The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) published an article Wednesday attempting to debunk several so-called “myths” about diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at medical schools.
But instead, the AAMC advanced claims that lacked evidence and resorted to ideological platitudes to defend its agenda.
Here’s what they said, and why they’re wrong:
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “diversity efforts are resulting in unqualified students being accepted to medical school.”
Programs that prioritize race over merit are, by definition, prioritizing less qualified applicants over their more qualified peers. If a black or Hispanic student is chosen over a white or Asian student with better test scores, grades, and relevant experience, then less qualified students are being accepted into medical schools.
This practice is unquestionably occurring; we need only look at 2013-2016 admissions data analyzed by the American Enterprise Institute to see 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.
To support its argument, the AAMC cites data showing MCAT scores and graduation rates have remained steady over the past five years.
But this is faulty reasoning; the average test scores of medical students in aggregate can remain steady while racial discrimination is still being practiced and less qualified applicants are being admitted to medical schools. Moreover, race-conscious admissions have been in place at numerous medical schools for far longer than five years, so the five-year range chosen by the AAMC is misleading.
Medical schools are also, by their own admission, deprioritizing test scores and grades in their admissions process. This is explicitly lowering standards to increase diversity.
For instance, numerous medical schools are outright ditching the MCAT, with the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine waiving MCAT requirements specifically for certain applicants from Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The MCAT itself also changed in 2015, spending more time on the “crucial role that sociocultural and behavioral determinants play in our health” and less on biology and physics.
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the second-largest teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, deprioritized test scores for incoming medical residents in favor of “holistic reviews” that weighed candidates’ race. The school also required admissions personnel to undergo unconscious bias training.
At the University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, admissions committee members bemoaned the school’s extraordinarily low admissions standards for minority students, stating that the school was becoming a “failed” institution, according to the Washington Free Beacon. In certain cohorts, “more than 50 percent of students failed standardized tests on emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics,” the Free Beacon reported. These tests typically have a 5 percent failure rate.
The bar for students deemed “underrepresented” is “as low as you could possibly imagine,” an admissions committee member told the Free Beacon. “It completely disregards grades and achievements.”
For yet another example, a 2023 study examining the performance of emergency medicine residents found that the Underrepresented in Medicine (URM) trainees, or trainees who were not white and/or Asian, were deemed to have demonstrated less medical knowledge and less effective patient care.
Similarly, a 2021 study published in Academic Medicine, the AAMC’s own journal, found that URM medical students routinely “experience delayed graduation and course failure” at a higher rate than their Asian and white peers. Of course, the study blames structural racism for this achievement gap.
Moreover, medical schools seem more concerned with DEI efforts than they do with recruiting the best and brightest. A Do No Harm review of the over 100 AAMC-accredited medical schools’ mission statements found the words “diverse” and “diversity” appeared 177 times, while “merit” appeared only once.
These facts are obviously not reflected in AAMC’s defense of DEI, as they undercut the organization’s narrative.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in medical schools are about pushing a political agenda and are a detriment to the practice of medicine.”
The AAMC does not make an effort to refute the first claim that DEI in medical schools is a part of a political agenda. Presumably, that is because the subject is not really up for debate.
In fact, the AAMC itself defines “anti-racism,” a core tenet of DEI, as “the work of actively opposing racism by advocating for changes in political, economic, and social life.” Moreover, as of 2022, over 75% of medical schools actively lobby at the local, state, and federal level for policies related to DEI.
Instead, the AAMC cites data showing racial disparities in health outcomes as justification for the necessity of DEI programs and a more diverse pool of healthcare professionals.
However, the AAMC does not provide any evidence indicating that DEI initiatives are, or would be, effective at addressing these health disparities.
Previously, the AAMC has trotted out the line that “racism” and not race itself drives these health disparities and that race is a “social construct” that has no place in clinical algorithms.
This idea has gained popularity in recent years, but is utterly unscientific; as an example, a recent paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that higher rates of preeclampsia in black women are due to racism, and not biological factors.
However, as Do No Harm’s Ian Kingsbury has shown, the far more likely culprits for these disparities are genetics and behavior, with roughly 55 percent of preeclampsia risk estimated to be genetic.
Moreover, the implication that minority patients can be better treated by minority physicians is similarly unsupported.
As Do No Harm has shown, the majority of the research on the effectiveness of racial concordance, or the treating of patients by a physician of the same race, demonstrates no positive effect on health outcomes.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “DEI is just code for discriminating in favor of Black and Hispanic/Latino people.”
In practice, DEI initiatives involve overt racism. Do No Harm has cataloged scores of racially discriminatory medical school programs, fellowships, and other initiatives that exclude white and/or Asian applicants to advance the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
To counter this obviously true “myth,” the AAMC notes the fact that AAMC enrollment data shows black and Hispanic students are still “underrepresented” at medical schools. By this, the AAMC means that the proportion of black and Hispanic medical students is not equivalent to their share of the U.S. population.
This is a non-sequitur; the current racial composition of medical schools has no bearing on whether or not discrimination in favor of black and Hispanic students is ongoing and widespread.
A better gauge is whether black and Hispanic students are being favored by medical school policies. Beyond the numerous public examples of racially discriminatory behavior by medical schools, we can simply look at which racial groups are favored in medical school admissions.
And according to the aforementioned 2013-2016 admissions data analyzed by the American Enterprise Institute, black and Hispanic students had a far easier time getting into medical school with the same test scores and grades as their white and Asian peers.
This is quite simply racial discrimination.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “funding of DEI programs would be better spent on scientific advancement or other aspects of medical education.”
Funding for DEI programs would be better directed toward almost anything else.
DEI isn’t simply a distraction from medical schools’ primary mission to educate their students about medicine, it is immoral and dangerous.
Take, for example, the American Heart Association’s decision to remove race from its cardiovascular disease risk calculator in the name of making the tool more “equitable.” A new paper warned the AHA’s changes could make millions of people ineligible for much-needed medication.
Or take a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which attempted to blame systemic racism for excess mortality among the black population, without considering other genetic and societal factors.
The logical conclusion of these ideas is to spend money chasing the phantom of “systemic racism” while failing to address and understand the real culprits for these health outcomes. This naturally leads to worse health outcomes for the exact racial groups the DEI advocates are claiming to support.
Rather than grapple with this, the AAMC instead quotes a DEI advocate who claims the practice is grounded on “science.”
That “science” is mysteriously absent from the AAMC’s article.
This latest AAMC publication is yet another example of the organization’s unwavering commitment to DEI over medical ethics and intellectual rigor. Do No Harm has previously exposed the AAMC for spreading misinformation to advance its DEI agenda.
It seems old habits die hard.
The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Takes a Giant ‘LEAP’ Backwards
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe 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
Uncategorized California DEI Medical Board Commentary Do No Harm StaffLast 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
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Medical association, Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffOne 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.”
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
Uncategorized Ohio DEI Cleveland Clinic Medical School Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, 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
Uncategorized California DEI University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffRacial 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%.
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.
The American College of Emergency Physicians Chooses DEI Activism Over Evidence-Based Medicine
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm has spent the past several years exposing the lack of evidence behind narratives used to push harmful DEI in medical schools and healthcare more generally. Unfortunately, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) is the latest to platform these talking points.
ACEP Now, the official publication of ACEP, published an opinion article earlier this month by Dr. Jayne Kendall titled “Why Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Matter in Medical Education,” which argued against the EDUCATE Act and for DEI efforts in medical schools. ACEP has previously gone on the record opposing the legislation as well.
The EDUCATE Act, which Do No Harm has endorsed, was introduced by Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC) in March. Specifically, the bill would defund DEI programs that encourage racial discrimination, defund medical schools with DEI offices, and require accreditors to ensure they do not encourage DEI initiatives.
The opinion article argues that this legislation would hinder efforts to improve “health equality” and that DEI efforts are essential to positive health outcomes. In doing so, the article makes reference to numerous unsubstantiated theories.
For instance, the article gestures favorably toward the idea that “racial concordance” would improve minority patients’ health outcomes. This idea proposes that patients have better health outcomes after seeing physicians of the same race.
“Literature has demonstrated that when patients seek treatment from individuals of their own race or ethnicity, they are more likely to take their prescriptions and engage in prevention services,” the article reads.
But existing research does not support the idea that racial concordance improves health outcomes. As a Do No Harm analysis of the evidence has shown, “four of five existing systematic reviews of racial concordance in medicine show no improvement in outcomes.”
In short, ACEP is publishing a political narrative that lacks evidential backing.
However, the mistakes do not stop there; the article also cites a paper published in the Journal of the National Medical Association in 2019 titled “Diversity improves performance and outcomes.” While the paper has been extensively cited to buttress arguments supporting DEI in healthcare, its contents don’t actually deliver on its title’s promises, as Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb previously demonstrated.
Most of that paper focuses on outcomes in areas unrelated to medicine; only three of the 16 studies the paper examines to draw its conclusions have to do with diversity in the medical field. Moreover, the studies it examines don’t show that diversity improves health outcomes at all.
“So, many articles that claim that diversity improves patient outcomes cite a paper with an intriguing title that claims a result that does not exist,” Goldfarb wrote. “The ‘evidence’ in favor of such claims proves to be a shell game.”
While a medical association opposing efforts to rein in DEI is troubling in itself (though predictable), it’s more disturbing to see such a marked departure from evidence-based medicine.
But if anything, this is further confirmation that Do No Harm and like-minded organizations are on the side of the evidence.
Once Again, Advocates for Child Gender Transitions Resort to Flawed Research
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffA recent opinion article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association advocates for a comprehensive approach to preserve children’s access to gender medical interventions. In doing so, it argues that denying youth access to so-called “gender-affirming care,” which includes puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, harms mental health outcomes, citing a study also published in JAMA.
There’s just one problem: that study did not show significant mental health improvements among youth treated with these interventions.
The opinion piece, like countless others attempting to argue for these dangerous and unproven procedures, invokes faulty research to prop up its agenda.
Titled “Moving Beyond Statements to Protect Transgender Youth,” the article is authored by doctors at Connecticut Children’s Hospital, which performs gender surgical procedures and other medical interventions on children. The authors argue that children’s hospitals should form robust partnerships and engage with community stakeholders to fight attempts to restrict minors’ access to gender medical interventions.
Yet crucially, the authors hinge their claim on the idea that children need these irreversible interventions for the sake of their mental health.
“The longer care is delayed, the greater the negative impact to mental health,” the authors write, citing a 2022 study.
That study, authored by researchers affiliated with Seattle Children’s Hospital, one of the foremost practitioners of gender medical interventions for minors, claims to observe evidence that so-called “gender-affirming care” is associated with decreased depression and suicidality. A look underneath the hood, however, shows that the study is profoundly flawed.
The study compares two groups of youths, one receiving interventions including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and the other not.
The research team observes no statistically significant changes in depression or suicidality among the treatment group from initiation to one-year follow up.
This fact, however, does not stop the Connecticut Children’s doctors from arguing that gender-affirming care is necessary for youth mental health.
Moreover, the study fails to explain why the comparison group did not receive these medical interventions; did they simply choose not to? This context is conspicuously absent.
However, the researchers do observe heightened depression and suicidality in the comparison group of youths. The researchers posit that this worsening mental health represents the counterfactual for what would have happened to the treatment group if they hadn’t received puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. This assumption is flawed for two reasons.
First, whether a child received blockers or hormones isn’t random. Rather, those patients with the worst mental health or declining mental health may have been denied access to puberty blockers and hormones due to their poor or declining mental health. Likely, their decline in mental health during the study period is totally unrelated to their not receiving blockers or hormones.
Second, there is massive attrition from the comparison group, which featured 38 patients three months after the study commenced but just seven patients after one year, when the study concludes. Likely, patients whose mental health improved either became part of the treatment group or left the gender clinic altogether. Had they remained in the comparison group the results would have looked very different.
It seems to be a recurring theme that arguments in favor of gender medical interventions for children invariably invoke deeply flawed research.
In fact, the study the doctors cite undercuts their own premise. The study instead shows that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones do not significantly improve mental health outcomes.
Several European nations, including the United Kingdom, Finland, and Sweden, have recognized this, with each having conducted exhaustive reviews of the evidence and concluded that gender medical interventions for children have risks that outweigh the benefits.
For instance, the United Kingdom’s Cass Report concluded that there is “remarkably weak evidence” behind the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat adolescents.
Unfortunately, as evidenced by the Connecticut Children’s doctors’ call to arms, the American medical field is still lagging far behind.
This article demonstrates yet another example of advocates using faulty reasoning and porous research to advance an agenda that not only ignores the weight of scientific evidence, but is ultimately harmful to children.
Medical School Ditches Discriminatory Scholarship Program After Do No Harm Complaint
Uncategorized Michigan, United States DEI Western Michigan University Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine (WMU) discontinued a scholarship program that racially discriminated against student applicants following a federal civil rights complaint from Do No Harm.
WMU maintained a scholarship program called the Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective Scholarship Program designed to provide fourth-year medical students with financial support, mentorship, and networking opportunities. The scholarship was operated in collaboration with the Office of Resident Affairs and Office of Diversity, and was intended to help achieve diversity in the medical field.
However, the scholarship’s eligibility criteria stated that applicants “must” identify as “African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.”
Notably absent from this list were white and Asian students; because of their race, they were denied these opportunities.
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark J. Perry filed a civil rights complaint against WMU with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), alleging the eligibility criteria were racially discriminatory and violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The OCR confirmed in December 2023 that it had opened a federal investigation into WMU over the complaint.
Then, on Monday, August 19, the OCR notified Do No Harm that WMU had discontinued the Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective Scholarship Program. The school’s website no longer advertises the program, and the OCR said it found no evidence the program was still operational.
While it is disappointing that WMU ceased its racial discrimination only after a federal investigation had commenced, Do No Harm nevertheless applauds this outcome. Racial discrimination has no place in medical schools or anywhere else, and WMU students are better off without their university denying them scholarship opportunities and discriminating against them based on their race. Any medical school student who is aware of financial aid or other programs at his or her school that are restricted based on race can file an anonymous tip here.
“WMU is one of dozens of U.S. medical schools that have either discontinued or removed race-based eligibility criteria from a discriminatory program as a result of our ongoing efforts to challenge illegal discrimination that violates Title VI,” Perry said. “Medical schools are finding out that there is no legal defense for racial discrimination and once our complaints are opened for federal civil rights investigations, the OCR has consistently ruled in our favor and forced schools to stop discriminating. U.S. medical schools should be on notice that they have a legal obligation to enforce federal civil rights laws, and it is Do No Harm’s mission to successfully challenge all illegal discrimination until each of the 200 US medical schools is free from discrimination based on race or sex.”
Read the story in National Review.
Do No Harm Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Biology-Denying Court Decisions
Uncategorized Idaho, United States, West Virginia Gender Ideology Federal government Commentary Judicial Do No Harm StaffOn Wednesday, August 14, 2024, Do No Harm submitted an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up West Virginia v. B.P.J., a case concerning a West Virginia law that prohibited boys from joining girls’ sports teams.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and was unlawful under Title IX, as it discriminated based on gender identity. Do No Harm is asking the court to acknowledge scientific reality and reverse the Fourth Circuit’s decision, as well as the Ninth Circuit’s decision in a similar case about Idaho’s law protecting women’s sports.
In the brief, Do No Harm illustrates how the appeals courts’ decisions are grounded upon faulty premises regarding biological sex and gender. Do No Harm explains that:
Do No Harm hopes the Supreme Court corrects the scientific errors underpinning the lower courts’ decisions, and promptly reverses them.
Read the full text of the amicus brief here.
Do No Harm Calls on Medical Associations to Follow the ASPS and Reject ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ for Minors
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Medical association Commentary Stanley Goldfarb, MDEarlier this week, City Journal published a statement from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons questioning the evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. The ASPS told Manhattan Institute fellow Leor Sapir that there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions” for minors and that “the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty.”
Moreover, the ASPS stated it is currently reviewing its initiatives to promote evidence-based gender surgical care, and noted it has not endorsed any medical organization’s standards of care regarding child gender transitions.
Do No Harm applauds the ASPS for choosing to follow the evidence, and urges other medical associations to do the same.
The efficacy of gender medical interventions for minors is not well supported by existing evidence, and these treatments carry unknown dangers and uncertain long-term effects. This is true of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and other interventions – not just gender surgical procedures.
Several European countries already recognize the experimental nature of “gender-affirming care” for minors and have limited children’s access to these interventions. It’s time for the U.S. to follow suit.
However, this can only happen when leading medical institutions acknowledge the obvious reality: that so-called “gender-affirming care” is grounded not in well-established science, but ideological zeal.
It is incumbent upon all physicians to speak up for evidence-based care and reject dangerous treatments. It is not too late for the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, and many others to return to the truth.
Stanley Goldfarb, MD
Do No Harm, Board Chairman
Hear from Do No Harm’s fellows on the ASPS statement.
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Richard Bosshardt:
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Travis Morrell:
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Miriam Grossman:
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Aida Cerundolo:
Do No Harm Patient Advocate Chloe Cole:
International Med Student Org Suspends Israeli Students Over Allegations of ‘Genocide’ Denial
Uncategorized Israel DEI international federation of medical students' associations Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA) last week suspended the Israeli medical students’ association for two years. The decision appears to be another disturbing example of medical institutions discriminating against Jewish students.
IFMSA is a massive organization composed of medical students’ associations from more than 100 countries, and membership provides medical students with valuable opportunities for professional advancement. In a press release addressing the issue, IFMSA cited “threats against medical students, online harassment and hate speech” allegedly perpetrated by the Israeli organization for its decision.
But that’s not the full story.
Israeli news outlet Ynet reported that the Israeli medical students’ organization was suspended due to accusations of “a lack of morals and humanitarian values” revolving around Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.
And according to Miri Shvimmer, president of the Federation of Israeli Medical Students, the suspension was also motivated by accusations of “genocide” denial and the mere presence of Israeli medical students in the Israeli military.
“The motion for suspension was presented based on allegations including: genocide denial; the fact that members of the Israeli medical students’ organization serve in the Israeli military; [and] the presence of students from Ariel University in the organization” in addition to the other allegations, Shvimmer said, characterizing the attacks as “baseless” and “libelous.”
Rather than focus on advancing its members’ medical education, IFMSA appears more concerned with punishing and disadvantaging Jewish medical students due to its hatred of Israel. This is blatantly discriminatory, unethical, and antithetical to the mission of any respectable medical institution.
“This is yet another example of pervasive antisemitism in medicine, unprecedented and founded on baseless accusations of ‘genocide’ and ‘occupation,’” said Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Jared Ross.
“This injustice deprives Israeli medical students of valuable international networking opportunities. However, the harm of this suspension extends to the entire world, as Israel is an international hub for medical technology development, including artificial intelligence, pill cameras, and surgical robots.”
According to Israel Medical Association chairman Dr. Zion Hagay, the motion for suspension was brought about by the Brazilian delegation following prompting from Palestinian medical students.
IFMSA claims in its press release that it “condemns all forms of discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, personal characteristics, religion and other factors.”
It seems that with this decision, that is not truly the case.
Read Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Jared Ross’ full statement below:
Medical Schools Walk Back Discriminatory Scholarships After Do No Harm Complaints
Uncategorized Pennsylvania, Texas, United States DEI Baylor College of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffTwo medical schools have dropped eligibility criteria from scholarships that excluded applicants based on race after Do No Harm filed complaints against the schools with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Baylor University College of Medicine each offered scholarships aimed at medical students the schools defined as “underrepresented” in the field of medicine. The University of Pittsburgh’s scholarship, previously called the Carey Andrew-Jaja, MD (CAJ) Visiting Elective Scholarship Program for 4th Year Students Under-Represented in Medicine, offered visiting fourth-year students $2,000 in funding.
Yet the school defined “eligible candidates” as those “from the following backgrounds/heritage: African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and Native Alaskans.”
Similarly, Baylor University College of Medicine’s Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) Visiting Student Scholarship offered four $1,500 scholarships to accepted medical students to cover traveling, housing, and similar expenses. Baylor restricted the program to medical students who were “underrepresented in medicine,” which it defined as “Black or African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American (American Indian, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian), and Pacific Islander.”
Needless to say, 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.
In response, Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark J. Perry filed a federal civil rights complaint against the University of Pittsburgh in July 2022, alleging that the scholarship’s eligibility criteria were unlawful racial discrimination in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The OCR opened an investigation into the school the next month.
Perry filed a similar complaint against Baylor in July 2022 over its scholarship program, with the OCR opening an investigation in September 2022.
Since then, the medical schools have scrubbed the racial eligibility criteria from the programs’ descriptions.
The University of Pittsburgh’s scholarship is now titled “The Carey Andrew-Jaja, MD Visiting Elective Clerkship Program.” And, while applicants are still required to have an “interest” in diversity initiatives, the scholarship is no longer restricted to students of certain races.
Similarly, Baylor’s scholarship has been renamed the “Health Equity Scholarship” and its description includes no mention of racial eligibility criteria. It should be noted, however, that the scholarship’s mission is still defined as “promot[ing] a diverse and engaged workforce.”
Nevertheless, Do No Harm applauds these changes. U.S. universities and medical schools should follow suit and end their illegal practices of prioritizing race in their admissions process and scholarship awards.
“These outcomes at Pitt and Baylor are consistent with our past experience that once a medical school is investigated by OCR for illegal discrimination, there is no legal defense for a school to continue its race-based discrimination and it must open scholarships and programs to all students regardless of race,” Perry said. “Title VI is a very clear law, and the violations we’re challenging are very clear violations of a very clear law, so we have the law on our side. Medical schools have to learn that there are no ‘unless you have good intentions’ exceptions to Title VI, and discrimination based on race is still unlawful even if it advantages medical students of the ‘right’ races for the ‘right’ reasons. There is no good form of discrimination and Do No Harm is committed to challenging and stopping it in U.S. medical schools.”
Medical schools should be on notice that Do No Harm remains steadfast and vigilant in our efforts to legally challenge any race-based discrimination that comes to our attention. If you are aware of any illegal race-based (or sex-based) discrimination in U.S. medical education, you can file an anonymous tip here.
Do No Harm Files Federal Complaint Against Racially Discriminatory Clinic
Uncategorized Ohio DEI Cleveland Clinic Hospital System, Medical School Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; August 14, 2024 – Do No Harm, in partnership with the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), filed a federal civil rights complaint against the Ohio-based Cleveland Clinic for two specific examples of racial discrimination. The complaint is directed at two of the clinic’s programs: the Minority Stroke Program and the Minority Men’s Health Center.
The complaint stems from the fact that 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). According to Title VI, a recipient of federal funding, like the Cleveland Clinic, may not “provide services or benefits in a different manner from those provided to others” based on race. Similarly, the ACA prohibits racial discrimination by “any health program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial assistance.”
“Race-based discrimination and segregation of patients degrades trust in the healthcare system and is illegal,” said Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “The laudable goals set forth by the Cleveland Clinic’s special programs to assist patients struggling with strokes, diabetes, mental health, and other health concerns can and should be achieved without racial bias.”
“The problem with Cleveland Clinic’s racial persona grata / persona non grata model is that it engages the dangerous practice of using race as a proxy for legitimate health risks,” said WILL Associate Counsel Cara Tolliver. “Whether a particular patient should be prioritized, promoted, pursued, and included for medical assistance and care does not change simply because a patient is the wrong color. Cleveland Clinic’s endeavor to create a dichotomy of care that assumes what individuals need based on their race is both inappropriate and illegal.”
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.
American Society of Plastic Surgeons Acknowledges ‘Low Quality’ Evidence Backing Gender Surgeries for Minors
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffAdvocates for gender ideology have long argued that gender medical interventions for minors are grounded in well-established scientific evidence, citing support from American medical associations.
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, however, appears to be charting a different course.
The ASPS recently told Manhattan Institute fellow Leor Sapir that there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions” for minors and that “the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty.”
Additionally, the association “has not endorsed any organization’s practice recommendations for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria.”
The ASPS’ statements stand in stark contrast to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH) standards of care for gender medicine. WPATH’s guidelines recommend healthcare providers offer certain surgical procedures to adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria, provided they meet a few preliminary conditions.
Now, the ASPS says that it “is reviewing and prioritizing several initiatives that best support evidence-based gender surgical care to provide guidance to plastic surgeons.”
ASPS members are taking note, and they like what they see.
“As a proud member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for over thirty years, a father of three, and grandfather of six, I have viewed the uncritical rush to embrace experimental gender-affirming care for minors with dismay and alarm,” said Dr. Richard Bosshardt, senior fellow at Do No Harm.
“I have wondered and even asked on the ASPS discussion forums why my society, which should be in the forefront of discussions regarding transgender surgery, has not weighed in on this issue. Those pushing for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery on minors have grossly oversimplified something which is incredibly complex and poorly understood as though this is ‘settled science,’ when it is not even close.”
“I am proud that my society has finally stepped up and raised serious concerns about this practice,” Bosshardt added. “Plastic surgeons appreciate better than any other specialist the unique and daunting challenges of transexual surgery. Even in the best of hands and ideal circumstances, these are among the most complex and challenging surgeries, with a high rate of complications, some of which can be permanently crippling and with no good data on long term results in minors.”
It’s time for other major medical associations to follow the ASPS’ lead. Even the most dogmatic proponents of gender medical interventions for children, such as the Endocrine Society, can return to evidence-based medicine and jettison gender ideology.
“Medical associations have long been bullied by gender activists into endorsing standards of care for minors that are based more on ideological zeal than well-established science,” said Michelle Havrilla, a certified nurse practitioner and director of programs for gender ideology at Do No Harm.
“The ASPS is taking an important step by committing to evidence-based surgical care. With any luck, the ASPS’ actions will inspire other organizations to recognize what numerous European countries already seem to know: that gender medical interventions for minors lack firm scientific backing.”
Cracks are beginning to show in the medical field’s blind support for gender ideology; ASPS’ statement comes as more and more physicians are recognizing that gender medical interventions for minors carry unknown long-term dangers and lack quality evidence.
While numerous American medical associations have adopted positions backing minors’ access to “gender-affirming care,” several European countries in recent years have significantly limited children’s access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, citing the treatments’ lack of evidence.
In the United Kingdom, the Cass Report, an exhaustive review of gender medicine for children 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.
In fact, WPATH buried the results of a systematic review conducted by Johns Hopkins University that found little evidence supporting “gender-affirming care” for minors.
“Something must be terribly wrong when more than 80 percent of children with gender dysphoria will outgrow their condition, but 100 percent of medical associations publicly support aggressive, permanent, and unproven transition treatments for minors,” said Scott Centorino, vice president of policy and programs at Do No Harm.
“But eventually, the truth wins. It’s gratifying to see more physicians – and now a major medical association – acknowledging reality.”
If you are a member of the ASPS, consider speaking out (publicly or privately to the leadership) to thank them for their point of view.
Do No Harm Lawsuit Ends Racial Discrimination in Fellowship Program
Uncategorized United States DEI Professional organization Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; August 12, 2024 – Do No Harm secured a major victory after the American Association of University Women (AAUW) ended its discriminatory policy that illegally excluded fellowship applicants based on their race.
When choosing recipients for its “Selected Professions Fellowships,” AAUW will no longer consider applicants’ race or ethnicity, and will no longer require applicants to belong to “historically underrepresented” ethnic minority groups. AAUW changed its policy after Do No Harm sued AAUW on June 20, 2024 for violating federal civil rights law.
“Terrific news that the American Association of University Women responded to our Do No Harm lawsuit and no longer offers fellowships on the basis of race,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Every patient deserves access to the best possible care and that begins with medical advancements such as this fellowship that should be awarded to students because of merit, not race.”
The case was dismissed after AAUW agreed to drop the racial criteria in the fellowship’s selection process.
Click here to learn more.
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.
American Academy of Family Physicians Recruits ‘Experts’ to Teach Its Members DEI
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) seems intent on doubling down on its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda, this time injecting identity politics into its educational materials.
The AAFP this week issued a call for subject matter experts to propose continuing medical education content as it develops its 2025 curriculum. But along with suggestions that the proposals be innovative and contribute to the advancement of the medical field, the AAFP had an additional stipulation – that they be “DEI-focused.”
The request mirrors one of the AAFP’s strategic educational priorities, which is to “develop and diversify family physician leadership.” The AAFP further specified that it is “especially interested” in proposals that discuss topics including “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)” and “Health equity.”
It should go without saying that medical education should not be “focused” on DEI, which involves racial discrimination to achieve its desired ideological objectives. Moreover, there is no evidence that initiatives aimed at promoting diversity among healthcare professionals or encouraging adherence to DEI have improved healthcare outcomes. In fact, research has shown that these initiatives have not reduced healthcare disparities. The goal of the AAFP and institutions like it should be to improve Americans’ health, not promote ineffective and divisive trainings.
But unfortunately, the infiltration of DEI into family medicine is nothing new, and the AAFP has long prioritized DEI in its educational materials.
In this instance, the AAFP makes clear that these educational proposals will help the organization further its DEI agenda.
“We will use the insights gained from this data to ensure our selection of faculty and our recruitment strategies are diverse, inclusive, and representative of our overall membership,” the AAFP says.
Do No Harm has previously exposed the AAFP’s obsession with DEI. In 2022, at several of the organization’s events, the AAFP held numerous DEI-focused sessions and panels, such as presentations on anti-racism. Anti-racism explicitly calls for racial discrimination to right past historical wrongs. In 2023, the AAFP’s vice president of medical education bemoaned the Supreme Court’s decision that found race-based university admissions unconstitutional, instead calling for alternative means of racial discrimination.
The AAFP’s pursuit of health equity and DEI can also present more serious dangers; for instance, the organization called to reexamine whether race should be used in diagnostic algorithms, arguing that considering race could worsen health disparities between racial groups.
This notion has drawn considerable criticism. Researchers recently warned that the American Heart Association’s decision to remove race from its cardiovascular disease risk calculator could contribute to making millions of people ineligible for necessary medication.
The AAFP is responsible for providing valuable resources to family medicine practitioners. It should take this responsibility seriously.
Rather than further indulge its DEI agenda, it should rid itself of this noxious and harmful ideology.
The AAMC Pushes Faulty Arguments in Ill-Founded Defense of DEI
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) published an article Wednesday attempting to debunk several so-called “myths” about diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at medical schools.
But instead, the AAMC advanced claims that lacked evidence and resorted to ideological platitudes to defend its agenda.
Here’s what they said, and why they’re wrong:
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “diversity efforts are resulting in unqualified students being accepted to medical school.”
Programs that prioritize race over merit are, by definition, prioritizing less qualified applicants over their more qualified peers. If a black or Hispanic student is chosen over a white or Asian student with better test scores, grades, and relevant experience, then less qualified students are being accepted into medical schools.
This practice is unquestionably occurring; we need only look at 2013-2016 admissions data analyzed by the American Enterprise Institute to see 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.
To support its argument, the AAMC cites data showing MCAT scores and graduation rates have remained steady over the past five years.
But this is faulty reasoning; the average test scores of medical students in aggregate can remain steady while racial discrimination is still being practiced and less qualified applicants are being admitted to medical schools. Moreover, race-conscious admissions have been in place at numerous medical schools for far longer than five years, so the five-year range chosen by the AAMC is misleading.
Medical schools are also, by their own admission, deprioritizing test scores and grades in their admissions process. This is explicitly lowering standards to increase diversity.
For instance, numerous medical schools are outright ditching the MCAT, with the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine waiving MCAT requirements specifically for certain applicants from Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The MCAT itself also changed in 2015, spending more time on the “crucial role that sociocultural and behavioral determinants play in our health” and less on biology and physics.
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the second-largest teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, deprioritized test scores for incoming medical residents in favor of “holistic reviews” that weighed candidates’ race. The school also required admissions personnel to undergo unconscious bias training.
At the University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, admissions committee members bemoaned the school’s extraordinarily low admissions standards for minority students, stating that the school was becoming a “failed” institution, according to the Washington Free Beacon. In certain cohorts, “more than 50 percent of students failed standardized tests on emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics,” the Free Beacon reported. These tests typically have a 5 percent failure rate.
The bar for students deemed “underrepresented” is “as low as you could possibly imagine,” an admissions committee member told the Free Beacon. “It completely disregards grades and achievements.”
For yet another example, a 2023 study examining the performance of emergency medicine residents found that the Underrepresented in Medicine (URM) trainees, or trainees who were not white and/or Asian, were deemed to have demonstrated less medical knowledge and less effective patient care.
Similarly, a 2021 study published in Academic Medicine, the AAMC’s own journal, found that URM medical students routinely “experience delayed graduation and course failure” at a higher rate than their Asian and white peers. Of course, the study blames structural racism for this achievement gap.
Moreover, medical schools seem more concerned with DEI efforts than they do with recruiting the best and brightest. A Do No Harm review of the over 100 AAMC-accredited medical schools’ mission statements found the words “diverse” and “diversity” appeared 177 times, while “merit” appeared only once.
These facts are obviously not reflected in AAMC’s defense of DEI, as they undercut the organization’s narrative.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in medical schools are about pushing a political agenda and are a detriment to the practice of medicine.”
The AAMC does not make an effort to refute the first claim that DEI in medical schools is a part of a political agenda. Presumably, that is because the subject is not really up for debate.
In fact, the AAMC itself defines “anti-racism,” a core tenet of DEI, as “the work of actively opposing racism by advocating for changes in political, economic, and social life.” Moreover, as of 2022, over 75% of medical schools actively lobby at the local, state, and federal level for policies related to DEI.
Instead, the AAMC cites data showing racial disparities in health outcomes as justification for the necessity of DEI programs and a more diverse pool of healthcare professionals.
However, the AAMC does not provide any evidence indicating that DEI initiatives are, or would be, effective at addressing these health disparities.
Previously, the AAMC has trotted out the line that “racism” and not race itself drives these health disparities and that race is a “social construct” that has no place in clinical algorithms.
This idea has gained popularity in recent years, but is utterly unscientific; as an example, a recent paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that higher rates of preeclampsia in black women are due to racism, and not biological factors.
However, as Do No Harm’s Ian Kingsbury has shown, the far more likely culprits for these disparities are genetics and behavior, with roughly 55 percent of preeclampsia risk estimated to be genetic.
Moreover, the implication that minority patients can be better treated by minority physicians is similarly unsupported.
As Do No Harm has shown, the majority of the research on the effectiveness of racial concordance, or the treating of patients by a physician of the same race, demonstrates no positive effect on health outcomes.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “DEI is just code for discriminating in favor of Black and Hispanic/Latino people.”
In practice, DEI initiatives involve overt racism. Do No Harm has cataloged scores of racially discriminatory medical school programs, fellowships, and other initiatives that exclude white and/or Asian applicants to advance the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
To counter this obviously true “myth,” the AAMC notes the fact that AAMC enrollment data shows black and Hispanic students are still “underrepresented” at medical schools. By this, the AAMC means that the proportion of black and Hispanic medical students is not equivalent to their share of the U.S. population.
This is a non-sequitur; the current racial composition of medical schools has no bearing on whether or not discrimination in favor of black and Hispanic students is ongoing and widespread.
A better gauge is whether black and Hispanic students are being favored by medical school policies. Beyond the numerous public examples of racially discriminatory behavior by medical schools, we can simply look at which racial groups are favored in medical school admissions.
And according to the aforementioned 2013-2016 admissions data analyzed by the American Enterprise Institute, black and Hispanic students had a far easier time getting into medical school with the same test scores and grades as their white and Asian peers.
This is quite simply racial discrimination.
The AAMC claims it’s a “myth” that “funding of DEI programs would be better spent on scientific advancement or other aspects of medical education.”
Funding for DEI programs would be better directed toward almost anything else.
DEI isn’t simply a distraction from medical schools’ primary mission to educate their students about medicine, it is immoral and dangerous.
Take, for example, the American Heart Association’s decision to remove race from its cardiovascular disease risk calculator in the name of making the tool more “equitable.” A new paper warned the AHA’s changes could make millions of people ineligible for much-needed medication.
Or take a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which attempted to blame systemic racism for excess mortality among the black population, without considering other genetic and societal factors.
The logical conclusion of these ideas is to spend money chasing the phantom of “systemic racism” while failing to address and understand the real culprits for these health outcomes. This naturally leads to worse health outcomes for the exact racial groups the DEI advocates are claiming to support.
Rather than grapple with this, the AAMC instead quotes a DEI advocate who claims the practice is grounded on “science.”
That “science” is mysteriously absent from the AAMC’s article.
This latest AAMC publication is yet another example of the organization’s unwavering commitment to DEI over medical ethics and intellectual rigor. Do No Harm has previously exposed the AAMC for spreading misinformation to advance its DEI agenda.
It seems old habits die hard.
Ohio State Med School Quietly Walks Back Discriminatory Program After Do No Harm Complaint
Uncategorized Ohio, United States DEI Ohio State University College of Medicine Federal government, Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe Ohio State University College of Medicine has quietly scrubbed language from a description of a research program that explicitly discriminated against certain racial groups. The university made this change sometime after Do No Harm filed a federal civil rights complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights alleging that the program violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Ohio State’s Discovery Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP) program provides postbaccalaureate students with a 12-month paid experience in biomedical research, giving them valuable opportunities to make them more attractive Ph.D. candidates.
The program is part of a series of National Institutes for Health (NIH) initiatives aimed at building a “diverse pool” of students who will pursue biomedical doctoral degrees.
Unsurprisingly, to achieve this mission, the Ohio State program’s eligibility criteria stated that applicants are eligible if they are from the “following racial or ethnic groups: Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.”
If you were a white or Asian applicant, you were out of luck.
The program explicitly cited the NIH’s definition of “underrepresented groups in biomedical research” when describing its desired applicants, and stated that its eligibility criteria was required to receive NIH support. The NIH defines underrepresented groups as “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders,” the same racial groups to whom Ohio State restricted the program’s eligibility.
Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark J. Perry filed a federal civil rights complaint against Ohio State in October 2022, alleging that the eligibility criteria was unlawful racial discrimination in violation of Title VI
Then, at some point in late 2023, Ohio State changed its description of the Discovery PREP program and removed all racial eligibility criteria.
In its place, the description of the Discovery PREP program now reads that the program is open to “[a]pplicants that have encountered obstacles to gaining sufficient experience and the skills necessary for admission into a research-centric PhD graduate program in their chosen field of study.”
The Office for Civil Rights closed Do No Harm’s complaint on July 30 by referring it to the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), saying that “HHS is the federal agency that oversees this NIH program.”
However, at this point, the Title VI violation has been corrected by removing the race-based eligibility criteria for the Discovery PREP program. Therefore, the complaint has already been resolved in Do No Harm’s favor and no further action is required.
“Ohio State and NIH changed their eligibility requirements sometime last year to remove all race-based criteria while our complaint was being evaluated, either in response to legal challenges like ours or to avoid legal challenges in the future. Regardless of what exactly motivated that change, Do No Harm can take credit for bringing awareness to race-based discrimination in medicine through our more than 150 Title VI complaints,” said Perry. “The favorable outcome at Ohio State is one more victory for Do No Harm’s ongoing legal challenges to stop U.S. medical schools from illegally discriminating based on race, color, or national origin in violation of Title VI.”
Do No Harm applauds this resolution and we expect many more favorable outcomes in the future as the Office for Civil Rights continues to process and investigate our complaints.
Beyond being unlawful and immoral, practicing racial discrimination significantly compromises medical schools’ primary mission to properly educate graduate students free from divisive racial ideology. The best way to recruit, train, and develop talented physicians and scientists is to prioritize merit and not race.
U.S. universities and medical schools should follow suit and end their illegal practices of prioritizing race in their admissions process and scholarship awards. Medical schools should be on notice that Do No Harm remains steadfast and vigilant in our efforts to legally challenge any race-based discrimination that comes to our attention.
If you are aware of any illegal race-based or sex-based discrimination in U.S. medical education, you can file an anonymous tip here.