scores by considering their race is just race-conscious admissions with added steps. And, as Do No Harm has documented, the use of “holistic review” in admissions is a common end-around employed by medical schools to avoid explicitly acknowledging that they are considering applicants’ race.
Undergirding all of this is the fact that the AAMC fundamentally misunderstands the role of the doctor and, by extension, the role of medical schools. The AAMC believes that medical school admissions should be used to redress past racial discrimination, and aims to accomplish this by devaluing the metrics that best reflect and predict merit and competency. But by lowering standards to permit less qualified people to receive a medical education and become doctors, the AAMC is in turn victimizing all patients who are subjected to a lower standard of medical care.
No one deserves to become a doctor. And though the echoes of historical racism may be felt by minority groups today, their situation does not justify further injustices that harm all Americans who enjoy our healthcare system.
Rather than pursuing ideological agendas and manipulating medical schools’ racial composition through holistic reviews, the AAMC should instead commit to prioritizing merit. The most talented applicants should be rewarded.
It’s of critical importance that our country’s future healthcare professionals are the best and brightest. There is very little margin for error.
Do No Harm Scores Major Victory Against Racial Discrimination in Medicine
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), a medical organization focused on cell and gene therapies, removed a race requirement from its GROW RegenMed Internship program after Do No Harm filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The program offered students paid summer internship opportunities in the regenerative medicine sector.
Previously, ARM’s internship program was only open to black students.
In July, Do No Harm asked the EEOC to investigate ARM for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination in employment. Now, ARM will open the internship to everyone regardless of race.
“Do No Harm welcomes this change,” said Do No Harm Executive Director Kristina Rasmussen. “No student should be denied access to a valuable opportunity because of their race. The medical field is best served when organizations reward students based on their talent and acumen, not traits that have no bearing on their success.”
The change is just the latest example of medical institutions ditching racially exclusionary program requirements following Do No Harm complaints.
For instance, earlier this year, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) rebranded its Minority Recruitment Initiative, a program that awarded scholarships to medical students and residents – but only if they were members of certain “underrepresented” racial groups. The new version of the program, the Hematology Inclusion Pathway (HIP) Initiative, no longer includes language explicitly excluding applicants from certain races. ASH made this change following a series of Do No Harm complaints to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that alleged public universities promoting the scholarship were violating federal civil rights law.
Last month, several medical schools informed the OCR they were either dropping discriminatory eligibility criteria from scholarship programs – or discontinuing the programs altogether – following our civil rights complaints.
Family Physicians, Be Warned: The AAFP Doubles Down on Radical Ideology
Uncategorized United States DEI, Gender Ideology Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffOver the last several years, Do No Harm has repeatedly exposed the American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP) for its embrace of DEI and its forays into radical identity politics and activism.
The organization’s 2024 annual conference in September showed that the organization is as committed as ever to its ideological project. The conference was replete with references to DEI, radical policy proposals, and endorsements of gender medical interventions for minors.
Though the AAFP has long endorsed child sex change procedures, the way in which AAFP speakers discuss the issue is very revealing of the organization’s prioritization of agenda over evidence.
For instance, one presentation on so-called “gender-affirming” included claims that are flat-out false, and reveal an ideological commitment.
“There’s no question that it (pubertal suppression and cross-sex hormones) works; there’s no question that it saves lives,” said Molly McClain, MD, a professor of family and community medicine at the University of New Mexico. “The fact that it’s being questioned across this country and across the world is not about medicine and it’s not about evidence. It’s about politics.”
There is, in fact, more than a question as to the efficacy of child sex change interventions. The United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland have all restricted these interventions. The Cass Review, an exhaustive examination of youth gender treatments within the United Kingdom, determined that the evidence for such procedures is of “poor quality.” Do No Harm recently released a report exposing the serious methodological flaws in the studies most often invoked to support so-called “gender-affirming care for children.”
The presentation also called for “structural belonging” to improve outcomes among youth who believe they are transgender; in other words, a reorientation of society to “affirm” the chosen gender of the child. This includes pronoun use in basically every social setting.
In another particularly bizarre presentation, the face of President-elect Donald Trump was superimposed onto an anthropomorphic Cheeto to represent poor nutrition, with the caption “Cheeto-in-Chief.”
Other presentations included methods of achieving “lactation equity” that invariably involved policies such as “pay equity” and other political reforms.
But also, and more worryingly, the AAFP continued to platform misleading narratives surrounding implicit bias.
Tests used to evaluate implicit bias fail to meet widely-accepted standards of reliability and validity; a 2013 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that the IATs were “poor predictors” of real-world bias and discrimination.
“Twenty years of research produced very little evidence that the IAT test predicts any real-world behaviour,” University of Toronto Mississauga psychology professor Ulrich Schimmack, who spent years studying implicit bias, said in 2019. “On top of that, some of the articles that claim it does, on close inspection, fail to show that.”
Nevertheless, the AAFP argues that implicit bias is a pervasive blight on healthcare leading to racial disparities in health outcomes. The presentation includes a video claiming that physicians are less likely to prescribe black patients pain medication, and implies this is due to physicians’ implicit bias.
However, the evidence for this claim is far from convincing. A systematic review of studies on racial disparities in pain medicine prescription published between 2011 and 2021 reviewed 15 cohorts and found that in only seven of them were black patients less likely to receive opioid pain medicine.
“Among 15 cohorts studied, 7 showed that Black patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesia, whereas 1 showed they were more likely to receive opioid analgesia compared to White patients,” the study found. “In the remaining 7 cohorts, there was no statistically significant difference in receipt of opioids between Black and White patients.”
Additionally, in several of the studies finding that black patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesia, the effect disappeared when controlling for socioeconomic status. This phenomenon indicates that socioeconomic status, rather than race, is the factor leading to this disparity.
But of course, that result is much less convenient to support the AAFP’s desired DEI agenda. After all, the AAFP’s Vice President of Medical Education explicitly endorsed racial discrimination in medical school admissions and decried the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action.
The AAFP seems intent on staying the course and continuing its slide away from medical education and best practices and into political and cultural activism. Family physicians should ask themselves whether this organization is genuinely representative of their interests.
S3E9: Exploring the Political Influence on Medicine
Uncategorized DEI PodcastIn Season 3, Episode 9 of the Do No Harm Podcast, host Ian Kingsbury engages in a deep dive into the complex relationship between politics and medicine with special guest, Eric Kaufman, Ph.D, a distinguished political scientist. This episode examines the significant impact of political ideologies on medical practices and institutions, emphasizing the widespread influence of woke ideology and its downstream effects. As the nation reflects on a pivotal election, the conversation addresses the evolving political landscape and its consequences for DEI initiatives in healthcare. Tune in for an insightful discussion on preserving the integrity of medical practice amidst political challenges.
Listen in via Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.
Do No Harm Lawsuit Challenges Tennessee’s Racial Quotas for State Boards and Commissions
Uncategorized Tennessee DEI Press Release Do No Harm StaffNashville, TN; November 7, 2024: Today, Do No Harm, an association of medical professionals, filed a federal lawsuit to stop Tennessee’s unlawful consideration of race in appointments to state boards and commissions.
Tennessee medical practitioners fall under the purview of the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners, while the state’s Board of Chiropractic Examiners oversees chiropractors.
A requirement of both boards, however, has nothing to do with medicine or chiropractic care, and everything to do with race. Three separate state laws force the governor to consider race when deciding who can serve on these boards.
“State medical boards are given important responsibilities to oversee the quality of care in their state and the safety of patients,” said Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “It is crucial that they be the most qualified physicians available. Like all aspects of healthcare, patient safety and patient concerns should be primary, not the skin color or the racial makeup of any oversight committee.”
Tennessee is far from the only state that uses immutable characteristics to limit opportunities for individuals to serve their state and local communities. A report released by Pacific Legal Foundation, Public Service Denied, found that 25 states codify such unconstitutional discrimination. Pacific Legal Foundation is working to defeat race and sex quotas in Tennessee and everywhere else the unconstitutional practice is required.
“Tennessee law forces governor after governor to engage in racial discrimination when making appointments to state boards and commissions,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Caleb Trotter. “Using race to make appointments to government boards is not only demeaning and unconstitutional, but it undermines the distinctive spirit of the Volunteer State by precluding opportunities for Tennesseans to serve their local communities.”
The case is Do No Harm v. William Lee and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
Is the NIH Softening Its Support for Racial Discrimination?
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe NIH has long been one of the main vehicles for DEI to corrupt medical education and research. But after a Do No Harm fellow spoke out, in at least one instance that appears to be changing.
Back in February, the NIH announced a notice of intent to publish a funding opportunity for cardiovascular disease research through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). However, the notice made clear that the NIH prefers applicants to recruit certain racial groups for their study team.
“NHLBI expects applicants to recruit individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from underrepresented groups for participation in the study team,” the notice said. For reference, the NIH’s diversity guidance defines underrepresented groups as “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.”
The use of “expects” in the notice is key: the NIH wasn’t simply encouraging applicants to include these racial groups, but rather commanding them to do so.
If an applicant didn’t implement this bizarre racial preference, they wouldn’t get funding.
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Kevin Jon Williams, a professor of cardiovascular sciences at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, wrote a March op-ed in the Wall Street Journal highlighting the grant listing’s discriminatory guidelines.
Dr. Williams, who has African ancestry, could have noted his underrepresented background in his application for the grant and thereby increase his chances of getting funding.
Dr. Williams nobly elected not to do so, and chose not to validate the NIH’s discriminatory enterprise.
Now, following Dr. Williams’s op-ed, it seems the NIH may have gotten the hint.
In the actual funding opportunity listings posted in July for the cardiovascular research in question, the NIH dropped the language telling applicants they were “expected” to prioritize certain racial groups in their study team composition.
While applicants were still required to submit a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP), the NIH said that the applications would be assessed based on “the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project,” and that “[c]onsistent with federal law, the race, ethnicity, or sex of a researcher, award participant, or trainee will not be considered during the application review process or when making funding decisions.”
This is quite a shift. The NIH went from instructing applicants to racially discriminate when constructing their study team, to now saying that it’s illegal to consider race at all!
The irony, of course, is the NIH was the one telling applicants to discriminate in the first place.
“The new administration in D.C. should be able to help the NIH return to its core mission,” Dr. Williams said. “The voting, tax-paying public does not want racial discrimination.”
As Do No Harm has extensively cataloged, the NIH is one of the chief perpetrators of DEI in the medical field. And its diversity guidance still encourages racial preferences in prospective grant applicants.
But this is a step in the right direction all the same. The NIH should abandon its embrace of DEI and its support for racially discriminatory application criteria, and get back to what it should be doing: advancing humanity’s medical knowledge.
S3E8: The Ethics of Care: Whistleblower Insights on Gender Medicine for Minors
Uncategorized PodcastIn this eye-opening episode of the Do No Harm Podcast, hosts Ian Kingsbury and Scott Centorino delve into the controversial world of pediatric gender clinics and the ethics surrounding gender-affirming care. Joined by Jamie Reed, a former insider and whistleblower from a pediatric gender clinic, they explore the complexities of treating gender dysphoria in minors. Jamie shares her personal journey and the pivotal moments that led her to speak out against current practices. The discussion navigates through the challenges of evidence-based care, the role of public opinion, and the impact on the LGBT community. With personal anecdotes and a deep dive into medical ethics, this episode promises a thoughtful and provocative examination of a highly sensitive topic.
Listen in via Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.
The American Society of Hematology Rebrands Its Racist Scholarship Program
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe American Society of Hematology (ASH) may be learning its lesson.
ASH previously operated the Minority Recruitment Initiative (MRI), a program designed to “increase the participation of those underserved and underrepresented” in hematology. The initiative included scholarships like the Minority Medical Student Award Program (MMSAP) that were restricted to “Indigenous American Indians or Alaska Natives, Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, African Canadians, Inuit, and First Nation Peoples.”
Now, ASH has rebranded the program and removed eligibility criteria that specifically restrict the racial groups that are eligible to receive the awards. The “successor” program to MRI, the Hematology Inclusion Pathway (HIP) Initiative, likewise promotes awards and scholarships available to medical students, residents, and faculty.
ASH’s timing is curious, to say the least. In December 2023, Do No Harm filed a joint federal civil rights complaint against 20 medical schools that illegally promoted the discriminatory award, and following our complaint, many of the schools agreed to delete the award from their websites to resolve their violations of federal civil rights laws
For instance, Michigan State University (MSU) medical school promoted ASH’s MMSAP on its website. The university delisted the program earlier this year following Do No Harm’s federal civil rights complaint. Several other medical schools including those at the University of Chicago and the University of Cincinnati also agreed to stop promoting and advertising the discriminatory ASH programs on their websites.
Perhaps ASH has decided that promoting explicit unlawful racial discrimination is not in the best interests of a medical association.
Still, it’s clear that ASH views the program as a vehicle to advance its DEI agenda, and may evaluate applicants accordingly. The organization is promoting a HIP luncheon where previous award recipients and DEI officials can “network” with one another.
Here’s how ASH describes HIP:
“[T]he new HIP Initiative better aligns with ASH’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion and reflects an evolving understanding of the communities that are underrepresented in hematology.”
Moreover, one of the initiative’s scholarships “encourages graduate students from communities underrepresented in hematology in the United States and Canada to pursue a career in academic hematology.” ASH also recommended embedding DEI in the clinical trial process, a sign that its commitment to radical ideology is not abating.
Nevertheless, a retreat from explicit racial discrimination is an encouraging sign: the days in which medical associations could broadcast and promote their racism without being held accountable are over.
ASH must know by now that any form of racial discrimination, regardless of whether it is undertaken in the name of “equity” or other ideological goals, is unlawful and morally unacceptable. Medical schools and medical organizations have to realize that there are no “if you have good intentions” exceptions to federal civil rights laws, and discrimination based on race or sex is still unlawful even if it advantages the “right” groups for the “right” ideological reasons.
Do No Harm encourages those who become aware of race-based or sex-based discrimination to submit your concern to our website.
The Under-the-Radar Bureaucrats Driving the Federal Government’s ‘Health Equity’ Agenda
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe federal government is one of the more overlooked culprits behind efforts to embed DEI into the healthcare profession, as well as into medical education and research. The policies and guidance of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as well as various health agencies inform how the medical field acts with regard to certain issues. So when these agencies embrace DEI, they encourage – and often coerce – medical institutions to do the same.
For instance, when fielding applications for grant funding, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) effectively considered the racial makeup of a research team, and mandated that applicants include how their research will advance DEI. This would naturally create incentives for grant recipients to engage in racial discrimination in order to receive funding.
While many of the federal government’s DEI actions follow executive orders from President Joe Biden tasking federal agencies to implement equity action plans, health agencies’ engagement with DEI predates the current administration and is much more endemic.
Here are several of the positions within the federal government that play a pivotal role in advancing DEI:
Director, Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion at the National Institutes of Health
The NIH has been one of the federal government’s chief drivers of DEI in the medical field, through such efforts as the aforementioned discriminatory grants as well as equity initiatives.
The agency currently maintains its office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) that, per the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access), directly guides the NIH director’s DEI strategy and initiatives. The office has over 50 employees, according to City Journal, and is led by its director Kevin Williams, who earned roughly $200,000 in salary in 2020.
What’s more, the office is pretty up-front about its goal to impose racial preferences and racial discrimination through the euphemisms of increasing “diversity,” improving “equity,” and increasing participation of groups “underrepresented” in medicine. The NIH has defined groups “underrepresented” in biomedical research as “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.”
The office explicitly says its mission concerns “improving the outreach, recruitment, and retention of people of color, women, sexual and gender diverse people, and persons with disabilities.”
The agency also intends to embed DEI into clinical research by enhancing “consideration of DEIA in the biomedical and behavioral research funding cycle.”
“Integral to this, over the next 5 years, NIH is committed to the goal of enhancing the consideration of DEIA at all stages of the funding cycle, including the application process, peer review, funding decisions, and pre and post-award grant management,” the equity plan reads.
The agency also plans to “expand existing efforts and develop new approaches in research funding to promote increased participation of underrepresented and other marginalized groups
in biomedical and behavioral research.”
And as mentioned previously, the NIH considers the racial composition of research teams when awarding grants and requires that applicants explain how their research will advance DEI.
What’s more, the NIH already funds the Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Educational Diversity (ESTEEMED) grant program, whose recipients explicitly restrict grant funding to applicants of certain races.
Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity, NIH
As it turns out, the NIH’s DEI efforts are not restricted to one central office.
The Manhattan Institute’s Chris Rufo recently reported on how Marie Bernard, the agency’s chief officer for scientific workforce diversity, has helmed multiple DEI initiatives and efforts during the Biden-Harris administration. She directly oversees ten employees.
For instance, NIH UNITE, which styles itself as a DEI “think tank,” has originated numerous funding opportunities intended to funnel taxpayer dollars toward DEI research.
This includes the “Assessment of Climate at Institutions Award,” which “solicits applications to conduct institutional climate assessments using validated survey instruments and to develop action plans for positive change in the recruitment, hiring, retention, and advancement of faculty, including those from groups underrepresented in biomedical and behavioral research.”
Another program aims to “increase career opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups underrepresented in biomedical research.”
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Here’s an excerpt from Rufo’s article:
The most important of these initiatives is the NIH Common Fund’s Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation (FIRST) program, which was created in 2021 and “aims to enhance and maintain cultures of inclusive excellence in the biomedical research community” by funding the “recruitment of a diverse group of faculty” at research universities. NIH FIRST has subsidized such programs at 16 universities, including Cornell, USCD, Northwestern, and Drexel. The agency says that its efforts to make faculty more “diverse” will help to “ensure[] that the most creative minds have the opportunity to contribute to realizing our national research and health goals.”
According to the most recent salary data from Open the Books, Bernard’s annual salary was $300,000 in 2020.
Director for the Centers for Disease Control and Management’s (CDC) Office of Health Equity
The CDC has also ramped up its DEI initiatives in recent years. In 2021, CDC launched “CORE,” an “agency-wide health equity strategy and CDC’s umbrella framework to transform its work by engaging and challenging every part of the agency to incorporate health equity and diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and belonging (DEIAB) as a foundational element across all of its work.”
Key to this effort is the Office of Health Equity, currently led by director Dr. Leandris Liburd. According to data from Open the Books, her annual salary in 2023 was roughly $240,000.
According to the Office of Health Equity’s mission statement, the director is responsible for a vast array of duties that invariably involve embedding DEI into public health.
These include leading “the advancement of intersectional health equity practices,” incorporating “health equity into existing and future agency policies and programs building on current efforts that have been effective in achieving equity” and leading “the advancement of intersectional health equity practices and principles across the agency.”
Needless to say, this is an enormous amount of power over a federal agency that plays a crucial role in the health of everyday Americans. And as history has shown, the CDC’s equity decisions and agenda have proven to directly impact not just the health but the lives of Americans.
For instance, in 2020, the CDC advised states to give essential workers access to the mRNA vaccine over elderly Americans, reasoning that older Americans are disproportionately white. Several states did, in fact, prioritize minority residents when allocating COVID vaccines.
It is unconscionable for the CDC to subject Americans’ lives to its identity politics agenda, but this is the end result of allowing DEI to run rampant in such a critical public health agency.
Chief Health Equity Officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Director of the CMS Office of Minority Health
The current Chief Health Equity Officer at CMS is Dr. Martin Mendoza. According to Mendoza’s biography, he is “the primary author of the pivotal FDA guidance recommending that clinical trial sponsors submit a diversity action plan to FDA. Dr. Mendoza’s original idea and recommendation became federal public law in December 2022.” Mendoza’s annual salary was roughly $170,000 in 2023, according to data from Open the Books, with 32 employees working within the Office of Minority Health.
CMS may not be the first agency one would associate with health equity initiatives; but earlier this year, the Washington Free Beacon reported that CMS released a proposal to prioritize low-income patients for kidney transplants. It turns out this decision was spurred by an attempt to address “health equity” and close racial gaps in health outcomes.
“The organ transplant industry, like every other part of society, is not immune to racial inequities,” Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Xavier Becerra said, according to the Free Beacon. “Black Americans disproportionately struggle with life-threatening kidney disease, yet they receive a smaller percentage of kidney transplants. The Biden-Harris administration is taking concrete steps to remove racial bias when calculating wait times and rooting out profiteering and inequity in the transplant process.”
Deciding who should receive an organ transplant based on race is morally reprehensible; but unfortunately, the proposal appears in line with CMS’ larger health equity agenda.
According to the CMS Framework for Health Equity, CMS’ goals are to “explicitly measure the impact of our policies on health equity, to develop sustainable solutions that close gaps in health and health care access, quality, and outcomes, and to invest in solutions that address health disparities.” The agency also seeks to “help organizations embed health equity in their programs to reduce disparities.”
Knowing what that looks like in practice, it’s clear that these equity initiatives will lead to future racial discrimination in the name of ideology.
Needless to say, these practices are harmful to medicine, but also contrary to basic principles of fairness and morality. Although presidential actions and cabinet appointments are by far the most impactful factors in this trend, the aforementioned positions within federal agencies are key to their day-to-day operations.
Report Reveals 500 Instances of the Biden-Harris Administration Embedding DEI Into the Federal Government
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; October 31, 2024 – Do No Harm released a report detailing how the Biden-Harris administration infused discriminatory DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) practices and policies into the federal government.
The report, Equity Everywhere: 500 Ways the Biden-Harris Administration Infused DEI Into the Federal Government, reveals that over 80 federal entities submitted “Equity Action Plans” which resulted in over 500 active or planned federal DEI actions.
These included 36 actions directly related to medicine and healthcare policy.
The comprehensive analysis found that a wide array of entities across the federal government were involved in pushing DEI, including well-established agencies such as the HHS, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Energy, as well as lesser-known entities like the Marine Mammal Commission and the American Battle Monuments Commission.
Do No Harm organized the agencies into 10 categories: Health; Security; Foreign Affairs; Law; Transportation; Preservation; Federal-State Partnerships; Science and Nature; and Finance, Labor, and Commerce. Do No Harm then split up the areas in which federal agencies advanced DEI into several categories: research and data; labor market transformation; procurement and contracts; outreach; training; and other avenues.
“Discrimination has no place in our society and certainly not in our federal government,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “This report documents hundreds of examples of harmful identity politics leading to government programs that treat people differently based on their race or sexual orientation. It is alarming that these programs, including initiatives that determine how the government regulates medicine and cares for our veterans, not only were implemented but encouraged and celebrated.”
“Though it’s no surprise activists and politicians have pushed this corrosive ideology, that DEI has permeated our institutions of power to such a degree in less than four years reminds us why it is so important to stand up for merit and equality, not equity and division,” Dr. Goldfarb said. “The same government that is charged with protecting the American people from discrimination cannot also perpetuate it. Our leaders must root this out and return to our founding principles.”
View the full report 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 13,000 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.
Virginia Tech Recruits Psychologist to Target ‘Latinx’ Students
Uncategorized Virginia DEI Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine Medical School, Public university Commentary Do No Harm StaffShould universities target their mental health resources toward certain racial groups?
A resounding “no” might seem obvious, but not according to Virginia Tech. The university recently advertised an open position for “Staff Psychologist/Staff Counselor – Hispanic-Latinx Focus.” As the title suggests, the position specifically focuses on Hispanic students.
The job description has since been removed from Virginia Tech’s website, but a listing remains live on a third-party site.
On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with Virginia Tech’s aim to improve student access to mental health counselors. But specifically directing taxpayer resources toward supporting the mental health of a select ethnic group reeks of racial preferencing. Why not simply improve mental health capabilities for all? Why specifically target certain racial groups?
Well, a glance at the job description reveals that Virginia Tech views its mental health counselors as agents in its effort to improve access to “underserved” students and increase racial diversity among its counseling staff. There’s clearly a strong ideological motivation at work, as well as the belief that the “lived experiences” of Hispanic students requires special care.
“Part of this initiative will include recommendations and strategies to make Virginia Tech more affordable and accessible for underserved students, addressing financial feasibility and student success,” the job description reads.
Additionally, if that weren’t obvious enough one of the job’s preferred qualifications is “strong commitment to social justice and issues of diversity.”
The justification for the position echoes the notion that racial concordance, in which the patient and the healthcare professional are of the same race, produces better outcomes. The weight of evidence shows that this is simply not true.
“Cook Counseling Center supports the academic mission of the university and has focused upon growing the multicultural competence and ethnic and racial diversity of the counseling staff,” the description continues. “The goal for this position is to further our work with Hispanic-Latinx communities and marginalized students as we better understand the lived experiences of these students on this campus.”
Unsurprisingly, this job posting is not an isolated expression of Virginia Tech’s commitment to ideology, but rather reflective of the school’s broad engagement with DEI.
Job descriptions for positions at the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine obtained by Do No Harm reveal the extent to which the school’s bureaucracy is saturated with DEI principles.
For instance, the medical school advertised for an “Admissions Specialist” whose duties included demonstrating a “commitment to advancing traditionally underrepresented groups in medicine.”
Similarly, the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs is expected to serve on DEI committees, while the Director of Admissions must have “significant progressive experience in educational training and in recruiting and relating to selecting a diverse body in lines with the goals of VT.”
One position, the “Inclusion Coordinator,” is entirely focused on “efforts to integrate inclusion, equity, diversity, and quality initiatives.” The position’s qualifications include a “demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion,” while job duties include “URIM (underrepresented in medicine) recruitment, and implementation of DEI workshops/training sessions.”
In fact, Do No Harm identified over ten positions that explicitly required a commitment to diversity and related concepts as a qualification, or involved furthering DEI as a job duty.
What’s more, the medical school operates its MEDS-E, or Medical Exposure for Diverse Students Experience, program targeting students who are members of groups “underrepresented in medicine,” and providing them with educational opportunities.
It’s a worrying sign when medical institutions view their racial composition as an urgent priority with public health subordinate to an ideological agenda.
What really matters is quality healthcare delivered by qualified physicians, pure and simple. Virginia Tech would do well to remember that.
S3E7: Balancing Politics and Policy: DEI Challenges in North Carolina
Uncategorized North Carolina DEI PodcastIn Episode 7 of Season 3 of the Do No Harm Podcast, hosts Ian Kingsbury and Scott Centorino engage with North Carolina Representative Ray Pickett in a compelling discussion on the intertwining of politics, higher education, and healthcare. As North Carolina navigates the aftermath of a severe storm, the focus shifts to the contentious role of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies in universities and their broader impact on healthcare. Representative Pickett shares insights on the Board of Governors’ efforts to reform DEI policies and the challenges of maintaining neutrality in educational institutions. The episode underscores the emotional and divisive nature of DEI and gender medicine issues, highlighting the critical role of public engagement in shaping legislative processes.
Listen in via Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.
LSU Med School Scrubs Link to ‘Defund the Police’ Site After Do No Harm Exposé
Uncategorized Louisiana DEI Louisiana State University School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffLast week, Do No Harm reported on the fact that the Louisiana State University (LSU) School of Medicine was maintaining a web page directing students to radical political activist sites, including a site explicitly calling to defund local police departments. Other resources included recommendations for medical schools to institute forms of racial discrimination in the name of “recreating Wakanda” and achieving health equity goals.
Now, it seems like LSU has decided this site perhaps isn’t the best advertisement for its medical education offerings. Following the publication of our story, the page was taken down.
LSU is no longer directing students to these radical sites that have nothing whatsoever to do with the medical school’s pedagogical mission. And that is a welcome change.
But LSU may have more to worry about.
Louisiana State Sen. Valarie Hodges said the page violated a recently-enacted law, Act 584, that prohibits professors from imposing “political views on students.” Hodges, who authored the law, characterized the medical school’s behavior as “unacceptable.”
“This type of politically motivated, radical calls to activism from a state-funded higher education institution cannot be allowed as per state law,” Hodges said in a statement. “Louisiana’s Legislature and Governor have been clear about where our state stands in relation to radical leftist activism in our schools that is meant to divide our citizens and destroy our state and our nation. This blatant disrespect and disregard to Louisiana law and beliefs held by students who attend LSU Medical School is unacceptable and egregious.”
Other Louisiana state lawmakers who caught wind of the web page were similarly shocked at the content promoted by the publicly-funded institution.
Do No Harm asked LSU what prompted its decision to remove the web page and whether it was aware of concerns it violated state law; the university has yet to respond.
Still, LSU’s decision to remove the page is an encouraging sign. It demonstrates the importance of shining a light on the political activities of medical schools that detract or often outright contradict their role as educational institutions.
Do No Harm will continue to expose medical schools that prioritize radical political activism rather than focusing exclusively on their mission to educate the next generation of healthcare professionals.
American Society of Hematology Recommends Embedding DEI Into Clinical Trials
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe American Society of Hematology (ASH) has decided the next frontier for DEI is clinical research.
In 2023, ASH launched the ASH DEI Toolkit for Clinical Trial Sponsors. The goal of the guide is “to help trial sponsors incorporate DEI principles throughout the trial life cycle.”
While some of the recommendations are fairly anodyne and have a plausible basis in an attempt to improve trial design, others are nakedly ideological. The guide recommends trial sponsors employ a “diverse workforce,” and that committees reviewing the trial do so not just for safety and scientific ethics but for “justice principles” as well. These recommendations mirror guidance from the National Institutes of Health, which also has pushed for DEI and racially discriminatory policies in grant applications.
The guide also recommends relaxing inclusion and exclusion criteria to allow for a more “diverse” pool of trial participants, despite the detrimental effects this could have on research.
“For example, in eligibility criteria, avoid unnecessarily strict organ function, or eligibility tests. For exclusion criteria, avoid nonspecific and potentially biased terms such as ‘unacceptable’ or ‘uncontrolled’ where more specific definitions can be used.”
ASH has been quite explicit in its endorsement of the DEI agenda, and has previously taken other steps to embed these discriminatory principles into the medical profession.
For instance, ASH offered a medical student award to “Indigenous American Indians or Alaska Natives, Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, African Canadians, Inuit, and First Nation Peoples.” Notably absent, of course, are whites and Asians.
The priority of those designing a clinical trial should obviously be the safety of the participants and then the integrity of the trial design itself. “Justice principles” really shouldn’t factor into it all, and ASH’s attempts to use clinical trials as a vehicle for DEI is misguided at best, and dangerous at worst.
Some of ASH’s recommendations, such as prioritizing a diverse workforce, could end up resulting in less capable researchers manning the helm.
At the end of the day, safety and integrity, not DEI, should be the key focus of clinical research.
Philadelphia Jewish Community Sends Health System a Clear Message: Ditch DEI
Uncategorized Pennsylvania DEI Health system Commentary Ian Kingsbury, PhD, PhDJewish Pennsylvanians are rightfully concerned that their popular swing state governor was snubbed as a vice presidential candidate because of his Jewish identity. Liberals will need to prove that they are serious about confronting antisemitism if they want to win back Jewish voters.
If a petition circulating in the Philadelphia suburbs is any indication, that means abandoning the DEI agenda.
The Change.org petition, which has accrued more than 4,000 signatures, calls for Main Line Health (a large health system that serves the Philadelphia metro area) to “totally dismantle” its “Diversity, Respect, Equity and Inclusion” (Main Line’s branding of DEI) programming.
“Time and again,” the petition notes, “the Jewish community has observed that the tenet of ‘inclusion’ within the DRE&I apparatus does not extend to Jews. Rather, DRE&I portrays the world in a reductive paradigm that imagines ‘white’ oppressors pinned against a ‘nonwhite’ oppressed, with Jews assigned to the first group. This type of thinking doesn’t help anybody, including the patients it purports to help.”
The petition, drafted by local Jewish activists (including several physicians at Main Line Health), came in response to the headline story in Main Line Health’s July Diversity, Respect, Equity, and Inclusion (DREI) newsletter. The story, “Biography of a hospital during occupation and war,” purports to chronicle the plight of Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza. Instead, it offers an account so deluded that it could reasonably pass for either Hamas propaganda or anti-Hamas satire.
The story begins with the line that “Al-Shifa Hospital translates as ‘house of healing.’” It predictably unfolds to characterize the destruction at the hospital as an unprovoked assault on Gaza’s health infrastructure.
“The article is rife with misinformation and omissions,” notes the petition, “creating a dangerously false narrative that distorts the truth and misleads readers. Omitted is any mention of the atrocities that precipitated the current conflict, the holding of multiple hostages at Al-Shifa hospital and the use of the hospital as a Hamas command hub.”
Ultimately, “these omissions and distortions propagate a hateful narrative against the world’s only Jewish state. This unmasked contempt sets the tone for discourse and conduct across MLH.”
The apology that followed the incident, which referred to it as an “ouch moment,” only stirred more anger. The petition calls it “an appalling understatement of what transpired. The apology letter outrageously referred to Hamas, which repeatedly calls for the genocide of Jews, as a ‘combatant organization.’”
For the uninitiated, it might seem odd that DEI officials would wade into the Israeli-Hamas war or that they would so shamelessly and uncritically crib Hamas talking points. For many others, however, it doesn’t qualify as a surprise.
DEI tends to adopt simplistic and neo-Marxist paradigms that imagine the world as a conflict between groups of oppressors and oppressed. It views global affairs through a lens that inextricably links race and power, hence the contempt for the “white” Jews of Israel (most of whom are in fact descendants of refugees from Arab countries) and the apologism for or infantilization of the “resistance” of Palestinian terrorists.
Consternation over DEI within the Jewish community isn’t new. When I traveled to Israel earlier this year as part of a solidarity trip organized out of UCLA, President Isaac Herzog and his wife were explicit to our delegation about the threat that wokeism and DEI in particular poses to the welfare of American and Israeli Jews alike. Yet, the Main Line Health petition marks a notable development. Most American Jews are (or at least were) politically liberal and reside in progressive metropolitan areas. The incentives to self-censor about DEI are abundant, and yet, the stakes are apparently making silence untenable.
Though it’s unclear precisely how many of the petition signatories are Jews in metro Philadelphia, Dr. Lev – an Israeli-American physician based in the Philadelphia area who published the petition – insists that number is at least 1,000.
“The Jewish community is furious and many now believe DEI to be dangerous,” he tells me. “Opposing DEI can create some awkwardness among neighbors and friends who truly believe that it stands for the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. But given what is happening in our communities – Swastikas appearing etched onto the side of public buildings, pro-Hamas demonstrators marching through college campuses, Jews being harassed in Philadelphia public schools – we’re now forced to have these uncomfortable conversations.”
Philadelphia’s suburbs are being courted by both candidates in the upcoming presidential election. The petition sends a clear message: Embrace DEI at your own peril.