Panel exposes their own racism and error-filled assertions
On May 30, the American Medical Association (AMA) sponsored a panel event with National Health Equity, “Advancing Health Equity Through Resistance: A State of the Union on Threats and Opportunities.”
AMA is one of four Founding Collaborators who developed the National Health Equity Grand Rounds series. This particular event was hosted to push back against Do No Harm and others who are challenging DEI requirements in medicine, and who present as “threats” to the DEI agenda.
Do No Harm is the Biggest Threat to DEI
When asked of the biggest threat to advancing Critical Race Theory (CRT) and anti-racism in medicine, panelist Khalil Gibran Muhammad, PhD specifically named Do No Harm and its founder Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. As an academic, Muhammad claims he and other anti-racists are “more sophisticated in understanding how these things work.”
But while the Harvard Kennedy School professor incorrectly discounts Dr. Goldfarb’s level of engagement on the issues, (note: you can access dozens of Do No Harm’s Reports and Research here), it is ironic that his project, Institutional Anti-Racism and Accountability Project (IRA), is only a “qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews.” He also admits that “looking at applied research in this field (DEI) is a fairly new thing.” (27:59)
Scientific inquiry and quantitative data don’t harmonize with the DEI agenda. Alternately, as medical professionals at Do No Harm, science is our specialty. We will always fight for facts to triumph over political propaganda.
CRT is the Least Popular Message
Ian Haney López, MA, MPA, JD, who teaches seminars on Critical Race Theory at Berkeley Law admitted his allegiance: “I am a critical race theorist.” (15:07). The tenets of Critical Race Theory are that: racism is normal and ordinary and not the exception, that racism is inherent in every structure in America, and that people of color are continually discriminated against and treated unfairly in both the public and private spheres including law, medicine, and education.
Interestingly enough, Mr. López said according to his own data and large national studies, the least popular political message among communities of color is the narrative of structural racism—exactly what CRT teaches. (35:42).
“The least popular message, political message, among communities of color (is) ‘There’s a lot of structural racism (and) we need to make this country live up to its ideals.’”
López goes on to say that the CRT theories promoting victim mentality aren’t working either.
“And a lot of people in communities of color hear a story in which they have to accept that they are hated and that their children’s lives are truncated because they’re hated by the dominant group in society. And they don’t want to hear that message,” López said. (37:51)
López doesn’t understand the reason they don’t want to hear that message, is because the message is flat-out untrue. (Or possibly, he thinks the majority just lacks the aforementioned sophistication to understand these issues).
CRT isn’t working because it’s untrue. Understandably, no individual of any race wants to be taught that they are hated and being held down by powerful invisible forces. Yet this is the bedrock of CRT.
López is a career-critical race theorist. Academics like him and these DEI panelists have invested so much time and energy into the CRT religion, and are now discovering (but have the inability to accept) that this wasn’t the hill to die on. But instead of abandoning CRT and anti-racism as a means to keep power, they are doubling down. López sounds like he’s stuck in the sunk cost fallacy.
So what does he propose, as a career-critical race theorist? To keep believing in CRT but to change the communication strategy. He’ll continue believing and teaching falsehoods but manipulate it in a way to deceive the general public.
The single most popular political message López says, is about building power across racial lines to take care of our families. (37:12). So, naturally he recommends using this talking point instead of structural racism to gain more followers, blind to the real CRT agenda. The arrogance and hypocrisy are astounding. We invite Mr. López to abandon CRT as a life mission and join our cause in treating everyone as an individual. Science says that when new data is available, it changes our approach. Your data has proven CRT doesn’t work, and it isn’t accepted. It has done more harm in society than positive change.
DEI Panel’s Own Racism
The ironic part about anti-racism is the fact that it is itself, racist. López defines racism as “white over non-white,” (15:39), but true racism is the belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes based solely on their skin color. Racism also asserts (like Ibram X, Kendi does) that the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.
The panel often exposed their own racism and biases during the event. Michelle Morse, MD, MPH, is the Chief Medical Officer at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. At the event, Morse told hospital communications and PR staff to refuse to answer questions about health equity projects to “right-wing” media, instructing staff to say, “I’m not responding to this white supremacist news outlet.” (32:49).
Defaming an entire news organization as a “white supremacist” is a flagrant strawman argument, only exposing the accuser (Morse) of bias herself. At the introduction of the event, the moderator asked the audience to come with “an open heart and an open mind.” Yet, when asked questions by a free press (protected by the 1st amendment), Morse’s modus operandi is to shut down discussion and hurl fallacious insults.
Morse also advocates for black patients to be placed higher on kidney transplant lists, if the previously standard algorithms of the eGFR test didn’t indicate kidney disease.
Multiple studies and data prove that serum creatinine concentrations are higher in black individuals than those of any other race, which informs the standards and algorithms for the eGFR. Morse implied these clinical algorithms didn’t fit the DEI agenda, so they intended to “change the algorithms.” (34:55).
Morse says, “Now there are ways to use race to advance racial equity, but many of these clinical algorithms unfortunately are not using race in that way.” (34:47). It’s incongruous that she is happy to use race to her advantage when it suits the DEI agenda, but not when the data opposes that agenda.
Most terrifyingly, the efforts to change these algorithms was largely “led by students and trainees,” and not by research. Morse also admitted “well we can’t wait” for research to lead the change in algorithms. (35:02). The change in science she promotes was not led by rigorous, systematic study, but by DEI ideology.
Additionally, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is proposing incentives for hospitals to create health equity plans and prioritize transplants for certain races above others.
Dr. Goldfarb responded to this CMS proposal, stating, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it, especially in medicine. The Supreme Court has made clear that CMS may not enlist private actors to discriminate against patients based on race, even to reduce disparities.” He advocates patient-education as another solution rather than race-based discrimination.
So yes, we’re proud that the work Do No Harm has achieved is a threat to CRT and anti-racism. We are emboldened further to not let DEI’s erroneous, racist, political agenda take over medicine and medical education. And we’re proud to fight against the intellectual elites who have tried to commandeer the narrative and force their harmful political agenda. We pledged to “first, do no harm.”
Red State Med School Grills Faculty on Their Commitment to DEI
Uncategorized South Carolina DEI Medical University of South Carolina Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) appears intent on continuing its long tradition of imposing divisive and radical practices on its faculty.
The university’s neuroscience department recently distributed a questionnaire gauging faculty’s opinions on structural racism in the medical field and within the department itself. The so-called “climate survey” first states that society takes for granted “white leadership, dominance, and privilege” that works to “preserve gaps between white Americans and Americans of color.”
What better way to bias a survey’s results than by leading the respondent right from the start?
Proceeding from this faulty premise, the survey asks respondents how well the neuroscience department has done advancing wokeness – such as the “understanding and mitigation of unconscious bias and promote diversity, equity and inclusion” and whether the department has sufficiently hired “underrepresented minorities at all levels.”
In other words, the department is evaluating its success in promoting practices that explicitly prioritize race over merit.
These activities belong nowhere near a medical school. There is no evidence that medical practitioners’ racism is creating these “gaps between white Americans and Americans of color,” and a wealth of evidence shows that patients’ health outcomes are no better when they are treated by physicians of the same race.
Yet the survey is ultimately a reflection of a broader trend within MUSC.
For instance, a MUSC flyer advising best practices for recruitment instructed faculty to acknowledge their “implicit bias” that may influence their hiring decisions. The flyer further urges faculty to take “an online Implicit Association Test (IAT)” to gauge their own unconscious prejudices.
Research has consistently shown IATs to be unreliable; a 2013 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that IATs were “poor predictors” of real-world bias and discrimination.
Yet that’s not all; MUSC, like many other medical schools, is asking prospective faculty to detail their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
Do No Harm obtained guidance for neuroscience department administrators on how to construct faculty job postings. The guidance stipulated that job postings should ask applicants to submit a statement on their “commitment to DEI.”
A candidate’s commitment to DEI is irrelevant when considering their suitability to teach medicine and should have no bearing on their eligibility.
But MUSC seems determined to prioritize adherence to woke ideology over aptitude.
South Carolina lawmakers launched an effort earlier this year to prevent universities from asking for DEI statements in faculty applications, but the bill stalled out in the legislature’s upper chamber.
MUSC is no stranger to woke medicine; in 2020, the school publicly announced its goal to “become the preeminent model for inclusion and equity, setting a national standard among academic health systems.”
It seems these documents are further evidence of how deeply committed the school is to radical identity politics.
Do No Harm previously obtained documents showing MUSC had spent $370,000 to hire a Chief Equity Officer, paid $45,000 for a series of woke speakers on campus, and hosted a day-long seminar that promoted racial discrimination.
Moreover, MUSC faced a federal investigation for offering discriminatory diversity fellowships, which ultimately led the school to alter the scholarships’ eligibility criteria.
Why is a medical university so obsessed with identity politics instead of focusing on educating its students about medicine?
MUSC is best served ridding itself of these practices and going back to teaching students how to be medical professionals. That is the best way to maximize the institution’s value to society.
Medical School Takes Down Portraits of ‘Senior Male White Leaders’ in Pledge to ‘Diversity’
Uncategorized Canada DEI dalhousie medical school Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffDalhousie Medical School in Nova Scotia, Canada, has taken down the portraits of its former deans for being too old and white.
The school reasoned that the deans were no longer representative of the school’s student body, which includes black and indigenous individuals, according to an announcement from the Dean of Medicine Dr. David Anderson obtained by Do No Harm. Moreover, the school claimed that “students, faculty, and staff” had felt unwelcome in the area in which the portraits were hung.
“While the portraits of previous deans and other historic figures found there represented our history, they also represent that, like many other institutions of our region, our Faculty has been dominated by senior male white leaders,” the announcement read. “This group does not represent our current student body and the diversity of communities our Faculty has a responsibility to serve.”
“After much thought and consultation, we have decided to change the decorum in our Tupper
Building foyer space,” Anderson continued. “As a first step we have taken down the portraits of our former deans and other medical school figures from the space.”
Dalhousie cited its “Strategic Plan” when explaining the reasoning behind its decision. That plan contains a commitment to the “theme” of “equity, diversity, inclusion & accessibility” and pledges to take steps to enroll more black and indigenous students as “equity-deserving groups.”
The plan also pledges to “ensure our spaces are welcoming and supportive for individuals of diverse backgrounds.”
The College of Medicine at Texas A&M University recently made a similar gesture when it removed “the predominantly white male photos of [the] graduating class prominently displayed on the entrance” to the school. The medical school claims it did this to eliminate “noninclusive” imagery.
It is not a slight to the current study body to celebrate the intellectual accomplishments of past deans. Their race has no bearing on their service as stewards of medical education.
Dalhousie should devote “much thought and deliberation” to teaching medicine, and not self-flagellation to signal their ideological commitments.
NIH-Backed Grant Programs Blatantly Discriminate by Applicants’ Race
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government, Public university Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffIn an ideal world, the pursuit of knowledge would be an activity that unites all individuals, regardless of racial or ethnic background, as the benefit of scientific advancement is shared by humanity at large.
Unfortunately, many of the federal government’s efforts to advance the sciences are actively encouraging racial discrimination.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is running a grant program aimed at increasing diversity in the sciences by targeting individuals from “underrepresented” backgrounds. The institutions administering these grants explicitly restrict grant funding to applicants of certain races.
The Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Educational Diversity (ESTEEMED) grant program is designed to help undergraduates from “diverse” backgrounds pursue careers in biomedicine. The program, which began in 2017, specified that the grantors should target “individuals from groups identified as underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral and social sciences” such as racial minorities and disabled individuals.
The NIH currently lists 16 active ESTEEMED grant programs on its website; each program’s eligibility criteria contains varying degrees of racial preference.
For instance, Clemson University’s “Call Me Doctor ESTEEMED Scholars Program” stipulates that applicants are eligible if they are from the following ethnic backgrounds: “Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native.”
These groups are defined by the NIH as being “underrepresented.”
Similarly, the University of Georgia states that ESTEEMED applicants “must” be from a “diverse background,” which includes an “underrepresented group.”
The University of Colorado at Denver also requires applicants be from an underrepresented group as defined by the NIH. Clarkson University and Washington State University have similar criteria.
There is no legitimate scientific reason for the NIH to encourage racial discrimination as a condition of receiving grant funding.
Prioritizing race over talent and competence invariably leads to worse scientific outcomes and is clearly unethical.
It is unconscionable that academic institutions are engaged in this blatant racism – and that they are hamstringing scientific progress to do so.
Nevertheless, the NIH conditions its funding on these racial preferences.
In fact, when determining whether to renew funding, the NIH reviews how effective grantors are at recruiting applicants from diverse backgrounds; in other words, how effective the grantor is at racial discrimination.
“For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period, and the success of the program in attracting individuals from diverse populations, including populations underrepresented in biomedical, behavioral and clinical research on a national basis,” the NIH states.
Do No Harm previously exposed how the NIH mandates applicants for certain grants include a document outlining how their research will advance diversity and inclusivity, such as through including researchers from “historically underrepresented” backgrounds.
These mandates encourage applicants to submit to useless and divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) trainings.
The NIH should ensure that grantors do not use race or ethnicity as a criteria for determining applicants’ eligibility.
To do so is not only immoral but contrary to the agency’s larger mission to pursue the achievement of human knowledge.
Insurance Giant’s State-Sanctioned Training Indoctrinates Medical Providers into Woke Ideology
Uncategorized Maryland DEI Health insurance provider, Medical association, State government Commentary Do No Harm StaffA major insurance company is instructing healthcare providers to adopt radical ideology in order to combat so-called “implicit bias” and racism in the healthcare system.
In a course entitled “Understanding Implicit Bias,” CareFirst – Blue Cross Blue Shield’s Maryland affiliate – teaches medical providers that racial disparities in health outcomes are partly due to inherent racism in the healthcare system, and the implicit biases of healthcare providers. As evidence, CareFirst links to resources that cite the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which purports to measure individuals’ unconscious prejudices.
The course was approved as a training eligible for American Medical Association credits for continuing medical education. Moreover, according to a press release accompanying the training, it was approved by the Maryland Department of Health and the Maryland State Medical Society for licensing requirements, so that providers can use the course to apply for and renew their license in the state.
Yet the training’s entire foundation is built on shoddy science and false assumptions.
There is no evidence that physicians generally treat minority patients worse than white patients or that unconscious racism explains racial health disparities, and the tests used to evaluate implicit bias fail to meet widely-accepted standards of reliability and validity.
For instance, a 2013 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that 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.”
Additionally, several systematic reviews have found that patients’ health outcomes are no better when they are treated by physicians of the same race. And as Do No Harm has previously reported, studies crediting racism for racial disparities in health outcomes often ignore key factors that complicate their conclusions.
In short, CareFirst’s premises are false and based on discredited theories that purport to explain racial health disparities.
Despite this, CareFirst deploys the usual panoply of woke jargon – “implicit bias,” “conscious bias,” “microaggression,” and “systemic discrimination” – to describe factors leading to negative health outcomes for minority patients.
CareFirst relies on these faulty assumptions to instruct providers to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles into their organizational culture, and to assess their own implicit biases by taking tests.
In other words, CareFirst wants to indoctrinate healthcare providers into DEI ideology — and wants them to become vectors themselves.
It’s easy to see how attributing racial disparities to implicit racism can cause harm by obscuring the more likely culprits. But more critically, urging providers to adopt DEI ideology is effectively urging them to reject science and evidence-based medicine in favor of a radical social agenda.
That Maryland approved this training is further evidence that the medical industry and its governing bodies are at times more interested in advancing radical ideology than providing genuine medical instruction.
Maryland law requires providers to undergo implicit bias training in order to renew their licenses.
Do No Harm created its own continuing medical education course to fulfill Michigan’s similar implicit bias requirement. The course provides evidence-based information on implicit bias and critical race theory’s impact on medicine while eschewing the woke agenda typical of these trainings.
Maryland’s training is a snapshot into how various forces – governments, insurance companies and medical associations – collude to push a DEI-based agenda.
Other states should do everything possible to avoid emulating Maryland’s model.
Moreover, CareFirst should quickly take stock of its full-fledged endorsement of DEI initiatives. Ultimately, in the long run, these programs will come back to haunt the insurer.
“I can’t believe that my health insurance company is proud to peddle these divisive politics,” said the unhappy CareFirst customer who sent us the tip. “If you’re going to train your providers in anything, train them in the latest medical developments that will actually save lives. Or train your customer service agents to help people faster.”
“When I called recently to get a question answered about my benefits, I heard a recorded line warning about modified customer service hours starting at noon to allow for staff development to maintain an inclusive and equitable workplace,” the customer added. “I waited more than 30 minutes on hold. Ridiculous. Do your job.”
New Hampshire Takes Crucial First Step to Protect Children from Radical Gender Treatments
Uncategorized New Hampshire Gender Ideology State legislature Commentary Do No Harm StaffGov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) on Friday signed into law a bill that prohibits physicians from performing “genital gender reassignment” surgeries on minors in New Hampshire. The law is an important first step toward protecting children from unproven and dangerous medical interventions.
The legislation, HB 619, prohibits surgical procedures which seek to change a patient’s genitalia such as metoidioplasty, phalloplasty, or vaginoplasty for children under the age of 18. The law takes care not to prohibit genital surgeries that correct injuries or malformations, and does not mention chest surgeries such as mastectomies.
As the law notes, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating that genital gender reassignment surgery procedures are safe or effective in treating gender dysphoria, and there is very little research on the procedures’ long-term risks and concerns. These complications can include fistulas and chronic infection. Additionally, several European countries currently prohibit these procedures for minors.
Moreover, the law acknowledges that “adolescent genital gender reassignment surgery generally lacks both adequate information for informed consent and involves a high risk of coercion for parental consent.”
The legislation first passed the New Hampshire House of Representatives in January and the Senate in May. It was sponsored by several lawmakers including Reps. Terry Roy, Nikki McCarter, James Spillane, Kevin Verville, Jeanine Notter, Sheila Seidel, Alicia Nekas, and David Love.
In 2023, Do No Harm proposed the JUST FACTs Act as model legislation for state lawmakers to help them craft responses prohibiting children’s access to dangerous and unproven medical interventions.
Oregon Walks Back Plan to Strip Doctors of Their Licenses for ‘Microaggressions’
Uncategorized Oregon DEI Oregon Medical Board Medical Board Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Oregon Medical Board appears to have walked back language in a proposed ethics rule that could have stripped doctors of their medical licenses for committing so-called “microaggressions.”
The board can currently revoke or suspend a physician’s medical license under Oregon law for “unprofessional conduct,” which includes behavior like fraud, willful endangerment of a patient and other clear violations of medical ethics. However, earlier this year, the Oregon Medical Board had proposed a rule that would expand the definition of “unprofessional conduct” to encompass behavior that included “microaggressions.”
The initial version of the rule stated that “discrimination through unfair treatment characterized by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions, or indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group” met the definition of unprofessional conduct.
The rule has its roots in the board’s 2023 “DEI Action Plan,” which called for “a new definition for unprofessional conduct that includes ‘discrimination in the practice of medicine/acupuncture,'” the Washington Free Beacon reported.
Yet in the updated version of the rule posted on the Oregon Medical Board’s website July 15, 2024, the “microaggressions” language is nowhere to be found. The agency is collecting comments on the rule up until August 26, 2024 and holding a hearing on the rule that day.
“Discrimination in the practice of medicine, podiatry, or acupuncture resulting in differences in the quality of healthcare delivered that is not due to access-related factors or clinical needs, references, and appropriateness of intervention,” the new language states.
The change is a major victory for free speech and for doctors’ ability to freely treat their patients. By forcing physicians to navigate these legal tripwires and worry about whether their candid speech may be a microaggression, the Oregon Medical Board was creating circumstances that actually may have endangered patients by denying them valuable information.
“Physicians need to be able to speak frankly and honestly with their patients,” Do No Harm founder and Board Chair Dr. Stanley Goldfarb told the Washington Free Beacon about the initial rule. “If they believe that they can be sanctioned because they deliver bad news or make a comment that the patient misinterprets, this will lead to a chilling effect on speech and ultimately lead to deterioration in the patient-physician relationship.”
The Oregon Medical Board should not resurrect this regressive and dangerous language, and it made a wise decision by striking it from the proposed rule.
Leaked Presentation Reveals How NIH Forces DEI Agenda on Medical Institutions
Uncategorized Ohio DEI Cleveland Clinic Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe Cleveland Clinic is instructing faculty members to police their “microaggressions” in response to grant funding requirements from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
In a presentation obtained by Do No Harm titled “Building a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive culture: Addressing Microaggressions,” the Cleveland Clinic laid out how faculty should respond to microaggressions, which it defines as “everyday actions” that harm “marginalized groups.” The course instructs faculty to document ongoing microaggressions, an example of which is “a woman clutch[ing] her purse when a black man enters the elevator,” and to report such behavior to their supervisors.
As its title might suggest, the course is part of the clinic’s larger effort to promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) within its organizational culture.
But more telling is how the course instructs prospective applicants for NIH grant funding to navigate the agency’s woke mandates.
The course specifically outlines how to respond to the NIH’s Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) requirement that mandates applicants for certain grants include a document outlining how their research will advance diversity and inclusivity, e.g. through including researchers from “historically underrepresented” backgrounds.
The course recommends grant applicants “enhance training and PEDP sections” of their grant applications, while also providing sample text to use that states applicants will participate in a “Microaggression Awareness Training.”
In other words, the NIH, by conditioning its grants on applicants’ submission to DEI, is incentivizing research institutions to implement these trainings.
The Cleveland Clinic’s presentation sheds light on how the Biden administration’s federal funding requirements encourage universities to push radical woke ideology on their faculty.
For instance, the NIH recommends grant applicants include members of “underrepresented racial and ethnic groups” in their projects, as well as engage with “minority-serving” institutions, to meet the PEDP requirement.
This sort of racial favoritism obviously unfairly disadvantages academics based on immutable characteristics, but also harms the field of science more broadly. Grant applicants should be considered for the merits of their research and ideas, not for their commitment to the Biden administration’s preferred ideology.
If the NIH wishes to mandate these requirements, it should provide evidence demonstrating why researchers who are black or of another minority group can perform their job better than other ethnic groups.
While the Cleveland Clinic’s course is perhaps a more anodyne example of this dynamic, it demonstrates how the NIH’s mandates encourage institutions to devote their resources to anti-scientific endeavors.
The Cleveland Clinic’s course is listed under a faculty development program that is administered through the clinic’s Lerner College of Medicine in conjunction with Case Western Reserve University, and is open to 900 faculty members; the aforementioned “Microaggression Awareness Training” is put on by the organization’s Lerner Research Institute.
The presentation also refers to several NIH grants and programs, including the BRAIN Initiative, that explicitly advance the DEI agenda.
“The BRAIN Initiative is firmly committed to fostering diversity, inclusivity, and accessibility in the research community,” the NIH’s description of the initiative reads. “BRAIN investigators should strive to compose teams richly diverse in perspectives, backgrounds, and academic disciplines, and provide full opportunity and participation to individuals and groups underrepresented in neuroscience.”
To cultivate quality research and advance the fields of science and medicine as best as possible, the NIH should ditch these grant requirements.
Setting up bureaucratic hoops that require grant applicants to pay homage to the DEI agenda may serve the Biden administration’s political purposes, but does nothing to advance humanity’s collective knowledge.
Do No Harm Calls on EEOC to Investigate Racially Discriminatory Internship Program
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government, Medical association Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; July 18, 2024 – Do No Harm has requested that the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigate an internship program offered by the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM) for racial discrimination.
ARM, a medical organization that advocates for engineered cell therapies and genetic medicines, offered the GROW Internship Program, designed to provide undergraduate and graduate students with early-career paid opportunities in the regenerative medicine sector. However, the lucrative 12-week internship is open to only those students who “identify as Black/African American.”
“To flagrantly discriminate against applicants because of their race is reprehensible and unlawful — the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM) should be investigated and the program shut down,” said Do No Harm Board Chair Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “The opportunity to engage in the sciences should be open to the best and the brightest and never be based on the color of one’s skin. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission needs to open an investigation into ARM immediately.”
Do No Harm has called for the EEOC to open an investigation into ARM as the parameters they have set in place violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race.”
Click here to read the full complaint:
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 more than 8,900 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and in 14 countries, DNH has achieved more than 7,800 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.
Virginia Chooses Science Over Politics When It Comes to Maternal Health
Uncategorized North Carolina, Virginia DEI State government Commentary Do No Harm StaffMaternal deaths are a tragedy that some bad actors try to exploit for political gain. Thankfully, Virginia is charting a different course. An executive order just issued by Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) offers promise for identifying and remedying real issues in maternal health without resorting to unscientific race-baiting.
Executive Order 32 reestablishes the Task Force on Maternal Health Data and Quality Measures. The task force is charged with collecting and monitoring maternal health data and issuing recommendations to identify and remedy deficits in the provision of care.
The executive order comes months after Gov. Youngkin vetoed Senate Bill 35, which would have required unscientific implicit bias training for medical professionals who work with expecting or recent mothers. The message is clear: Virginia won’t abide woke nonsense that only creates division and resentment, and instead favors an initiative that holds real promise for helping mothers and moms-to-be.
Unfortunately, when it comes to maternal health, race-baiting claptrap is often the norm over reason and science. In North Carolina, for example, the Maternal Mortality Review Committee determines whether “discrimination” is a factor in each maternal death, and specifically whether a “birthing person” was discriminated against due to “group, class, or category.” These are in fact impossible determinations, and simply hunches masquerading as science. More importantly, the process is a Trojan Horse for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and the North Carolina Committee unsurprisingly recommends a suite of DEI initiatives to remedy all the supposed discrimination occurring against Tar Heel mothers.
Each maternal death is a profound tragedy. Hopefully, through reason, depoliticized inquiry, and genuine passion for improving maternal health, Virginia can illuminate a path toward reform without devolving into tired and anti-intellectual orthodoxies.
DEI Invades the Bleeding Edge of the Medical Industry
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffAn event aimed at elevating a healthcare business model is promoting sponsorships and scholarships specifically intended to advance the radical left-wing ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
The September event, called the 2024 Hint Summit, is hosted by Hint Health, a software company operating in the direct primary care (DPC) space, and will feature clinicians and industry leaders. DPC is a growing business model in the healthcare industry in which patients pay regular fees directly to their physician or practice in exchange for a wide array of medical services.
Yet, while Hint describes the summit as DPC’s “premier innovation event of the year,” the summit seems to have full-throatedly embraced regressive identity politics.
For instance, the summit advertises “DEI Scholarships” on the event’s main page.
“Hint Summit has a limited number of scholarships available for residents and under-represented groups,” the scholarship listing reads.
While it’s unclear if the scholarships explicitly exclude certain applicants based on their race, the image advertising the scholarships includes two black physicians and one Asian physician.
Moreover, Hint is soliciting “Diversity, Equity & Inclusion” sponsors to support the event, according to a prospectus on Hint’s website. In exchange for publicity at the event, these sponsors will pay $1,500 for a member of an “underrepresented” group to attend the summit.
“In an effort to promote inclusivity, we are inviting members from underrepresented groups who would benefit from attending the 2024 Hint Summit and are looking for sponsors to contribute to cover their cost to attend,” the prospectus reads.
The summit also encourages members of “historically underrepresented” groups, such as “people of color” and LGBTQ+ individuals, to attend the event.
Regardless of their intentions, a medical company should not be rewarding people simply based on their skin color. Organizations in the medical field should strive to recruit and promote the most talented individuals possible, rather than awarding scholarships to groups they deem “underrepresented.”
This unfairly puts otherwise deserving individuals at a disadvantage due to their immutable characteristics.
Despite its professed embrace of divisive concepts like DEI, the event’s goal is to help make the DPC model more “mainstream.”
“[W]e will bring together DPC Clinicians of all shapes and sizes, industry leaders, stakeholders and ecosystem partners to create a path towards furthering the Direct Primary Care landscape and bringing DPC across the threshold of mainstream healthcare,” the event page states.
Jettisoning regressive ideas like DEI and abandoning practices such as offering preferential treatment to individuals based on their race would go a long way to achieving that end.
Unfortunately, the medical field’s embrace of DEI is well-documented.
Do No Harm has repeatedly exposed major medical associations’ attempts to advance the DEI agenda.
It seems even the more niche corners of the industry are no exception.
Do No Harm Calls on NIH to Fund Research Into Harms of Puberty Blockers, Shutter DEI Office
Uncategorized United States DEI, Gender Ideology Federal government Commentary Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm Director of Research Ian Kingsbury submitted comments on July 15, 2024 to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommending the agency prioritize funding research into the negative effects of medical transitions on children.
NIH’s Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office (SGMRO) had solicited comments for its “NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for Sexual and Gender Minority Health Research for Fiscal Years 2026–2030,” an initiative to inform how the agency invested in research on “sexual and gender minorities” such as lesbian, gay and transgender individuals. Kingsbury urged the NIH to fund research on “the effects of exogenous hormones or puberty blockers on the developing brain,” as well as to approach the field of pediatric gender medicine with general skepticism.
“Several European nations (e.g. United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden) that have conducted systematic evidence reviews have concluded that the risks of medical transition outweigh the benefits for youths and adolescents,” Kingsbury noted. “These countries have severely curbed access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.”
Kingsbury also recommended the agency fund research into social contagion, a theory of gender dysphoria which argues that the increase in individuals seeking to medically transition is partly due to the spread of gender ideology.
Kingsbury further urged the NIH to purge the politicized, left-wing elements of its agency and partner with organizations that are skeptical of pediatric gender medicine, including Do No Harm, Genspect, and the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine.
“The NIH Office of Equity, Diversion, and Inclusion should be shuttered,” Kingsbury wrote. “Time and again, we observe that DEI officials act as political commissars who enforce progressive orthodoxy and punish those who stray from it. Rigorous and impactful research should not be constrained by the possibility that it might hurt somebody’s feelings.”
There is no strong evidence to support medically transitioning children. The Cass Report, an exhaustive review of gender medicine for children in the United Kingdom published earlier this year, found that there is “remarkably weak evidence” to support the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat children with gender dysphoria.
However, the Biden administration has repeatedly advocated for the medical transition of children, and has opposed states’ attempts to limit minor access to puberty blockers and hormones.
In 2022, President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand access to so-called “gender-affirming care.”
“For transgender and nonbinary children and adolescents, early gender-affirming care is crucial to overall health and well-being as it allows the child or adolescent to focus on social transitions and can increase their confidence while navigating the healthcare system,” the HHS stated in 2022.
Moreover, Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine pressured the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) to “remove recommended minimum ages for medical transition treatments” from its published guidelines for gender medicine, according to unsealed court documents.
Kingsbury and Do No Harm are calling on the NIH to maintain its focus on treating illness, and to approach pediatric gender medicine with well-warranted skepticism.
Microaggression mayhem: Oregon’s proposed microaggression rule could cost doctors their medical licenses
Uncategorized Oregon DEI State government Commentary Do No Harm StaffWhat does the term “unprofessional conduct” bring to mind? Fraud? Sexual harassment? Actions that put others in danger?
All of these could be considered misconduct, both within and outside of the medical community.
But the Oregon Medical Board is seeking to elevate one more category of behavior to the same level of severity as these offenses, warranting the same levels of mitigation and intervention: microaggressions.
According to a new rule proposed by the Oregon Medical Board, doctors that engage in “unfair treatment characterized by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions,” could have their medical license revoked.
Even worse, doctors who simply fail to report supposed “microaggressions” within ten business days could face the same penalty.
The Board’s proposed rule was formally filed back in April, with the public comment period closing the following month. Now, the Board could permanently adopt this rule as soon as July 11th.
If passed, Oregon’s new microaggression crackdown would not only stifle free speech, but also severely hamper physicians’ ability to be candid in the delivery of medical diagnoses or care. As Do No Harm Founder and Board Chair Dr. Stanley Goldfarb noted, “Physicians need to be able to speak frankly and honestly with their patients…If they believe that they can be sanctioned because they deliver bad news or make a comment that the patient misinterprets, this will lead to a chilling effect on speech and ultimately lead to deterioration in the patient-physician relationship.”
Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to stop the Oregon Medical Board’s intent towards pursuing this radical proposal. In fact, according to the Washington Free Beacon, the proposed rule is drawn from a commitment contained in the 2023 “DEI Action Plan” from the Board. Interestingly, all links to the DEI Action Plan on the Board’s website are no longer functional. Nor is there any obvious posting of any public comments received relating to the proposed rule.
While the Board focuses its energies on the entirely manufactured crisis of microaggressions, it is apparently turning a blind eye towards the real cases of legitimate unprofessional medical conduct that are occurring in Oregon.
For example, a local Portland news station published an investigative documentary that examined cases where “doctors were allowed to continue practicing medicine even after being credibly accused of serious misconduct, including sexual abuse or gross negligence leading to the death of a patient.” According to the investigative piece, some of the most egregious violations of medical trust occurred after the Oregon Medical Board endorsed the continued licensure of problematic doctors.
Yet instead of treating the investigative report as an opportunity to reflect on these concerning practices, the Board sued the news station over the disclosure of public records.
So, according to the Oregon Medical Board, microaggressions are to be treated with the highest level of severity, while blatant medical malpractice is of such little concern that the records should be shielded from the public’s view with litigation, if necessary.
Unfortunately, this is the perverse line of logic that the woke takeover of modern medicine has facilitated: legitimate issues are pushed aside to make room for more rules and restrictions to appease the fringe pro-DEI crowd.
It is unknown what the true adverse impact of this rule will be, if passed. However, it is entirely possible that highly skilled medical providers will simply be unable to tolerate such an intrusion into their free speech and the doctor-patient relationship. As a result, it will be unsurprising if these doctors look to states that allow them to practice with the candor that their profession requires.
At the July 11th meeting, the Oregon Medical Board will be faced with a simple decision: either uphold the freedom that doctors need in order to practice effectively, or permit the entire medical establishment in Oregon to be completely overtaken by the wishes of woke radicals. The choice could not be clearer.
Medical licensing & regulation org takes its politics to North Carolina
Uncategorized North Carolina DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffDEI is not a foreign concept to the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). The organization, which is responsible for many of the licensing and regulatory processes for medical professionals across the country, has repeatedly endorsed woke ideas under the guise of medical “advocacy”.
For example, in 2021, the FSMB issued a statement wholly affirming its allegiance to DEI as part of an effort to address “systemic racism and inequity”. The statement highlighted the formation of a Task Force on Health Equity and Medical Regulation and a symposium on Health Equity and Medical Regulation. And in 2023, the FSMB published a final report of its Workgroup on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Medical Regulation in Patient Care. The report called for, among other reforms, creating a DEI-based Continuing Medical Education, which would astonishingly require physicians to engage in implicit bias training and evaluations on their adherence to DEI as part of their continuing education requirements.
Put simply, the FSMB is as woke as it gets.
Perhaps it is of no surprise that the FMSB has pushed its commitment to DEI down to the state level. As part of an effort to investigate this, Do No Harm issued a series of public records requests to select states in response to a survey put out by the FSMB. The survey included nine questions solely dedicated to DEI—roughly one-fifth of the entire survey. These questions include:
A response received by Do No Harm from the North Carolina Medical Board indicated that they ranked DEI as a “10” on a scale of “0 to 10” in terms of importance. That’s a higher score than legitimate medical policies and issues, such as telemedicine, interstate medical licensure compact, and more. North Carolina’s responses also indicated it has published both internal and external statements related to DEI and places a high priority on DEI in the way it regulates medicine.
North Carolina’s enthusiastic responses to questions relating to DEI are echoed in its own Board’s actions, such as the creation of a special working group dedicated to “diversity and inclusion”.
North Carolina has been a critical battleground in the fight against the influence of DEI in medicine. For example, in 2023, the North Carolina Legislature passed a bill that protected the free speech of medical educators and prohibited implicit bias training. Although the bill was vetoed by Governor Roy Cooper, the veto was successfully overridden by the Legislature.
This legislation was critical, as North Carolina’s institutions of higher education have come under fire time and time again for embracing divisive concepts inspired by DEI. Now, based on the results of the FSMB survey, its state medical board has all-but-admitted that DEI plays a crucial role in the Board’s policies and procedures.
(Of course, this is all somewhat ironic, given that the North Carolina Medical Board’s members are both majority white and majority male—demonstrating a lack of willingness to embody the DEI positions that it claims to embrace.)
North Carolina is just one of many states that has undoubtedly signed on to the FSMB’s controversial policies. Unsurprisingly, the high degree of importance the state’s medical authorities place on DEI has resulted in numerous instances of questionable practices at its medical colleges and universities. Indeed, there is no evidence at all that DEI benefits any patients. The role of the state medical board is to guarantee the highest quality of healthcare for the community. The DEI agenda does nothing for that goal. The sooner other state medical boards demonstrate transparency about how they’re embracing DEI, the quicker physicians and other medical professionals can push back against them.
DEI panel: Do No Harm is a threat, CRT popularity is declining
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffPanel exposes their own racism and error-filled assertions
On May 30, the American Medical Association (AMA) sponsored a panel event with National Health Equity, “Advancing Health Equity Through Resistance: A State of the Union on Threats and Opportunities.”
AMA is one of four Founding Collaborators who developed the National Health Equity Grand Rounds series. This particular event was hosted to push back against Do No Harm and others who are challenging DEI requirements in medicine, and who present as “threats” to the DEI agenda.
Do No Harm is the Biggest Threat to DEI
When asked of the biggest threat to advancing Critical Race Theory (CRT) and anti-racism in medicine, panelist Khalil Gibran Muhammad, PhD specifically named Do No Harm and its founder Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. As an academic, Muhammad claims he and other anti-racists are “more sophisticated in understanding how these things work.”
But while the Harvard Kennedy School professor incorrectly discounts Dr. Goldfarb’s level of engagement on the issues, (note: you can access dozens of Do No Harm’s Reports and Research here), it is ironic that his project, Institutional Anti-Racism and Accountability Project (IRA), is only a “qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews.” He also admits that “looking at applied research in this field (DEI) is a fairly new thing.” (27:59)
Scientific inquiry and quantitative data don’t harmonize with the DEI agenda. Alternately, as medical professionals at Do No Harm, science is our specialty. We will always fight for facts to triumph over political propaganda.
CRT is the Least Popular Message
Ian Haney López, MA, MPA, JD, who teaches seminars on Critical Race Theory at Berkeley Law admitted his allegiance: “I am a critical race theorist.” (15:07). The tenets of Critical Race Theory are that: racism is normal and ordinary and not the exception, that racism is inherent in every structure in America, and that people of color are continually discriminated against and treated unfairly in both the public and private spheres including law, medicine, and education.
Interestingly enough, Mr. López said according to his own data and large national studies, the least popular political message among communities of color is the narrative of structural racism—exactly what CRT teaches. (35:42).
“The least popular message, political message, among communities of color (is) ‘There’s a lot of structural racism (and) we need to make this country live up to its ideals.’”
López goes on to say that the CRT theories promoting victim mentality aren’t working either.
“And a lot of people in communities of color hear a story in which they have to accept that they are hated and that their children’s lives are truncated because they’re hated by the dominant group in society. And they don’t want to hear that message,” López said. (37:51)
López doesn’t understand the reason they don’t want to hear that message, is because the message is flat-out untrue. (Or possibly, he thinks the majority just lacks the aforementioned sophistication to understand these issues).
CRT isn’t working because it’s untrue. Understandably, no individual of any race wants to be taught that they are hated and being held down by powerful invisible forces. Yet this is the bedrock of CRT.
López is a career-critical race theorist. Academics like him and these DEI panelists have invested so much time and energy into the CRT religion, and are now discovering (but have the inability to accept) that this wasn’t the hill to die on. But instead of abandoning CRT and anti-racism as a means to keep power, they are doubling down. López sounds like he’s stuck in the sunk cost fallacy.
So what does he propose, as a career-critical race theorist? To keep believing in CRT but to change the communication strategy. He’ll continue believing and teaching falsehoods but manipulate it in a way to deceive the general public.
The single most popular political message López says, is about building power across racial lines to take care of our families. (37:12). So, naturally he recommends using this talking point instead of structural racism to gain more followers, blind to the real CRT agenda. The arrogance and hypocrisy are astounding. We invite Mr. López to abandon CRT as a life mission and join our cause in treating everyone as an individual. Science says that when new data is available, it changes our approach. Your data has proven CRT doesn’t work, and it isn’t accepted. It has done more harm in society than positive change.
DEI Panel’s Own Racism
The ironic part about anti-racism is the fact that it is itself, racist. López defines racism as “white over non-white,” (15:39), but true racism is the belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes based solely on their skin color. Racism also asserts (like Ibram X, Kendi does) that the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.
The panel often exposed their own racism and biases during the event. Michelle Morse, MD, MPH, is the Chief Medical Officer at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. At the event, Morse told hospital communications and PR staff to refuse to answer questions about health equity projects to “right-wing” media, instructing staff to say, “I’m not responding to this white supremacist news outlet.” (32:49).
Defaming an entire news organization as a “white supremacist” is a flagrant strawman argument, only exposing the accuser (Morse) of bias herself. At the introduction of the event, the moderator asked the audience to come with “an open heart and an open mind.” Yet, when asked questions by a free press (protected by the 1st amendment), Morse’s modus operandi is to shut down discussion and hurl fallacious insults.
Morse also advocates for black patients to be placed higher on kidney transplant lists, if the previously standard algorithms of the eGFR test didn’t indicate kidney disease.
Multiple studies and data prove that serum creatinine concentrations are higher in black individuals than those of any other race, which informs the standards and algorithms for the eGFR. Morse implied these clinical algorithms didn’t fit the DEI agenda, so they intended to “change the algorithms.” (34:55).
Morse says, “Now there are ways to use race to advance racial equity, but many of these clinical algorithms unfortunately are not using race in that way.” (34:47). It’s incongruous that she is happy to use race to her advantage when it suits the DEI agenda, but not when the data opposes that agenda.
Most terrifyingly, the efforts to change these algorithms was largely “led by students and trainees,” and not by research. Morse also admitted “well we can’t wait” for research to lead the change in algorithms. (35:02). The change in science she promotes was not led by rigorous, systematic study, but by DEI ideology.
Additionally, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is proposing incentives for hospitals to create health equity plans and prioritize transplants for certain races above others.
Dr. Goldfarb responded to this CMS proposal, stating, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it, especially in medicine. The Supreme Court has made clear that CMS may not enlist private actors to discriminate against patients based on race, even to reduce disparities.” He advocates patient-education as another solution rather than race-based discrimination.
So yes, we’re proud that the work Do No Harm has achieved is a threat to CRT and anti-racism. We are emboldened further to not let DEI’s erroneous, racist, political agenda take over medicine and medical education. And we’re proud to fight against the intellectual elites who have tried to commandeer the narrative and force their harmful political agenda. We pledged to “first, do no harm.”
What is Texas Tech hiding about their compliance with the state’s new DEI law?
Uncategorized Texas DEI Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffA radical left-wing ideology has contaminated medical education in the United States, threatening to undermine American healthcare—even in conservative West Texas.
Consider a mandatory lecture at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC). Students are taught Critical Race Theory and intersectionality—ideas with roots in Marxism—and that America is governed by “white supremacy” and “systemic racism.” They are warned about “microaggressions” and told to “reject colorblindness.” Astonishingly, this lecture is delivered in West Texas, where the population—and patients—are nearly 90% white.
The lecture praised a book asserting, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination [against whites].” Additionally, it discouraged using racial information in diagnoses, even when beneficial for patient care. One student reported, “It felt more like a political indoctrination session than a medical lecture.”
With higher education succumbing to radical woke ideology, Texas lawmakers acted. Last year, Governor Abbott signed Texas Senate Bill 17 (SB 17), one of the nation’s strictest anti-DEI laws, effective January 1st. Texas’s public universities, including TTUHSC, are mandated to eliminate DEI.
However, public statements by university presidents in Texas suggest an intent to subvert the new law. One tactic: rebranding DEI offices while maintaining the same functions. Another: dissolving DEI offices but “camouflaging” personnel in other departments.
Under SB 17, these tactics are forbidden: DEI must be eliminated in both spirit and letter.
A new legal battle has emerged over TTU’s massive DEI program. A 2020 archive boasted that the Division of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DDEI) had 14 units and numerous collaborations, making it one of TTU’s largest entities.
Following SB 17’s passage, these units were dismantled. However, a local paper reported a curious development: a new Office of Campus Access and Engagement emerged, with no one fired. TTU’s President stated, “We’re gonna move certain support services into certain areas that align with really who they served and what they did.” The new office’s website claims, “Since SB 17 was passed, the range of available support resources remains comparable.”
Is TTU subverting the new law?
A non-profit oversight organization filed a Texas Public Information Act request with TTU, asking for their compliance plan and the fate of their DEI employees. TTU responded with 49 pages of redacted text, citing “attorney-client privilege.”
What are they hiding?
Alarmed, Texas State Senator Brandon Creighton sent TTU a stern letter demanding compliance updates. TTU officials reassured him that their Office of Audit Services is auditing compliance with SB17 for all System components. TTUHSC officials echoed this statement.
Audit themselves? Who believes this?
Texas Tech is a taxpayer-funded institution. The public deserves transparent disclosure of relevant documents, not vague reassurances.
DEI initiatives may be legally banned at Texas universities, but the battle against the ideological takeover of medicine is far from over. Enforcement challenges persist, and medical schools face pressure from accreditation bodies and federal law to implement DEI-like policies. The fight for excellence over activism in medicine has only just begun.
It’s time for the public and policymakers to demand real accountability. Texas Tech must comply with SB 17 in both letter and spirit or face the consequences. The integrity of medical education—and the future of patient care—depends on it.
Report Uncovered Depth of University of Oklahoma College of Medicine’s DEI Efforts Prior to Executive Action
Uncategorized Oklahoma DEI University of Oklahoma Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe University of Oklahoma’s College of Medicine (OUCOM) had demonstrated its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in recent years, earning recognition by the Association of American Medical Colleges for being among the top medical schools in the country for implementing DEI practices in its education. Indeed, the College’s promotion and expansion of these practices – alongside other Oklahoma institutions – prompted a January 2023 letter from Superintendent Ryan Walters, requesting the institutions account for “every dollar” spent on implementing these divisive policies. After discovering the extensive nature of DEI policies within these institutions, Gov. Stitt followed up Walters’ letter with an executive order in December 2023, banning these practices at publicly funded institutions in the Sooner State.
As state leaders were rightfully examining the scope and nature of DEI policies in its academic institutions, Do No Harm filed a FOIA request in 2023 to obtain the data and results of a 2022 survey, measuring performance against DEI metrics, conducted by the OUCOM.
The so-called Diversity, Inclusion, Culture, and Equity (DICE) survey from the College of Medicine was part of a larger effort by the AAMC to pressure medical schools across the country to embrace controversial policies that discriminate against faculty and students on the basis of race, ethnicity, and other identity-based characteristics. A report by the AAMC touted its successful efforts to push the vast majority of medical schools to adopt radical identity politics as official school policies. Indeed, the AAMC provided a ranking of institutions surveyed, with the OUCOM scoring 77 percent – placing it slightly below the highest tier for participating medical schools.
Despite the College of Medicine’s failure to satisfy our FOIA request by supplying Do No Harm with the full documentation of the survey’s measurements and results, the limited pdf document provided by the College revealed the full extent to which the institution had shifted its priorities towards radical DEI policies.
Here are some of the practices that the College of Medicine had embraced:
The pervasiveness of the College of Medicine’s DEI policies rightfully drew concern from policymakers and the medical community in Oklahoma.
The College’s relatively high score also indicates that it had made significant strides in expanding its DEI footprint. Most of the areas in which the College received low marks were on data collection; in areas of governance, mission, DEI policies, institutional history, communication, and faculty promotion it received near perfect scores.
In a section of the survey in which the dean of the college responded to the results, the dean outlined a plan to improve future years’ scores by adopting a strategic plan based on the areas identified for improvement. A major component of that future plan included dedicated faculty and full-time staff devoted to the implementation of DEI programs.
While the DICE survey shows how far OUCOM had gone to indulge DEI, it also provides a roadmap those committed to reversing the direction of the College’s policies – particularly in light of Gov. Stitt’s actions – and formally root out these dangerously misguided policies.
This Prominent Children’s Hospital Teaches 8-Year-Olds About ‘Gender-Blending’
Uncategorized Pennsylvania Gender Ideology Health system Commentary Do No Harm StaffAmerica’s leading hospitals are eschewing scientific ethics for gender unicorns & top surgeries.
If you are unfamiliar with the ‘Gender Unicorn,’ an animal analogy about how sex comes from genitalia and gender identity comes solely from the mind, your children may be able to explain it to you. Some healthcare providers, including the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), preach radical gender ideology to elementary schoolers.
CHOP, one of the oldest hospitals in America, has more than a deeply unfortunate (but perhaps fitting) acronym. It has demonstrated a deep commitment to expose its patients of all ages to unproven gender ideology, rejecting science and basic medical ethics in the process.
Hear it Straight from the Unicorn’s Mouth
This is not a simple rumor. According to documents Do No Harm obtained through FOIA request, the training materials prepared for children’s sex education are defined by radical anti-scientific gender ideology. A presentation given to a local public elementary school, titled “Supporting Transgender and Gender Expansive Students,” contains a clear outline of the most radical aspects of modern gender theory, served up in whimsical fonts and colors for the hospital’s future patients. The program’s goal, as per CHOP’s guidelines, is to forward a ‘gender-inclusive’ environment for students.
The programming begins by encouraging children to discuss “messages you received about
gender while growing up from your parents/family,” before asserting that messages regarding gender are often “influenced by social norms.” At no point is any mention made of the biological roots of human sexuality–the term ‘biological sex’ is only referenced as a vague framework for the much more in-depth discussion of gender identity and expression. Included in this in-depth discussion are what the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia considers to be the three categories of gender expression: masculine, feminine, and fluid/creative. All of this is being told to children who have yet to complete (or in many cases even begin) puberty.
Further, CHOP’s training hardly comes from unbiased sources. One of the CHOP instructors teaching Pennsylvania elementary-age children about gender is Samantha King, who, after getting degrees in human sexuality and social work, manages CHOP’s “Gender and Sexuality Development Program.”
The other is Nadeen Herring. She describes herself publicly as an “unlearner; unapologetic mother and loud-mouth for Blaq trans youth” and has written copiously about the unlearning journey connected with parenting her own transgender child. She dedicates her career to ensuring medical providers “take trans realities seriously,” including getting medical personnel to avoid the use of pronouns with young patients. This makes sense, given her goal of being “a creative ambient, deeply-impassioned word massager.”
Each instructor holds a master’s degree in education. Neither appear to have any scientific credentials.
Misconceptions and Hypotheticals
The presentation calls out ideas they deem ‘misconceptions,’ such as the concept of peer pressure playing a role in child development. Apparently, peer pressure is simply a non-factor among children about to enter puberty. Despite this assertion, CHOP has an entire webpage dedicated to the role of peers in behavioral development, conveniently when the subject might not raise fair questions about peer pressure, social contagion, and gender identity.
Herring and King offer off-the-shelf rebuttals to common comments like, “You can’t be a girl, you’re a boy.” What is the response from CHOP, a leading medical institution? “It is not okay to tell someone they aren’t who they say they are. Since Sam knows herself best, if Sam says she is a girl then that is true.”
This sort of behavior from an otherwise serious healthcare provider is the new normal at CHOP, as it is among many providers and medical institutions. As reported by the Daily Caller in April 2023, the hospital scrubbed information off its website about the benefits of top surgery for girls as young as thirteen and hormone therapy for children as young as eight, along with information about clinic staff seeking to hide children’s gender identity from their parents. This is the path that CHOP, and an increasing number of children’s hospitals, have chosen to go down in promoting deeply unscientific practices to their youngest patients.
Only time will tell whether America’s medical institutions continue this trend.
What are state medical boards working on? 1,500 pages of nothing but DEI
Uncategorized Missouri, United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffIt is perhaps common knowledge that DEI has fully infiltrated many state medical boards, committees, and commissions around the country. But what is less clear is how much time and work these boards are putting into pet DEI projects at the expense of other meaningful efforts.
Earlier this year, Do No Harm submitted a public records request for communications discussing diversity or DEI between the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts and the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).
The response? More than 1,500 pages worth of material and work related to DEI. In fact, across these 1,500+ pages, the word “diversity” alone was mentioned nearly 500 times. And that’s just from a single state’s medical board—imagine the volume of correspondence related to DEI from all states medical boards.
Contained deep within these 1,500+ pages are several notable (and troubling) finds.
For example, a 2023 update to the FSMB “House of Delegates” includes a barrage of diversity-obsessed materials, such as new “justice fellowships” for “ensuring equity in measurement and assessment” complete with a “$30,000 stipend”, a heads-up for the upcoming “Equity in Measurement and Assessment Conference”, and much more.
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. An interim report by the “FSMB Workgroup on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Medical Regulation and Patient Care” contains more than 30 pages on ways in which the entire medical establishment is inherently racist, with implicit biases that are in desperate need of correcting. But contained in the “proposed mitigation strategies” to counter these supposed structural inequities are:
In other words, equity is so unbalanced that mandates in bias training, diversity quotas, committee reviews of policy, and racial concordance—which is equal to racial segregation—are the only solutions. Yet, this premise is entirely misguided, as research by Do No Harm found no meaningful correlation between the integration of racial concordance and improved outcomes for patients.
But perhaps these types of bizarre policy recommendations are to be expected from activists that consider racism to be “a leading cause of death and preventable harm” in the U.S. health care system, as noted in the working group’s final report. Yes, you read that right. The CDC must have missed “racism” when ranking causes of death in their data brief on mortality in the United States. Heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s, and more all made the cut—but not “racism”.
At the center of many of these controversial statements is Dr. Jeffery Carter, who last year was elected Chair of the FSMB and who also served as Chair of the above-mentioned FSMB Workgroup on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Medical Regulation and Patient Care. Dr. Carter just so happens to also be a member of the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts—the central subject of the public records request issued by Do No Harm, along with the FSMB.
Interestingly, it seems Dr. Carter has a history of filing lawsuits claiming discrimination in response to setbacks in his medical career. In 1995, he sued St. Louis University claiming discrimination after he was dismissed from the school’s general surgical residency program for poor performance. He lost at the trial and on appeal. In 2011, he sued Missouri Baptist Medical Center alleging discrimination after his failed bid to become the hospital’s chief anesthesiologist. Again, he lost at the trial and on appeal.
Now, after his round of failed discriminatory-based lawsuits, Dr. Carter is setting DEI medical policy for state medical boards in Missouri and around the country.
Imagine if Dr. Carter and his colleagues put as much time and effort into addressing medical developments, serious health conditions, or moral issues related to health care, as they did on DEI. The amount of work dedicated to sending and answering emails on woke medicine alone is staggering, given the more than 1,500 pages of correspondence from the records request. Every hour wasted on their obscure addiction to DEI is an hour that is not dedicated to legitimate issues in the medical community.
State medical boards are trusted with safeguarding licensing and credentialing for medical practices. The blatant disregard for their moral charge at the expense of woke politics is equal parts damaging and frightening. The sooner these boards are called out for their unhealthy fixation with DEI, the better.