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.
The Supreme Court Weighs the Future of Child Sex Change Interventions
COMMENTARY Tennessee, United States Gender Ideology Federal government Judicial Do No Harm StaffOn Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that could dramatically alter the legal landscape surrounding so-called “gender-affirming care” for children.
The case, United States v. Skrmetti, concerns a Tennessee law that prohibits children from accessing sex change interventions including surgeries, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened in the ACLU’s case against Tennessee over the law in 2023, arguing it violated protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
Currently, 26 states including Tennessee have passed laws restricting child sex change interventions. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could therefore have wide-reaching consequences for the protection of children across the country.
Do No Harm is hosting a rally Wednesday morning on the steps of the Supreme Court to expose these harmful practices and urge the court to uphold the Tennessee law.
The Case
Tennessee’s law reflects the fact that child sex change interventions are dangerous, carry unknown long-term risks, and are supported by weak, dubious, and error-filled evidence. As such, the law prohibits minors, who cannot provide informed consent to life-altering procedures, from accessing these interventions.
Specifically, the law bans procedures enabling “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to address “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”
However, the federal government, along with advocacy groups such as the ACLU and others, argue that the law discriminates against “transgender” children on the basis of gender identity.
The DOJ under President Joe Biden intervened in the case 2023, arguing the law denied minors “medically necessary” care and that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Specifically, the DOJ argued that the law “permits all other minors to access the same procedures and treatments” for conditions unrelated to gender dysphoria, but prevents “transgender” children from accessing medical interventions to alter their appearance in accordance with their gender self-identification.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld Tennessee’s law, and the federal government appealed to the Supreme Court, which took up the case earlier this year.
Fundamentally, this case is about whether states can protect children from dangerous procedures and treatments that are completely out of step with the principles of evidence-based medicine.
And the scientific basis for these procedures is wanting, to say the least.
The Science
Child sex change interventions are not consistent with evidence-based medicine, and Tennessee’s law reflects this.
In October, Do No Harm filed an amicus brief laying out the lack of evidence supporting child sex change interventions, as well as the scientific errors in the DOJ’s argument against Tennessee’s law.
Another amicus brief filed by over 50 physicians explains how, given the marked lack of medical evidence for these procedures, Tennessee’s law is a perfectly reasonable prohibition. Do No Harm funded the preparation of that brief.
Several entities have conducted systematic reviews of the use of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria, and all have concluded that the evidence underlying medical interventions for gender dysphoria in minors is weak.
For instance, health authorities in Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have all restricted minors’ access to child sex change procedures in recent years as a result of these findings.
Moreover, the studies that purport to provide evidence for the efficacy of so-called “gender-affirming care” are riddled with flaws. Do No Harm recently published a report exposing many of the most often-cited studies for their methodological issues.
Unfortunately, the federal government and other advocates rely on studies that systematic reviews have concluded are flawed, subject to bias, or otherwise weak.
The Consequences
Should the Supreme Court find that Tennessee’s law violates the constitution, the consequences could be devastating to children across the country. Similar protections in dozens of states could be revoked, and children would once again be at the mercy of a medical establishment all too eager to subject minors to dangerous medical interventions.
Likewise, if the Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s ban, states will likely be free to continue protecting children from harmful and unsupported medical procedures.
CMS Removes Equity Requirement from Kidney Transplant Rule Following Do No Harm Comment
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Press Release Do No Harm StaffRichmond, VA; November 27, 2024 – The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a new rule intended to increase access to kidney transplants. The finalized rule dropped a proposed requirement for hospitals to submit “health equity plans” to receive incentive payments. The change comes after Do No Harm submitted a comment on the original rule stating that the health equity plan requirement would have encouraged race-based discrimination.
Click here to read Do No Harm’s comment and the reporting on the original proposed regulation.
“Racial discrimination has no place in healthcare,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Had the rule taken effect as proposed, the government would have been putting its thumb on the scale by incentivizing providers to consider race when selecting patients for kidney transplants. We are pleased the CMS took our concerns seriously and made the necessary adjustments to the final rule.”
See below for an excerpt from the final rule:
Last month, Do No Harm released a continuing medical education course that examines the impact of considering race in kidney disease assessments. Click here to take the free course.
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.
Study Finds DEI Training Increases Agreement With Hitler’s Rhetoric – And the Media Won’t Touch It
Uncategorized United States DEI Health system Commentary Do No Harm StaffWe at Do No Harm have long been sounding the alarm over the deleterious effects of DEI training, particularly in the field of medicine where lives are literally at stake. DEI is a radical ideology that encourages hate, divisiveness, and prejudice, the very things its proponents purport to oppose.
Well, a new study found exactly that, and then some.
“Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias,” released by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and the Rutgers University Social Perception Lab on Monday, found that exposure to DEI trainings increased agreement with rhetoric from Adolf Hitler and had a greater desire to punish those they perceived as harboring prejudice, even when none existed.
That’s hardly a ringing endorsement for the DEI project.
The study examined the impact of DEI narratives on participants’ responses on three subjects – race, religion, and caste. The control group was exposed to a neutral essay about corn, while each other group was exposed to various DEI narratives pertaining to each of the subjects. Then, each grouping was presented with a hypothetical scenario and asked questions about their subject.
“Across all groupings, instead of reducing bias, [DEI materials] engendered a hostile attribution bias [ ], amplifying perceptions of prejudicial hostility where none was present, and punitive responses to the imaginary prejudice,” the study found. “These results highlight the complex and often counterproductive impacts of pedagogical elements and themes prevalent in mainstream DEI training.”
The results were particularly disturbing for participants exposed to DEI narratives about the Hindu caste system. DEI materials increased participants’ agreement with quotes from Adolf Hitler in which the word “Jew” was replaced with “Brahmin,” the highest caste.
“Participants exposed to the DEI content were markedly more likely to endorse Hitler’s demonization statements, agreeing that Brahmins are ‘parasites’ (+35.4%), ‘viruses’ (+33.8%), and ‘the devil personified’ (+27.1%),” the study found. “These findings suggest that exposure to anti-oppressive narratives can increase the endorsement of the type of demonization and scapegoating characteristic of authoritarianism.”
Participants exposed to DEI narratives about race read materials from Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, two “scholars” whose “work” is closer to a barely-coherent ideological pretext for racial discrimination and divisiveness. Shockingly, the study found that participants exposed to these materials were considerably more likely to find racial prejudice when none existed, and were more likely to support punishment of the “racist” actor.
But it seems that these damning findings may have been a little too over the target.
National Review reported that editors at both Bloomberg and The New York Times elected to kill stories about the study after reporters had previously agreed to cover it.
“Unfortunately, both publications jumped on the story enthusiastically only for it to be inexplicably pulled at the highest editorial levels,” a NCRI researcher told National Review. “This has never happened to the NCRI in its 5 year history.”
Bloomberg failed to provide an explanation, while some inside The New York Times had concerns the research was not peer reviewed.
“I told my editor I thought if we were going to write a story casting serious doubts on the efficacy of the work of two of the country’s most prominent DEI scholars, the case against them has to be as strong as possible,” a New York Times reporter wrote to the NCRI, per National Review.
It’s a shame these publications refused to run these stories so that this research could not reach a wider audience. The study highlights the dangers of DEI in the medical field and why it is absolutely imperative that healthcare professionals don’t simply turn a blind eye to these practices, but actively resist.
Engendering racial paranoia and encouraging physicians to find prejudice under every bed is a recipe for disaster. And in the medical field, where patients are trusting healthcare professionals with their lives, it is completely unacceptable to subject these doctors and nurses to propaganda that encourages authoritarian, prejudicial impulses.
Activists Trot Out Bogus Studies to Defend DEI in Medicine
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical Journal Commentary Ian Kingsbury, PhDA look around the political and corporate landscape reveals that DEI is in retreat. Its champions are trying to salvage it with claims that it’s beneficial, but they remain as wrong as ever.
Take, for example, an article published November 11 in STAT News called Cardiovascular health disparities persist in puzzling ways, studies find. The author admits that DEI is facing “political winds” but insists that four recent studies demonstrate why DEI is supposedly beneficial. Closer inspection reveals this assertion to be false.
The first “study” mentioned in the STAT News article is called “Relationship Between Race, Predelivery Cardiology Care and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Pre-Eclampsia/Eclampsia Among a Commercially Insured Population.” The researchers observe that among white mothers with eclampsia or preeclampsia (dangerous hypertensive pregnancy disorders), receipt of predelivery cardiology care is associated with a lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events, or MACE (a composite measure of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or death). However, for black mothers with eclampsia or preeclampsia, receipt of cardiology care is not associated with a lower incidence of MACE.
In making sense of the different outcomes, the researchers couch their explanation in default DEI positions, blaming “structural racism” and “racial biases in the delivery of appropriate and timely post-partum cardiology care.” As is so often the case with health disparities, a closer look reveals less interesting but more sensible explanations.
One plausible explanation for the disparity is that preeclampsia is “more severe in women with African ancestry.” Likely, black women with preeclampsia who receive cardiology care have worse outcomes because they have more severe disease. The researchers theoretically address this concern by statistically adjusting their estimates to account for differences in preexisting heart conditions (cardiac dysrhythmia, valvular heart diseases, ischemic heart diseases, cardiomyopathies, and heart failure) and clinical morbidities (e.g. diabetes, assisted reproductive technology, dyslipidemia, hypertension, gestational hypertension, stroke, obesity, and obesity in pregnancy). However, this data does not perfectly capture differences in health across populations, and these differences can matter when interpreting results. A study purporting to show that black babies were less likely to die if assigned to black doctors was recently debunked by the discovery that researchers did not account for differences in the incidence of “very low birth weight.” In a similar vein, controlling for “obesity” masks significant racial differences in the incidence of morbid/clinically severe obesity.
Another factor that plausibly explains the phenomena observed by the researchers is average group differences in how patients interact with the health care system. Black women are more than twice as likely as white women to receive late or no prenatal care. Likely, many who receive delayed care would have received an earlier referral to cardiology and better outcomes if they had secured timely care. In writing about limitations, the researchers correctly note that “we were unable to ascertain the frequency and timing of cardiology care throughout the pregnancy period. We appreciate that these factors may have [a] substantial impact on the care and outcomes for both races.” Nevertheless, this possibility is eschewed in favor of a radical, racialized hypothesis.
The second “study” in the STAT News article is called “Racial and Ethnic Differences in Semaglutide Prescriptions for Veterans with Overweight or Obesity in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.” The researchers observe that black veterans in the VA health system are marginally less likely to be prescribed semaglutide as a treatment for obesity (8.9% for black veterans vs. 9.1% for white veterans). As the authors reasonably argue, the small difference masks the true magnitude of the disparity since black patients are, on average, in greater clinical need of weight loss treatment.
What the researchers get wrong is asserting “structural bias” as a plausible explanation for the disparity. The idea that structural bias permeates the healthcare system is born of the fallacious ideas that group differences are indicators of maltreatment and that the pseudoscience of “implicit bias” provides meaningful insight into American healthcare. Likely, the lower receipt of semaglutide simply reflects average group differences in demand for treatment or treatment hesitancy.
Not only is the assertion about “structural bias” wrong, it is also logically inconsistent. The next study highlighted by STAT News is called “Social Determinants of Health and Disparities in Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Optimization for Heart Failure.” According to that study, black and Hispanic patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are more likely than white patients with the same condition to receive quadruple therapy optimization, the optimal treatment plan for that condition. According to the logic that disparities that disadvantage a group are evidence of maltreatment against that group, the findings would suggest – absurdly – that “structural bias” in healthcare exists against white patients. In reality, disparities that at times favor one group and at other times favor a different group reveals the complex, multifaceted nature of health disparities as well as the absurdity of DEI orthodoxy and its default explanation of racism.
The final study cited by STAT News is called “Perceptions About Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Among Cardiovascular Fellows‐in‐Training.” The “researchers” observe that some of the cardiovascular fellows-in-training who answered their survey feel that DEI efforts in their programs are insufficient. For example, “Although 66% felt DEI was an institutional priority and 63% a fellowship priority, 34% of participants strongly or somewhat agreed that community engagement and outreach was not valued by their institution.” The trouble is that the efficacy and wisdom of DEI aren’t ultimately determined by the sentiment of a small group of activist physicians but by how DEI impacts medical education and patient outcomes. The verdict couldn’t be clearer.
The $400,000 DEI Program to Turn Internal Medicine Inside-Out
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffFollowing the “racial reckoning” of 2020, numerous medical associations and specialty societies took it upon themselves to delve into the realm of political and racial activism, promoting DEI and radical ideology to the detriment of medical education and, ultimately, patients themselves. This is a phenomenon that Do No Harm has extensively recorded.
These efforts often manifested in projects intended to rewire the landscape of medicine through trainings and continuing education that pushed the precepts of DEI onto the healthcare system.
Take the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM). This is the fourth year that AAIM will be offering its $400,000 grant program, “Building Trust through Diversity, Health Care Equity, Inclusion and Diagnostic Excellence in Internal Medicine Training.”
We don’t have to speculate about whether the grant program is intended to reform medical education in accordance with a radical ideology; AAIM literally says that’s the case. The purpose of the funds, per AAIM, is to “integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into the fabric of internal medicine education and training.”
In fact, the inaugural grant announcement contained this same language. It further noted that “bias and discrimination in health care have slowly but steadily eroded trust in the entire system, including in clinicians directly responsible for care.” (We agree! Although not for the same reasons as AAIM).
The grant program specifically courts applications to develop “training programs that incorporate DEI, and in particular those that employ inter-professional education best practices.”
One previous grant recipient aimed to “expand the curriculum for primary care residents to include education about […] patient mistrust and physician bias.” And to illustrate just how tied this program is with political activism, a 2023 grant recipient received $40,000 for a project titled “Integration of Voter Registration within a Safety-Net Health System to Address Voting as a Social Determinant of Health.”
AAIM even appears to invite applications to develop newfangled methods for racial discrimination, asking for “approaches that foster and support diverse and equitable pathways into medicine and faculty and leadership positions.”
But what makes this program particularly problematic is the fact that AAIM is composed of several organizations that represent not just medical providers or students but the educational decision-makers. These include department chairs of internal medicine at medical schools, fellowship program directors, residency program directors, and more.
In other words, AAIM represents the standard-setting movers and shakers in internal medicine education. And its focus is to propagate DEI throughout the field of academic internal medicine and in its own words, integrate DEI into internal medicine’s fabric.
Let’s not sugarcoat it: This is a full-fledged ideological assault intended to remake medicine into a new, DEI-centric discipline that prioritizes activism and supports racial discrimination to achieve its “equity” goals.
The physicians of tomorrow should not be ideologues. And AAIM should take its responsibility more seriously and commit to excellence, not “equity.”
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.