DEI By Another Name? American College of Surgeons Touts ‘Inclusive Excellence’

In recent years, the public has become more and more aware of the harmful and insidious nature of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), particularly in the fields of medicine and higher education. In response to this backlash as well as anti-DEI legislation, medical schools, medical associations, and other healthcare institutions have rolled back or rebranded their DEI initiatives – sometimes sincerely, and sometimes not.

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) seems to be doing a DEI bait-and-switch by rebranding its Office of DEI to the “Office of Inclusive Excellence.” As of earlier this month, the ACS’s page on its Office of DEI now redirects to its page on the Office of Inclusive Excellence.

The goals of both offices are virtually identical, and each contain ample references to advancing the DEI agenda throughout the ACS’s various activities. 

These include goals to “develop an overall strategic plan for diversity, equity, inclusion, and antiracism efforts in the College and with its partners to maximize the benefits of our collective work”; to “build a trauma-informed approach into all diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts without causing unintentional harm in addressing diversity, equity, inclusion, and antiracism”; and to “align DEI programmatic and curricular content to be consistent with common diversity, equity, and inclusion tenets according to subject matter expertise.”

Similarly, the ACS’s DEI Toolkit is now the “ACS Inclusive Excellence Resource and Implementation Toolkit.”

A cursory glance through ACS’s website shows the organization still has up its myriad endorsements of DEI and associated concepts, but these have been placed behind the “Inclusive Excellence” brand. For instance, its “commitment to Inclusive Excellence” simply links back to its “Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”

“The ACS underscores this commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion by ensuring that meaningful positions of leadership are held by Fellows from all constituent groups,” the statement reads.

And more importantly, the Inclusive Excellence toolkit’s resource library makes implicit repeated references to the notion that physician-patient racial concordance will improve health outcomes.

As Do No Harm has shown, this argument lacks evidence. Four out of five systematic reviews of racial concordance have shown no positive impact on health outcomes.

The toolkit also references a debunked 2020 study purporting to show lower infant mortality rates for black newborns that are treated by black physicians.

“The value of diversity in health care specifically as it pertains to patient outcomes is an increasing focus of study. While much of the literature to date is centered on adverse health

outcomes among patients from underrepresented populations, fewer studies have specifically addressed how increased diversity among healthcare providers improves patient care outcomes. One such example is the lower mortality rate for Black newborns when cared for by Black physicians (Greenwood et al, 2020).”

In a commentary published Monday, researchers examined the same data set used in the 2020 study but controlled for low infant birth weight; this made the ostensible racial concordance effect disappear, debunking the study’s findings.

It’s clear that the ACS is attempting to put some distance between itself and DEI as more and more people realize how harmful that radical ideology truly is.

But at the same time, their core DEI commitments and policies appear unchanged. Instead, it seems like the ACS wants to have it both ways; they want to appeal to the ideals of medical excellence exalted in traditional medicine, while maintaining the tenets of woke ideology. 

If the ACS truly wishes to ditch DEI, they need to do more than change a few names.

Ohio State Hosts Lecture Urging Doctors to Become Pro-DEI Activists

One might think the purpose of medical schools is to teach students how to practice medicine, and that medical professionals should focus on the practice of medicine.

But according to Dr. Quinn Capers, doctors should also become activists.

“I would say to you that doctors, physicians, we must now be activists,” Capers said, speaking in a recent lecture at Ohio State University. In fact, Capers mentioned the importance of being “activists” and promoting “activism” roughly 20 times during his lecture.

What does this activism look like? Well, according to Capers, it’s taking “a knee against police brutality” and marching “to have racism declared a public health issue.”

But Capers also has a more political activity in mind: voter registration. He applauded students at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center for registering people to vote, and even appeared to call one’s voter registration status a “social determinant of health.”

Capers also insisted that physicians should educate the public on health disparities and inequities.

“Teach about disparities and inequities, and you got to talk about solutions, please,” Capers said. “But teach even when the topic is uncomfortable; be an activist … as a medical educator.”

The solution to these disparities is, predictably, more diversity in the medical profession.

And how can medical schools work to forward diversity in healthcare? Well, per Capers, one way is implicit bias training to eliminate so-called unconscious biases he says disadvantage minority students.

Capers argues admissions committees should take implicit bias tests and undergo implicit bias trainings to address this issue.

The problem is that implicit bias tests do not track with real-world bias and discrimination. The tests don’t meet accepted standards of reliability.

Interestingly, Capers failed to mention explicit bias in medical school admissions, in which medical schools explicitly discriminate against applicants based on their race. That explicit discrimination, however, disadvantages white and Asian students.

A look at 2013-2016 admissions data analyzed by the American Enterprise Institute shows that black and Hispanic students were accepted at far higher rates than their white and Asian counterparts with similar grades and Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores.

If Capers is concerned about racial discrimination, he may be looking in the wrong places.

Additionally, implicit within Capers’ arguments is the claim that diversifying the medical profession will reduce health disparities. Capers has previously advocated for the notion that racial concordance, in which patients are treated by physicians of the same race, improves health outcomes among minority groups.

There is simply no evidence for this. Do No Harm released a report last year showing that four out of five systematic reviews of racial concordance have shown no positive impact on health outcomes.

Thankfully, more and more states are taking steps to ensure ideas like Capers’ are rejected in medical curricula. But in the meantime, the students at these schools deserve better.

New Research Debunks Key Study Used to Support Discriminatory Med School Admissions

One of the most influential studies used to support the notion that racial concordance – in which patients are treated by physicians of the same race – produces positive health outcomes has been debunked, according to new research published Monday. When the proper controls are applied, the study’s findings basically disappear.

Proponents of DEI and race-conscious admissions in medical schools have frequently cited the 2020 study, “Physician–patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns,” to argue that medical schools should prioritize race in admissions in order to increase diversity among physicians and thereby improve care for minority patients.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson even cited an amicus brief referring to the study’s findings in her dissent in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

However, it turns out that the study had serious methodological flaws.

The 2020 study examined Florida infant mortality data and purported to show that the elevated infant mortality rate among black babies was partially reduced when black babies had black doctors rather than white doctors.

But a commentary published Monday, in the same journal, examined the same data and found that, when controlling for low birth weights, the racial concordance effect becomes statistically insignificant. 

This completely debunks the central finding of the 2020 study. 

Do No Harm previously highlighted the fact that the 2020 study failed to adequately control for the severity of comorbidities, like low birth weight, in our report examining the evidence, or lack thereof, supporting the racial concordance effect in medicine. The 2024 research confirms our suspicions that the purported effect would become insignificant once researchers controlled for low birth weight.

The 2024 commentary, “Physician–patient racial concordance and newborn mortality,” found that “the estimated effect is near zero and statistically insignificant in the expanded specifications that control for very low birth weight and include hospital and physician fixed effects.”

This research is just the latest piece of evidence undercutting the academic foundation of DEI and racial discrimination in the country’s medical institutions. Much of this research is too often a pretext for politically motivated academics to smuggle their beliefs into the public discourse through shoddy work. 

As it so happens, one of the co-authors of the 2020 study is a fan of Cuba’s health system which she characterized as a “more responsive, humanistic model of health care.”

But ultimately, the facts are on our side.

Do No Harm’s report on racial concordance highlighted the fact that four out of five systematic reviews found no evidence to support the claim that racial concordance produces positive health outcomes.

Moreover, Do No Harm has extensively chronicled the serious flaws in the body of research most often cited by DEI proponents; last week, we released a guide picking apart the methodologies of these studies.

As we apply proper scrutiny to pro-DEI research, the findings almost invariably tend to vanish.

S3E1: Navigating the Voter Pulse on Pediatric Gender Medicine and DEI Part 2

,

Guests: Aaron Sibarium & Leor Sapir

In Season 3, Episode 1 of the Do No Harm Podcast, we delve into the critical issues of so called gender affirming care and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and their significance to the electorate. How do these issues resonate with voters, and what sentiments do they evoke? We dissect the official positions of political campaigns, examining the messaging strategies they employ to justify their stances. 

Listen in via Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

The views expressed by guests on this podcast are the opinions of those guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of Do No Harm.

Do No Harm Notches Key Victories in Fight Against Medical Schools’ Racial Discrimination

, ,

Two medical schools, the University of Maryland School of Medicine and Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, have each ceased racially discriminatory practices following Do No Harm civil rights complaints.

The University of Maryland School of Medicine is no longer offering a scholarship program that discriminated against applicants based on their race. The medical school ditched the scholarship after the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened a federal civil rights investigation into the scholarship due to a Do No Harm complaint.

In 2022, Do No Harm discovered that the school’s Department of Psychiatry was previously offered a $1,500 scholarship for “visiting students underrepresented in medicine”; however, the scholarship’s eligibility criteria limited the opportunity to students of certain races.

“‘Underrepresented in medicine means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population,’” the criteria read. “This lens currently includes students who identify as African Americans and/or Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American (American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), Pacific Islander, and mainland Puerto Rican.”

In other words, the scholarship specifically excluded students who were white, Asian, Middle Eastern, and other unfavored racial groups.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark J. Perry filed a federal civil rights complaint against the University of Maryland in 2022, alleging the program discriminates “on the basis of race, color, or national origin,” which is prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. OCR opened an investigation into the school later that year.

OCR then notified Do No Harm on September 11, 2024, that the University of Maryland was no longer offering the scholarship.

“On August 26, 2024, the University notified OCR that the Scholarship is no longer offered by the University and it is no longer listed on its website,” the notice read. “Based on this information, OCR has determined that the allegation is resolved, and we are dismissing it […].”

“This is another solid victory for Do No Harm’s efforts to expose and successfully challenge race-based discrimination in US medical schools,” Perry said. “OCR’s ruling demonstrates that Do No Harm has the law on our side as it agreed with our claim that Maryland’s discrimination was an unlawful violation of Title VI and it closed its investigation only after the school agreed to terminate its discriminatory scholarship.”

Distributing financial awards to students based on their race is not only immoral but illegal. Denying white and Asian students access to funding simply because they happened to be born in the wrong ethnic group is not in line with any medical school’s pedagogical mission and will only harm the medical field. Do No Harm applauds this result and urges all U.S. medical schools to abandon their racially discriminatory programs that violate their legal obligation to actively enforce Title VI.

But that’s not our only victory this month. 

Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine recently promoted its annual “Black Men in Medicine” event scheduled for October 24, which it restricted only to black males.

“This event aims to provide a supportive environment that prioritizes the experiences, voices, needs, and safety of those who identify as Black males working in or studying in the health professions,” the event description read. “If you do not self-identify as part of this demographic, we ask that you contact us at OHEDI@temple.edu for other opportunities for engagement and support.”

Perry filed a civil rights complaint against the school on September 5 alleging the event violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and shared a courtesy copy of the complaint with Temple University’s leadership including its University Counsel and president

Just a few days later, the medical school changed its event description, saying now that “all are welcome.” Furthermore, the University removed the sentence about those who “do not self-identify as part of this demographic.” 

Medical schools should be on notice: Do No Harm is watching, and we will make sure you are held accountable for any attempts to racially discriminate in violation of your legal obligation to actively enforce all federal civil rights laws including Title VI. There are no “unless you have good intentions” exceptions to Title VI, and all discrimination based on race is unlawful even if it advantages medical students of the “right” races for the “right” reasons.

Have you been unfairly affected by discriminatory scholarships or programs at your institution, or are you aware of any discrimination at a U.S. medical school? If you or others did not apply because you thought you were ineligible, please let us know – anonymously and securely.

Cleveland Clinic Hit With Federal Civil Rights Investigation After Do No Harm Complaint

RICHMOND, VA; September 16, 2024 – The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (HHS-OCR) announced a federal investigation into the Ohio-based Cleveland Clinic’s racially discriminatory programs after a civil rights complaint filed by Do No Harm (DNH) and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL).

The complaint challenged the Cleveland Clinic’s “Minority Stroke Program” and the “Minority Men’s Health Center.” Both these programs are specialized for “preventing and treating [health conditions] in racial and ethnic minorities.” Offering racially segregated healthcare services is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

HHS-OCR’s announcement stated that the agency had “sufficient authority and cause to investigate the allegations,” and that it had initiated an investigation.

If HHS-OCR determines that the clinic’s programs violate Title VI or the ACA, it could require the clinic to implement a plan of action, cut its federal funding, or refer the complaint to the Department of Justice.

“Do No Harm will not rest until we eliminate all racial bias and political ideology from doctors’ offices, medical schools, hospitals, and in the government agencies that regulate them,” said Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Jared Ross. “The federal investigation by the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OCR) into the Cleveland Clinic – initiated by our complaint – is a small, incremental step. Do No Harm continues to wait for confirmation that patients of all races and ethnicities are now welcome for treatment at the two Cleveland Clinic programs we highlighted in our complaint.”

“HHS-OCR’s decision to open an investigation into Cleveland Clinic is a step forward to stamping out the use of unlawful racial stereotypes in healthcare in favor of a legitimate, individualized approach to medicine,” said WILL Associate Counsel Cara Tolliver. “Unfortunately, the current political climate has attempted to resurrect archaic notions asserting that racial stereotypes must be consulted in nearly every aspect of decision-making. This cannot be allowed to stand in healthcare where decisions based on individual need are critical.”

Click here to read the full complaint.

Click here to read WILL’s press release.

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 10,000 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.

Harvard Public Health School Offers Class on ‘Settler Colonialism’ in US, Israel

,

The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health has decided the best way it can educate the future generation of public health professionals is by offering a course that characterizes the United States and Israel as engaged in “settler colonialism.”

The Spring 2025 course features readings from radical racial ideologues and is taught by an activist who openly pushes for racially discriminatory policies in the name of “antiracism” and health equity. 

Per the Legal Information Institute, “settler colonialism” is “a system of oppression based on genocide and colonialism, that aims to displace a population of a nation … and replace it with a new settler population.”

The course is taught by Dr. Bram Wispelwey, an activist who openly advocates for increasing the role of “critical race theory” in medicine.

Wispelwey’s “Antiracist Agenda for Medicine” calls for a federal reparations program to ameliorate health disparities between races, and calls for health institutions to engage in active “antiracism” policies, such as by providing restitution to “harmed” populations.

Reparations are, of course, themselves a form of racial discrimination in which the public’s wealth is redistributed to recipients of the favored racial background.

Wispelwey also mentions the notion that racial concordance – when patients are treated by physicians of the same race – improves health outcomes.

As Do No Harm has shown, this argument lacks evidence. Four out of five systematic reviews of racial concordance have shown no positive impact on health outcomes.

The course asks students to understand “settler colonialism and its health impacts, as well as the remaining knowledge gaps in linking settler impact to current burdens of disease among indigenous, arrivant, and settler communities,” and draws upon “case studies from the United States and Palestine/Israel.”

A look at the course reading list reveals a number of radical activists: for instance, authors like Frantz Fanon, who advocated for violence against those deemed to be “colonizers” and deemed the “Western bourgeoisie” fundamentally racist. 

Harvard is an educational institution, and it can be argued that part of education involves interacting with and confronting ideas that may seem repugnant and morally odious.

But rather than simply exposing its students to these ideas as part of a wide array of perspectives, Harvard is instead actively inculcating future public health professionals into a very specific set of beliefs based on the premise that the United States and Israel are fundamentally evil. The course description makes clear that these ideas are presented as authoritative narratives that explain health disparities between certain groups.

This is plainly not the purpose of public health education. All the more troubling is that the course invokes characterizations of Israel frequently employed by antisemites to justify anti-Israel violence.

It’s clear that Harvard is more concerned with advancing a particular political ideology than with educating students in public health. Harvard’s public health school should not be a vessel for political activism.

UConn DEI-ifies the Hippocratic Oath

The Hippocratic Oath has for two millennia served as the foundational pillar of medicine in Western civilization. The oath binds physicians to a commitment to “do no harm,” to help the sick, and to various other ethical principles.

But according to the University of Connecticut (UConn) School of Medicine, the oath should also be a pledge to advance DEI in medicine.

UConn in 2022 announced plans to transform its version of the Hippocratic Oath into not only an oath, but a commitment to radical political ideology. The change was prompted by the university’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee.

“We have revised our medical school’s Hippocratic oath to include active pledges to identify and mitigate personal biases, to uphold human rights, to respond to medical myths with evidenced based information and without judgment, to actively support policies that promote social justice and specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination, and racism,” UConn’s announcement read.

Do No Harm obtained a copy of UConn’s 2024 Hippocratic Oath used in the school’s White Coat Ceremony for the class of 2028. A commitment to “do no harm” is conspicuously absent; in fact, the word “harm” does not appear at all.

Instead, the document is replete with references to political ideology: “I will work actively to identify and mitigate my own biases so as to treat all patients and coworkers with humility and dignity”; “I will strive to promote health equity”; “I will actively support policies that promote social justice and specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination and racism.”

Not only does UConn’s oath eschew one of the fundamental ethical principles of Western medicine, it promotes ideas that are directly opposed to the oath’s principles. 

“Health equity” and “social justice” are often euphemisms for racially discriminatory policies that disadvantage certain racial groups in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion. These policies directly harm patients, physicians, and the public alike.

When it comes to the development of medical expertise and the practice of medicine outside these goals, UConn’s oath has comparatively little to say. Almost half the oath is instead devoted to larger social goals, such as the promotion of “human life” and “human rights.”

Unfortunately, UConn is not alone; the University of Minnesota Medical School asked its medical students to swear allegiance to “indigenous ways of healing,” with the oath referencing anti-racism and climate advocacy. Columbia University’s medical students wrote their own Hippocratic Oaths.

Medical schools should not stray from the core principle of “do no harm”; it is the foundation of Western medical ethics. Altering the Hippocratic Oath to replace this commitment with one to a dangerous political ideology is antithetical to the purpose of medicine itself.

Don’t Let DEI Destroy Canada’s Medical Education

The future of Canada’s medical education may very well be in jeopardy, and Do No Harm is taking action.

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the country’s medical regulatory body that oversees medical education and licensure for the country’s physicians, is preparing a revision in 2025 to its educational framework, called CanMEDS. This framework informs the curriculum at the country’s medical schools.

But rather than simply educate the country’s physicians, the upcoming revision has another more insidious goal: to infect Canadian medical education with DEI ideology.

Per the Royal College’s anti-racism working group, the proposed revision “would seek to centre values such as anti-oppression, anti-racism and social justice, rather than medical expertise.”

In short, the revision would make Canadian medical education a tool to advance the DEI agenda, and make actual medical expertise subordinate to this radical ideological goal.

Do No Harm is calling on the Royal College to reject these changes, and make clear its commitment to medical expertise.

Canadian physicians who understand the danger this proposal poses to Canadians’ health have raised concerns in recent months. 

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Roy Eappen, a practicing endocrinologist in Montreal, said the proposal represented a troubling shift in the Royal College’s mission. 

“The Royal College has always represented excellence in teaching and patient care,” Dr. Eappen said. “This seems to move away from that and move toward activism.” 

Do No Harm previously sounded the alarm over the proposal, and urged Canadian physicians to submit comments on the proposed revision last year.

But more pressure is needed to help stop this corruption of Canadian medical education.

Do No Harm is sending a letter to the Royal College demanding it reject these revisions. 

If you’re a Canadian health professional who is concerned about the future of your country’s medical education, please consider signing the following statement. Your name will be added to our letter. 

“Medical expertise is the only acceptable foundation of medicine. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons should immediately reject any proposal to replace or dilute medical training with radical political ideology. The health of every Canadian hangs in the balance.”

If you’re a Canadian medical professional who would like to sign this statement, please see below.

S3E1: Navigating the Voter Pulse on Pediatric Gender Medicine and DEI Part 1

,

Guests: Aaron Sibarium & Leor Sapir

In Season 3, Episode 1 of the Do No Harm Podcast, we delve into the critical issues of so called gender affirming care and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and their significance to the electorate. How do these issues resonate with voters, and what sentiments do they evoke? We dissect the official positions of political campaigns, examining the messaging strategies they employ to justify their stances.

Listen in via Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

The views expressed by guests on this podcast are the opinions of those guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of Do No Harm.

Do No Harm Unveils Guide Exposing Flawed Research Behind DEI Myths

DEI ideology in medicine is often grounded on false but well-entrenched myths about systemic racism in healthcare.

Take, for example, the notion that patients receive better medical care from doctors of the same racial group. Medical research does not support this claim, but it is nevertheless used as justification for DEI initiatives that invariably discriminate against qualified physicians based on their race.

Do No Harm is releasing a guide breaking down several of the more commonly cited studies used to support these claims. The studies often have serious methodological issues that cast doubt on their findings, and often measure effects that do not support their conclusions.

For instance, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that black newborn babies may be more likely to survive if they are treated by black physicians than white physicians.

But the researchers did not adequately control for the fact that specialist doctors treating seriously ill newborns are more likely to be white, or that black newborns on average face more health challenges overall. Moreover, the statistical difference between the racial groups’ respective survival rates is incredibly small.

Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association has been used to argue that patients receive better medical care from doctors of the same racial group.

However, that study did not actually measure healthcare quality or health outcomes; instead, it merely asked patients about their likelihood of recommending that doctor to others.

This guide will enable the public to better understand the serious flaws undergirding DEI research, and help them separate fact from fiction.

Read the full guide here.

Is the University of Colorado Running a Discriminatory Medical Degree Program?

A small number of medical schools are offering joint baccalaureate-MD programs, in which high school students are admitted into programs where they can earn both an undergraduate and a medical degree.

But the University of Colorado Denver’s (CU Denver) BA/BS-MD program, operated in partnership with the University of Colorado School of Medicine, is a little different. 

The program’s eligibility criteria state that the program is “focused” on Colorado high school seniors who are from “ethnic groups who are currently under-represented in the medical community in Colorado,” as well as from educationally and financially disadvantaged backgrounds. 

The ethnic groups deemed “under-represented” include ​​​​​​​​​​​Black or African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, and Vietnamese.

To be clear, the university makes sure to attach a disclaimer to its eligibility criteria assuring the public that it does not practice overt racial discrimination.

“The University of Colorado BA/BS-MD Program conducts its review practices holistically; in a manner which treats each applicant fairly, on the basis of experience, attributes and metrics without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, in accordance with federal law,” the disclaimer reads. 

But questions remain all the same. How, exactly, does CU Denver plan to “focus” on individuals from these ethnic backgrounds? 

Moreover, the web page advertising the program makes clear that CU Denver has swallowed the DEI agenda hook, line, and sinker, noting that the university will “pursue practices that advance equity, inclusion, and access.”

The University of Colorado School of Medicine also made clear it was “disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision to prohibit the limited consideration of an applicant’s racial or ethnic background in admissions decisions” in a statement last year, pledging to continue its efforts to advance DEI.

The medical school also previously scrubbed racially discriminatory eligibility criteria from several of its scholarships after Do No Harm filed a federal civil rights complaint.

When considering this context, the university’s decision to “focus” its degree program on certain ethnic groups is all the more troubling.

The Association for Academic Surgery Needs to Take a Scalpel to Its Discriminatory Programs

Do No Harm has extensively cataloged examples of racial discrimination in medical education over the past few years. Oftentimes, the prime culprits are professional medical associations that become captured by the DEI ideology and engage in racial discrimination in service of this agenda.

Take the Association for Academic Surgery; the AAS has for years maintained several programs that discriminate against applicants according to their race or other immutable characteristics.

For instance: the AAS Fall Courses Award, funded by the AAS Foundation.

“The AAS Fall Courses provide pearls of wisdom and a discussion of the advances in research methods, academic career advancement, grant writing, as well as incorporate interactive sessions where participants can discuss their ideas with academic surgical leaders and network with colleagues,” the award description reads.

That sounds like a pretty valuable opportunity. But AAS believes it should only be available to members of certain racial groups, gender identities, and sexual orientations.

The award is limited to individuals “who by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or any other personal identification is an underrepresented voice in surgery.” This includes women, LGBTQ individuals, and certain racial minorities such as blacks and Native Americans.

Would a straight white or Japanese man qualify for the award? Judging from the criteria, it would appear he would not.

While discrimination is unacceptable in any circumstance, AAS’s behavior is especially troubling because the organization’s self-described mission is to “inspire and develop young academic surgeons.” The AAS is charged with stewardship over the field of academic surgery, and its actions set an example.

In another case, the AAS offered its Student Diversity Travel Award to “three female or underrepresented minority medical students.”

The award provides medical students with a $500 stipend, as well as networking opportunities and complimentary registration at the Academic Surgical Congress in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Again, a pretty good deal – if you’re of the right sex and race.

A previous version of the award listing simply stated the program was open to underrepresented minorities. 

Needless to say, these opportunities should not be limited to individuals based on their race.

The AAS should remove its discriminatory criteria and open these opportunities up to all individuals, regardless of which group they belong to.

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Takes a Giant ‘LEAP’ Backwards

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine’s (SAEM) Leadership, Engagement, and Academic Pathway (LEAP) Program is designed to provide mentorship and guidance to medical students seeking to work in academic emergency medicine.

Sponsored by the organization’s Equity and Inclusion Committee and the Academy for Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Medicine, the LEAP program offers a $1,000 stipend, emergency medicine academic faculty mentorship, and additional scholarly opportunities.

Needless to say, the LEAP program would likely open doors for the selected students to advance professionally.

But there’s a catch: The program is geared toward students of particular racial groups and sexual identities. 

A flyer advertising the program notes it is “tailored” to students who are part of groups considered “underrepresented” in medicine. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges defines underrepresented groups simply as “those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population,” while the National Institutes of Health defines underrepresented groups as “Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders.”

Moreover, the LEAP program description stipulates that eligible candidates are from “historically marginalized groups” such as “individuals with disabilities, sexual or gender minorities, and historically marginalized ethnic and racial groups.”

Does this mean that a white or Asian student seeking mentorship would, or could, be denied due to their racial background? It’s not immediately clear.

But it is obvious that this program is explicitly designed to preference certain racial groups over others.

And if SAEM’s intentions weren’t evident, the program description notes that “special consideration for historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-serving Institutions (HSIs), and Osteopathic medical schools.” Oh, and the application itself directs students to enter their ethnic group and sexual preference.

Why is that information relevant to one’s suitability for mentorship? Why should certain racial groups be given preferential treatment when applying to a program that could help kickstart their careers?

It would appear that SAEM’s decision to prioritize advancing the DEI agenda over helping the most deserving students is the most likely answer to these questions. 

SAEM’s self-professed mission is to “create[ ] and promote[ ] scientific discovery, advancement of education, and the highest professional and ethical standards for clinicians, educators, and researchers.” Preferencing certain racial groups is not only counterproductive to these goals, but immoral in itself. 

SAEM should take its own mission to heart and cease all racial discrimination.

Civil Society Organizations Join Do No Harm in Opposing California’s Orwellian Licensing Law

Last week, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Young Americans for Freedom, and the Cato Institute each filed amicus briefs in Do No Harm’s lawsuit against California’s medical board. 

Do No Harm thanks these organizations for their work to fight for free speech in medical education. 

In 2019, California mandated all continuing medical education (CME) courses “contain curriculum that includes the understanding of implicit bias,” beginning in 2022. California requires physicians to log 50 CME hours every two years to renew their medical license; thus, the law effectively forces physicians to submit to hours of ideological programming if they wish to renew their license.

But more troublingly, the law requires physicians teaching CME courses to become active participants in advancing this ideological agenda. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition of compelled speech.

In 2023, Do No Harm joined Dr. Azadeh Khatibi’s lawsuit against the Medical Board of California on the grounds that the law violated physicians’ First Amendment rights. However, the district court dismissed the claim in May 2024, finding that CME courses were “government speech.” Do No Harm appealed the decision last month. 

Do No Harm applauds the Cato Institute, Young Americans for Freedom, and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons for their briefs opposing this law.

In its brief, Young Americans for Freedom notes that the “Supreme Court has conclusively invalidated schemes like the one at issue here, finding the First Amendment trumps an illusory or sham government-speech argument.”

The Cato Institute likewise points out that “under the district court’s reasoning, there is no limit to what a state could force into the mouths of professional development instructors.” 

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons notes that “if continuing education courses are stripped of First Amendment protection, then red states like Idaho and Montana could require that all continuing legal and medical education courses include statements about harm from illegal immigration.”

Do No Harm thanks the late Dr. Marilyn Singleton for helping advance this lawsuit.

American Medical Association Wants Researchers to Embrace Extremist Gender Ideology

,

One would think that a person who is pregnant must be, by definition, a woman. Well, according to draft style guidance under consideration by the American Medical Association (AMA), that’s not always the case.

The AMA is now considering codifying the most extreme manifestations of gender ideology into its style guidance for medical publications, with the organization’s Manual of Style Committee calling for public review and comment on its “Draft Guidance on Reporting Gender, Sex, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Age in Medical and Scientific Publication.”

Commenters can share their thoughts about the proposed guidance with the American Medical Association here.

The proposed guidance advises researchers to use gender-neutral terminology when writing or editing medical literature. For instance, the guidance recommends using “pregnant people” over “pregnant women” in service of gender inclusivity.

“In discussing pregnancy and parenting, use gender-neutral (nongendered) terms that are inclusive of all gender identities, such as pregnant people, pregnant individuals, pregnant adolescents, persons with childbearing potential, parents-to-be, expectant parents, nonpregnant partners, and parents,” the draft guidance reads. “The terms caregiving and caregiver can also be used to be inclusive of nonparents in direct care roles.”

However, the guidance does permit the word “woman” to be used to refer to a pregnant person … so long as the individual’s gender identity is “known.”

“Although there is not universal agreement on use of the term birthing parent, it may be used for clarity in contexts where simply using ‘parent’ could be confusing or too vague,” the draft guidance continues.

If that isn’t contorted enough, the AMA draft guidance also advises researchers not to use the term “mothering” and use gender neutral terms such as “parenting” instead. 

Do No Harm commissioned a poll in July that found 93 percent of black adults prefer the term “mother” to the term “birthing person.”

Many of the recommendations in the draft guidance echo the AMA’s previous commitments to use “inclusive language” – for instance, the guidance recommends using the singular “they” pronoun to refer to individuals whose pronouns are not “known.”

Additionally, the AMA guidance advises the phrase “‘sex assigned at birth” rather than simply sex.

The AMA guidance advises researchers to “avoid the terms born, biological or biologically, or genetic or genetically when referring to birth sex assignment” as these could have “inaccurate and have negative implications.” 

Despite being a scientific organization, the AMA is promoting ideology over biological reality, promoting “sex as a characteristic beyond a binary framework.”

The AMA says this is more “inclusive” of “transgender populations” – but later defines “transgender” individuals as those whose gender identity is different from their “assigned sex at birth.” The AMA seems to thus erroneously conflate sex and gender identity to justify its terminology.

The guidance also defines gender as a “social construct” and cites the controversial gender activist organization GLAAD to buttress this point. 

When defining gender identity, the AMA draft guidance recommends researchers consult “The Radical Copyeditor’s Style Guide for Writing About Transgender People” for more information about how to use verbs referring to gender identity. This “style guide” views language as a means of advancing gender ideology and “serving the ends of access, inclusion, and liberation, rather than maintaining oppression and the status quo.”

The guidance is available for review and comment until September 30, 2024, after which it will be revised and published as guidance from the AMA.

Commenters can share their thoughts with the AMA here.

Cleveland Clinic Scrubs Racially Discriminatory Program From Website After Do No Harm Complaint

RICHMOND, VA; August 27, 2024 – After being hit with a federal civil rights complaint from Do No Harm and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), the Ohio-based Cleveland Clinic appears to have scrubbed all mention of a racially discriminatory program from its website.

Do No Harm and WILL filed the complaint against the Cleveland Clinic over two programs – the Minority Stroke Program and the Minority Men’s Health Center – that illegally discriminated against patients based on their race.

The complaint noted that these programs implement “racial preferences” and establish “criteria or methods of administration which subject individuals to discrimination” in violation of federal civil rights law.

Now, the Minority Men’s Health Center’s page no longer appears on the Cleveland Clinic’s website; an archived version of the website shows how the page previously appeared.

“This takedown is an initial win, but Do No Harm would like to receive confirmation that patients of all races and ethnicities are now welcomed for treatment at the two Cleveland Clinic programs we highlighted in our complaint,” said Dr. Jared Ross, Senior Fellow at Do No Harm. “Do No Harm will continue working to eliminate racial bias and political ideology from all aspects of medicine.”

“While racial identity politics are often problematic wherever they occur, in healthcare, the problem can engender serious stakes, including life and death matters,” said WILL Associate Counsel Cara Tolliver. “When it comes to healthcare, providers, like Cleveland Clinic, should be simply extending care efforts to all patients who need it, regardless of their race and in accordance with law – not relying on racial stereotypes as a proxy for legitimate health risks.”

Do No Harm applauds this change. Medical institutions should not implement racial preferences when adjudicating who receives medical care, nor should they segregate care based on recipients’ race. 

Read the original complaint here.

New Data Validate UCLA Medical School Admissions Scandal

Racial preferences in college admissions have been illegal in California since the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996. That hasn’t deterred the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, according to a story published by the Washington Free Beacon in May.   

The Free Beacon story uses two pieces of evidence to assert that the school is engaging in race-based admissions. First, interviews with faculty reveal that Dean of Admissions Jennifer Lucero has prioritized race in admissions. Second, data published by the Free Beacon reveal a significant increase in the proportion of black and Hispanic matriculants around the time that Lucero assumed her current position.

In tandem, these two pieces of evidence are strongly suggestive of an agenda to enforce racially conscious admissions. Still, a skeptic might raise the possibility that the demographics of the applicant pool shifted, and that the timing of that shift happened to coincide with Lucero’s appointment. This is a far-fetched proposition, and now we can say definitively that it’s not the case. 

Data received through a records request reveals that the demographics of applicants have barely changed in the last five years. The share of white or Asian applicants have never fallen below 72% or exceeded 75%, while the share of black or Hispanic applicants never fell below 18% or exceeded 20%.

Figure 1. UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine Demographics

Before Lucero took over in June 2020, the proportion of black or Hispanic matriculants almost perfectly mirrored the proportion of black or Hispanic applicants. The same goes for white or Asian matriculants and applicants. Divergence emerges after Lucero took over in June 2020. In only two years – between 2019 and 2021 – the share of white or Asian matriculants decreased from 73% to 57% while the share of black or Hispanic matriculants nearly doubled, from 16% to 30%.

The evidence is definitive: The Geffen School of Medicine has sullied their admissions process to the detriment of patient care.

We remain eager to connect with students who applied to UCLA’s medical school but were not accepted. If you or someone you know might be a fit, please connect with us.