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.”
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.
Illustrating the Veiled Costs of DEI
Uncategorized United States DEI Private university, Public university Resources Kevin Jon Williams, MDWhy universities that vigorously enforce racial preferences in selecting medical students avoid racial quotas when recruiting, say, their basketball players
DEI gives the appearance of improving the world only in situations where its alleged benefits are more easily seen than its long-term costs.
Whom does DEI harm? It’s not just the high-performing Asian Americans and others whom medical schools have excluded based on their race. It’s also the patients, of all races, years and years hence, who won’t benefit from the skill and diligence of the individuals now excluded by today’s racist DEI policies.
All of these injured people are unseen – hence voiceless – in current debates.
It is a key concept from Claude-Frédéric Bastiat, the 19th-century economist and member of the French Liberal School, in his book, That Which is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen (1850):
“[I]t almost always happens that when the immediate consequence [of an act, habit, or law] is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, — at the risk of a small present evil.”
This principle explains why universities that vigorously enforce DEI in selecting their undergraduates, medical students, and law students assiduously avoid racial quotas when recruiting, say, their basketball players.
One might ask why the basketball team does not perfectly represent the general population in terms of racial/ethnic groups. Is conspicuous under-representation of Caucasians and Asian-Americans – and conspicuous over-representation of African Americans – a problem of racial bias that cries out to be fixed with racial quotas? As self-anointed anti-racist Ibram X. Kendi (né I. Henry Rogers) has declared:
Clearly, these universities – just like the NBA – utterly ignore race and ethnicity in their drive to get the best players. Why the single-minded laser-focus on merit in prospective basketball players – yet not in tomorrow’s physicians?
Because low-merit basketball players become obvious in the very next game, embarrassingly so, in front of the cash-paying public. But low-merit medical students may take years and years to discover – with predictably tragic results.
Make no mistake that this is a zero-sum game when it comes to medical school classes. Each medical school has a fixed number of slots for each incoming class. Consider a medical school with 150 slots. If an applicant who’s ranked #400 without racial considerations checks the “right” racial box to become #25, then he or she goes from rejected to admitted. That’s what is seen.
What’s unseen is what happens to the applicant who was formerly ranked #150. She or he goes from admitted (#150) to not admitted (#151). That applicant will not become a doctor at that medical school, perhaps not at any medical school.
The problem is often multiplied by 10, or 20, or 50 – depending on how many applicants with weak records but the “right” ancestry are vaulted by the admissions committee across the fixed number of 150. For every one of them (seen), someone with a different ancestry falls from admitted to rejected – and vanishes from sight (not seen). Invisible and voiceless.
It demonstrates the narcissism, and racism, of the applicants who “check the box”. Checking the box is a way of saying,
“Yes! I want to participate in a racist system that punishes Asian-Americans! Yes, I want to get ahead by elbowing a fellow student out of the way, especially one who might have a better application!”
It’s like the old Twilight Zone episode: when the protagonist pushes a button, he’ll get a million dollars, but someone he’s never met dies. It does not change the fact that the person harmed is a real flesh-and-blood individual. Checking the box always hurts another applicant – and may hurt future patients.
My solution? Put the basketball coaches in charge of medical school admissions. The cash-paying public of all races and ethnicities expect to be entertained by basketball players of high-merit – and will be better served by future physicians who are also of high-merit.
Do No Harm Launches “Fire Levine” Campaign Following New Revelations in WPATH Scandal
Uncategorized Gender Ideology Press ReleaseDo No Harm, the nation’s leading medical watchdog group, launched a campaign to fire Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary Rachel Levine following bombshell reports revealing Levine pressured the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) to remove age restrictions from standards of care resulting in children subjected to unscientific, irreversible, life-altering medications and surgeries.
Newly unsealed documents publish emails showing Levine pressured WPATH to remove the age limits due to political concerns, despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting the change. The emails are excerpts from legal filings in a federal lawsuit that opposes Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming care.
In less than 24 hours since the campaign launched, Do No Harm received more than 1,000 signatures on a petition to get Levin to resign immediately or be fired.
Do No Harm’s petition reads, in part: “Levine’s demands were politically motivated and showed no concern for medical evidence or ethics. As the documents show, Levine worried that age restrictions would cause more states to pass laws protecting children … Rachel Levine has harmed children by intervening in the development of medical guidelines. We call on Rachel Levine to resign immediately. Failing that, we call on President Biden to fire Rachel Levine.”
Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb condemned Levine and the Biden Administration in a statement:
“Rachel Levine and the Biden Administration ignored science and subjected children to life altering experimental medical treatments in the name of radical politics. Their unscientific pressure campaign against WPATH to remove age-based guidance for transgender surgeries that risked harming thousands of children. Do No Harm is calling on Levine to resign immediately, or be fired, for putting politics over patients.”
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 8,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and in 14 countries, DNH has achieved more than 9,700 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.
Washington State Medical Association Undermines Law to Fund Racial Concordance
Uncategorized Washington DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffWSMA’s misguided policy is disrespectful to patients, physicians, and may be illegal
Why is the Washington State Medical Association raising money for a project that may be illegal? WSMA, the state chapter of the American Medical Association, appears to be offering racially discriminatory funding, via its foundation, with its new Scholarship and Diversity Advancement Fund.
The foundation says its intent is “to build a more diverse physician population in Washington state by supporting students who are underrepresented in medicine.” Its website notes that racial and ethnic minorities comprise 30 percent of the U.S. population but “only about 10 percent of practicing physicians are Latino, African American, Native American or Alaska Natives combined.”
In its push to increase the number of racial and ethnic minorities in the medical field, the WSMA Foundation is establishing a scholarship fund based on “racial concordance” – a deeply flawed and misguided theory that suggests patients receive better care when treated by practitioners of the same race.
Its website claims: “Physician and patient racial concordance contributes to a more effective therapeutic relationship and improved health care. When the physician is the same race as the patient, patients report higher levels of trust and satisfaction and demonstrate greater treatment compliance. At the same time, medical students trained at diverse schools are more comfortable treating patients from a wide range of racial and ethnic backgrounds.”
Yet, medical research does not support these claims.
Certainly, disparate health outcomes are real challenges facing the American healthcare system, but racial concordance mandates in our hospitals and clinics often fail to account for the severities of patient illnesses and risks of mortality – among other factors – and are not meaningful solutions, as our December 2023 report –“Racial Concordance in Medicine: The Return of Segregation” found.
“The implications for racial concordance should be clear. First, attempts to match patients to doctors on the basis of race hold no promise for producing better care or better outcomes. Instead, as common-sense dictates, patient-provider pairings should be determined by convenience, practicality, and expertise. Second, efforts to increase the number of doctors from any particular racial group will not result in better patient care,” the Do No Harm research discovered.
Further, prioritizing diversity in student admissions at medical schools by offering scholarships to members of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups gives unfair preferential treatment to certain students. Indeed, this practice also circumvents the Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling against affirmative action in education.
The WSMA seems undeterred.
In May, the WSMA and Washington’s three medical schools — the University of Washington School of Medicine, the Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences College of Osteopathic Medicine, and the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine — issued a joint statement expressing support for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts in medicine. “These efforts are foundational to increasing health care access, quality of life, and the experience of belonging in our communities, along with striving for the highest attainable standard of health for all,” their statement professed.
However, even they acknowledge that there is growing momentum to push back against these and other similar efforts— now including a bill in Congress that proposes to end federal funding for U.S. medical schools with DEI programs — which “may have consequences for the work we’re doing here in our state.” In the field of medicine, where a health care provider’s competency can make a life-or-death difference, a smarter approach to qualifying medical school admissions is to emphasize strong academic readiness, as our report suggests.
Yet, with its Scholarship and Diversity Advancement Fund, the WSMA Foundation has set a goal of awarding full-tuition scholarships for four years to three students annually, one at each of Washington’s medical schools. It aims to initially secure $2 million to $3 million to endow the fund, and then to increase that fundraising goal to $5 million (in mid-May, it had raised just over $780,000). Criteria for a scholarship is based on obtaining admission to a Washington medical school, meeting the Association of American Medical Colleges’ definition of “underrepresented”. and having a “commitment to advancing health equity.”
According to the foundation, 15 percent of students overall at the three medical schools in Washington are Black/African American/African, Hispanic/Latinx, Pacific Islander/Hawaiian Native, and American Indian/Alaska Native (using data from 2022-2024). Two of the universities offer no full-tuition scholarships; the other offers a few, the foundation says, though it does not explain the demographics of scholarship award recipients.
To emphasize the importance it places on diverse racial representations, the foundation cites a 2022 working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, claiming that “patients who share racial characteristics with the physicians treating them demonstrate higher rates of both treatment compliance and personal satisfaction” and that “newborn/physician racial concordance is associated with a significant improvement in mortality for black infants.”
These claims simply do not align with the preponderance of evidentiary scholarship, including the research conducted by fellows at Do No Harm.
While identifying the causes and potential solutions to meaningfully address racial health disparities is a worthy cause, restructuring the provision of healthcare in America along racial lines – based on faulty and misguided information – isn’t the answer. Pursuing this agenda fosters distrust between physicians and patients of different races and doubt among patients and physicians about the qualifications of providers.
We can chart an alternate path – one that promotes wellbeing, confidence in the capacities and preparedness of our medical professionals, and protects patients from profiling that leads to diminished outcomes and increased sociopolitical divide.
VCU School of Medicine Highlights the Promise and Limitations of Affirmative Action Prohibition
Uncategorized Virginia DEI Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffShould medical school be reserved for the best and brightest or those who check arbitrary diversity checkmarks?
Last summer, the Supreme Court went a long way in clarifying the answer in ruling that race-conscious college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The explicit racial favoritism that occurred in medical schools through affirmative action is (or at least ought to be) relegated to the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, the Court’s decision doesn’t mean that competence, excellence, and merit win outright. Admissions guidelines obtained by Do No Harm from the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) School of Medicine reveal that the school continues to reward “diversity.” Specifically, applicants receive additional points if they “would add something unique to the class (e.g., cultural background, life experience, artistic talent).”
The VCU guidelines offer no justification as to why the school values things like cultural background, rural habitation, or artistic talent, none of which predict clinical success.
As a practical matter, there is simply no reason that these types of traits should factor into admissions decisions. As a legal matter, awarding points for “cultural background” is likely a smokescreen for an attempt to reward candidates from racial groups “underrepresented in medicine.” In a notable exchange in the Supreme Court, a lawyer representing Students for Fair Admissions opined that it would be acceptable for colleges to reward students who write essays about dealing with cultural differences. In response, an incredulous Justice Kagan (who voted to uphold affirmative action) quipped: “The race is part of the culture and the culture is part of the race, isn’t it? I mean, that’s slicing the baloney awfully thin.”
Kagan isn’t necessarily correct to conflate race and culture. They are in fact distinct concepts, and it’s possible that VCU—for dubious reasons—aspires to reward applicants who, for example, were raised by cowboys in Texas or monks in the Himalayas.
However, it is clear that many across the healthcare establishment are searching for workarounds to the Court’s ruling against race conscious admissions, just as it is clear that VCU maintains a firm commitment to the DEI agenda. Against this backdrop, vigilance is needed to ensure that VCU sees matters differently from Justice Kagan and that race and culture are in fact treated as distinct concepts. Or, sensibly, the school could scrap the “diversity” component of their admissions process altogether in recognizing that it doesn’t predict physician quality but crowds out aptitude, work ethic and other traits that truly matter.
Dartmouth Dean Urges Students to Seek Lawmakers’ and Governor’s Defense of Gender Ideology
Uncategorized New Hampshire Gender Ideology Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffUsing official channels to oppose legislation raises serious institutional questions
Faculty at Dartmouth are using official institutional channels to rally student opposition to legislation that would classify individuals according to biological sex.
According to an email obtained by Do No Harm, faculty at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine are seeking to bolster student opposition to several bills advanced by the New Hampshire state legislature. “Recent legislative changes have raised concerns about the rights and well-being of our transgender community members,” wrote Tara Cunningham, associate dean for student life at Geisel, in an email from her official Dartmouth account to a student Listserv. “By standing in solidarity and promoting inclusive practices, we can foster a healthcare environment that supports the health and happiness of all our community members.”
Cunningham went on to urge students to contact New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu and voice their opposition to the legislation. The bill, New Hampshire HB 619, would ban gender transition surgeries for children. Other legislation targeted in Cunningham’s email would require people at sports facilities, schools, and prisons to use the bathroom corresponding with their biological sex, ban biological males from competing in female sports teams in grades 5–12, and keep parents apprised of LGBTQ-related materials in schools. Such legislation would reinforce protections for students and children from being victimized in school or receiving irremediable sex reassignment surgeries while underage.
The completely justified premise of this legislation makes Dartmouth’s opposition even more concerning. The email to the student body also contained the signatures of Lisa McBride, Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging at the Geisel school, and medical student Nicholas An. It’s not entirely clear whether the email constitutes official guidance from the school, besides being sent from an associate dean’s school email to a official Dartmouth Listserv. No word on gender ideology has been forthcoming from Dartmouth president Sian Leah Beilock, herself the subject of recent controversy over having police remove a pro-Palestine encampment on Dartmouth’s campus.
If this opposition to defending biological sex is not representative of Dartmouth’s institutional position, the University ought to clarify this. Disagreement among faculty at a private university is a completely normal fixture of academic life and practice, but the use of official institutional channels to urge med students to advance gender ideology is a concerning development that Dartmouth ought to take seriously and explain.
The full text of the email from Cunningham, McBride, and An is below:
Do No Harm Sues American Association of University Women for Racial Discrimination
Uncategorized Washington DC DEI Professional organization Press ReleaseRICHMOND, VA, June 20, 2024 – Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against the discriminatory “Selected Professions Fellowships” program offered by the American Association of University Women (AAUW), which illegally excludes certain women based on race.
Women pursuing an education in one of AAUW’s designated degree programs can receive $20,000 and networking opportunities. Fellowships awarded for medicine, law, and business are “restricted to women of color” and are “open only to women from ethnic minority groups … Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino/a, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.”
AAUW’s “Selected Professions Fellowships” program violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981, which requires racial equality in “to mak[ing] and enforce[ing] contracts.”
Do No Harm is filing on behalf of its medical-student members who meet all criteria laid out by AAUW but are ineligible to apply to the fellowship because of their race.
“We must keep identity politics out of medical education whether that be in the classroom or in medical fellowship programs,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Every patient deserves access to the best possible care. Yet, ideologically driven fellowships such as those offered by the American Association of University Women, do not improve care. Medical fellowships should be awarded to students because of merit, not race.”
“The American Association of University Women should be ashamed of their archaic and illegal practice of discrimination based on race, said Kristina Rasmussen, Executive Director of Do No Harm. “As a women-led organization they should be lifting up all women. The AAUW should reverse course and open their fellowships and other opportunities to all women.”
Do No Harm Comments on Arizona Governor’s Veto of the Detransitioner Bill of Rights
Uncategorized Arizona Gender Ideology State government Press ReleaseGov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed Arizona’s proposed Detransitioner Bill of Rights – a policy that aims to help young people hurt by a growing industry of medical practitioners and insurers that fund and perform gender transition surgeries on minors.
Mounting research suggests that so-called “gender affirming care” is harmful to children’s physical and mental health, with adverse health outcomes that threaten their wellbeing for the long term. To address this, a bipartisan group of leaders on the ground in Arizona sought recourse on behalf of these children and their families, many of whom are adults living with the adverse impacts of these ill-advised procedures being performed as children.
Chloe Cole, a victim and advocate on behalf of other gender-transitioned children and their families seeking accountability, responded to Gov. Hobbs’s veto:
“I have experienced first-hand the destruction that the gender transitioning industry can wreck on children. Our kids deserve to know that the same industry that abused them will be required to help them rebuild and restore their bodies. Clearly, Gov. Hobbs has a different agenda. Not only does her veto signal complete disregard for the children who have been preyed upon by this industry, but she also reveals her tacit support for the reputation Arizona is gaining as the nation’s emerging hub for the mutilation of minors. That may be a badge Gov. Hobbs is proud to wear, but I am confident that the vast majority of Arizonians will be deeply ashamed, as I am today.”
You can learn more about the Detransitioner Bill of Rights here: https://donoharmmedicine.org/bill-of-rights/
American Board of Emergency Medicine Closed for Debate on DEI
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffLike many other institutions, the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) accelerated its promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion after the killing of George Floyd and its public statement on systemic racism in June of 2020.
Four years later, there is now little room left for debate within the organization.
In early 2022, ABEM’s Board of Directors declared diversity, equity, and inclusion a “strategic imperative.” A new committee on DEI was tasked with reviewing ABEM documentation, studying the perceptions of DEI among ABEM stakeholders, and working with external consultants to create new recommendations to advance DEI.
ABEM also developed the Dr. Leon Haley, Jr. Bridge to the Future of Emergency Medicine Academy, a multi-week, all-expenses-paid mentorship program limited to medical students of certain races and identities prioritized by ABEM.
In July 2023, ABEM doubled down, issuing a revised Code of Professionalism that requires board-eligible and certified physicians to agree to “mitigate both implicit or explicit biases based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, or religion when providing patient care.”
Then, in November 2023, these efforts culminated in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education awarding the Barbara Ross-Lee, D.O., Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Award to ABEM.
ABEM’s has transformed itself so rapidly that it has left little time or space for important questions about the foundations of its DEI policies. A major justification for DEI as an institutional priority was, for example, the claim by ABEM’s board of directors that diversity “leads to better patient care” served as a major justification for DEI as an institutional priority.
Of course, that claim is echoed by many other medical institutions, such as the American Association of Medical Colleges.
Yet, most of the evidence used to support the connection between race and patient outcomes does not actually evaluate outcomes, but perceptions of outcomes. This difference is subtly conceded by the AAMC. But even among studies that examine patient perceptions of outcomes based on the race of their doctors, the evidence is mixed.
Even the AAMC concedes the lack of evidence behind the claim that racial concordance between patients and doctors affects health outcomes: “that actual direct linkage… it’s not there.”
That concession, however, does not prevent AAMC, ABEM, or any other medical institution from continuing to spread misinformation about the link between the race of doctors and patient outcomes.
ABEM’s embrace of DEI and the lack of debate about its foundation are not unique. But the accelerated pace of change happening there serves as a cautionary example for other organizations that have not yet gone so far.
VCU Grand Rounds Become Pulpit for DEI-Infused Misinformation
Uncategorized Virginia, Washington DC DEI Howard University College of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffDEI acolytes are loathe to let facts get in the way of narratives. Hopefully, students and faculty at the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) School of Medicine can spot the difference.
On May 30th, internal medicine grand rounds featured a lecture from Dr. Quinn Capers, a professor at the Howard University College of Medicine. The topic was “Diversity in Medicine: Battling the Anti-DEI Backlash with Data.”
Dr. Capers began with the question: “Why do we seek diversity in medicine?” He offered possible answers in a multiple choice format:
Ultimately, to the surprise of no one, Dr. Capers claimed “all of the above.” The evidence cited reveals more about how DEI steers medicine away from the pursuit of truth than anything else.
The first claim—that physicians from minority groups are more likely to serve minority or low-income populations—is true. However, the claim represents a solution in search of a problem.
Constraints on the supply of physicians are due to a limited number of seats in medical schools, not the number of people who aspire to practice medicine. There are thousands of highly qualified applicants rejected from medical school every year who would gladly work in urban or low-income communities.
The best hope for closing health disparities between different racial groups is to ensure that everyone has access to high-quality doctors, not recruiting individuals from specific identity groups to treat members of that group.
The second claim—that minority patients are more likely to follow the recommendations of minority physicians—is simply untrue. Dr. Capers references two studies to justify this idea. However, he conveniently ignores that a larger body of evidence contradicts the theory.
For example, studies by Clark et al., 2004, Howard et al., 2001, Jibara et al., 2011, Konrad et al., 2005, Saha et al., 2003, Schoenthaler et al., 2012 and Walsh et al., 2009 contradict Capers’ claim. Cherry-picking evidence is a regrettably familiar tactic among DEI devotees, but that doesn’t make it any less concerning. Proper medical practice should entail considering the weight and quality of evidence on a topic, not selecting evidence that tracks with preferred narratives.
A lack of candor on the limitations of the two cherry-picked studies is also notable. The first (Saha & Beach, 2020) entails an experiment in which black and white patients with coronary artery disease view video vignettes in which a doctor recommends a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). The study participants are randomly assigned to watch a vignette of a white doctor or a black doctor. Surveys administered right after the videos reveal that black patients who were assigned to watch the black doctor gave higher scores to the “perceived necessity of CABG” and the “likelihood of undergoing CABG.”
These findings represent tenuous evidence of the claim that minority patients follow the recommendations of minority physicians. It is well-documented that intentions reported on surveys are poorly predictive of behavior, including receipt of medical interventions. Respondents claiming that they are more likely to undergo CABG after watching a short video is a far cry from actually undergoing the procedure.
The other study (Alsan et al., 2019) referenced to plug the idea that minority patients follow the recommendations of minority doctors also offers tenuous evidence. The study consists of a two-part experiment. In the first part, black patients are shown a picture of a doctor and then surveyed about their willingness to undergo certain preventative health interventions.
Willingness to receive the treatments does not differ by the race of the doctor in the photo. Differences are only observed after the patients meet with the physicians. It wouldn’t be shocking if by random chance the six black doctors in the experiment happened to be more persuasive than the eight non-black doctors. It’s also possible that their persuasiveness was not coincidental. As the researchers admit, the doctors “could have inferred” that the study was about racial concordance and could have altered their behavior in response, a phenomenon known as a Hawthorne effect.
The third claim—that diversity on research teams enhances impact of research—is embellished. The authors of the paper cited by Capers (AlShebli et al., 2018) observe a correlation between research team diversity and the number of citations that papers receive. However, correlation is not causation, and there are confounding factors that more credibly explain the relationship. For example, liberals ascribe comparatively higher importance to racial diversity. That probably means, on average, racially diverse research teams produce research that more closely aligns with liberal orthodoxy and accrue more citations as a result.
Like the second claim, the fourth claim—that a diverse physician workforce will reduce racial healthcare disparities—is an assertion that relies on extreme cherry-picking. Dr. Capers cites one study—Snyder et al., 2023—to assert that black patients receive better care from black doctors. In fact, many studies address whether racial concordance is associated with improved outcomes, and those studied have been summarized across two systematic reviews published in the last five years, as Do No Harm documented, in a report on racial concordance in medicine. Systematic reviews are a useful mechanism to prevent cherry-picking and instead make sense of aggregated evidence. The two systematic reviews that touch upon racial concordance and outcomes emphatically reject a connection between them.
The one study that Dr. Capers cites to justify the claim that black patients receive better care from black doctors purports to show that, at the county level, a higher proportion of black primary care providers is associated with a longer life expectancy for black residents and a reduction in the black-white mortality gap. The way that it derives a result at odds with other studies on racial concordance and outcomes is not difficult to decipher. There are a limitless number of arbitrary decisions that researchers make in developing mathematical models. For example, researchers must decide which variables to include, what time periods to observe, and which statistical techniques to use. Generally, researchers demonstrate that their findings would have been the same if they made different judgements about these things. Doing so shows readers that the researchers did not engage in p-hacking, a regrettably common practice whereby researchers try different model specifications until they find one that produces their preferred result. That the authors of this study did not demonstrate whether their findings are sensitive to model specification represents an enormous red flag.
Wherever it appears, DEI inevitably reveals itself to be an ideology at war with reason, facts, and logic. Medical students at VCU and across the country deserve better.
Do No Harm Calls on CMS to Withdraw Proposed Rule that Encourages Racial Prioritization for Kidney Transplants
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Testimony and Comments Executive Do No Harm StaffOn June 12, 2024, Do No Harm Board Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb submitted a comment on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) recently-proposed rule regarding the Increasing Organ Transplant Access (IOTA) Model, which will incentivize hospitals to create so-called “health equity” goals to reduce disparities in treatment for end-stage renal disease. If the rule takes effect, providers will almost certainly and intentionally select patients for kidney transplantation based on race. A more sensible solution—one focused on patient education—is possible and advisable.
In an effort to prevent CMS from encouraging such race-based practices with regards to kidney transplants, Dr. Goldfarb and Do No Harm are calling on CMS to withdraw its proposed rule.
Read the full comment below:
The Chronicle of Higher Education Admits it’s Easy to Hate DEI Training—and They’re Right
Uncategorized United States DEI Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Chronicle of Higher Education is at it again. Its new report, “The Future of Diversity Training: Better Ways to Make Your College More Inclusive,” is in line with its webpage dedicated to combatting “The Assault on DEI” complete with a “DEI Legislation Tracker”.
Of course, the new report features all the usual talking points: DEI is good. Microaggressions are bad. Implicit bias training is necessary. And so on.
But there’s a twist this time. Buried in the report is an implicit – and occasionally explicit – admission that DEI training is not well-liked.
The Chronicle’s own data suggest that 47 percent of survey participants find it, at best “neither helpful nor unhelpful” or, at worst, “very/somewhat unhelpful”.
The authors of the report state that DEI training is good as long as no one speaks out against it or dares to express their concerns, which could “prompt people to avoid it, or even cause it to backfire.”
So, to recap, half of folks will either hate it or won’t get anything out of it. But you need to be trained. And it will be good – as long as nobody pushes back.
For their $8 billion per-year investment, the pro-DEI crowd isn’t getting much bang for their buck.
Another classic from the report: “Bad diversity training is worse than none at all.”
Really? Did the copy editor fall asleep?
At least good training makes a real difference though, right? Nope. Even the report acknowledges that the jury is out on DEI trainings, stating in clear terms that “A large body of research on the effectiveness of diversity training is inconclusive,” and “Some studies show that diversity training may actually backfire.”
The report goes on:
Critics of DEI could not have put it any better. Put simply, the report acknowledges the blatant failures of DEI up to this point, admits the lack of statistical rigor in many DEI evaluations, and showcases lackluster support for DEI.
One chart from the report even suggests that certain DEI trainings actually decrease diversity, with a 13.9 percent drop in black female managers following diversity trainings—a sharper decline than any other subgroup.
Yet, the report concludes that more DEI – even “bad” DEI – is the solution.
It is long-past time for the DEI industrial complex and higher education to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
North Carolina Schools Under the Microscope on DEI — What Will Legislators Do?
Uncategorized North Carolina DEI East Carolina University, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffWhile campus administrators across the country continue to grapple with political protests, some of them violent and destructive, a more positive trend appears to be taking shape at two North Carolina universities with medical schools.
But with policymakers watching, how sincere is it? And how long will it last?
At least on paper, East Carolina University and the University of North Carolina are moving away from the divisive policies of the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) culture toward strategies that instead emphasize a candidate’s academic competency and personal readiness for the rigors of medical school and, ultimately, a medical practice.
In the recent past, according to documents Do No Harm obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), East Carolina University had injected DEI ideology into several aspects of its application process. For example, an interview question for applicants included as recently as 2022 was: “Name at least 3 ways in which classmates who differ from you in regard to their cultural, ethnic, religious, socioeconomic background, or sexual orientation could contribute to your development as a future physician.”
Even before the interview process, East Carolina’s screening guidelines in July 2022 gave points for life experiences and obstacles overcome such as discrimination, substance abuse, family violence, homelessness, or “mental issues with clear evidence of healing and recovery,” among other factors. Candidates also gained points for conducting research, demonstrating leadership, teamwork and service to others, as well as clinical experience. Those guidelines gave extra points for applicants who were underrepresented minorities, first-generation college students, and those who had “served minorities or marginalized populations.”
According to additional documents Do No Harm obtained, East Carolina has moved away from DEI. Now, interview questions cover situations involving compassion/empathy, responsibility/reliability, teamwork, and professionalism.
More publicly, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill is also taking positive steps. The Board of Trustees in May voted unanimously to redirect $2.3 million that funded DEI programs toward public safety initiatives on campus. “I think that DEI in a lot of people’s minds is divisiveness, exclusion and indoctrination,” trustee Marty Kotis told Chapel Hill-based public radio station WUNC.
Why the shift? For one thing, compliance with the June 2023 Supreme Court ruling ending affirmative action in education, based on the work of Students for Fair Admissions at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, may be contributing to these changes.
Another factor is the potential for legislative efforts to prohibit DEI spending in public higher education. North Carolina would follow a number of other states including competitors Florida and Texas.
Under this microscope, North Carolina’s public university system is actively considering a policy to eliminate DEI system-wide.
The legislature seems content to watch and wait for now. And the public should encourage and embrace the state’s university system moving away from DEI on its own.
But members of the public and policymakers alike should regard any step in that direction with a healthy dose of skepticism unless and until a clear prohibition is codified into state law.
Members of Congress Push Pro-DEI Resolution—And Medical Orgs Line Up Behind It
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Commentary Legislative Do No Harm StaffStates across America are rolling back the pervasive influence that DEI has had in medical schools across the country. Some members of Congress, on the other hand, have rushed to its defense. And medical organizations have their backs.
Last month, five members of Congress introduced a resolution, H.Res.1180, entitled “Recognizing the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in medical education.”
It contains the predictable platitudes. Among these are particularly dubious claims about racial concordance between providers and patients leading to better healthcare and the importance of DEI principles in medical education.
How many times must the disproven notion of racial concordance be disproven? Laymen and providers alike should understand that a patient’s access to high-quality care is far more predictive of health outcomes than access to care from providers of the same racial backgrounds. Increasing the quality of care and access to that care, not segregation, should be the priority.
And, of course, the resolution features the predictable contradiction that “discrimination, bias, and racism in medical education directly impacts the delivery of equitable health care throughout the United States,” as if DEI represents the repudiation, rather than the continuation, of discrimination, bias, and racism.
Concerned providers and members of the public have grown accustomed to virtue signaling and silly resolutions in Congress. But what might surprise some are the groups standing behind it.
More than two dozen major medical organizations in the United States have signed on to “endorse” this radical resolution. These include notable entities like the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the American College of Physicians (ACP), the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM), the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), and more.
Unfortunately, these groups have publicly weighed in on the side of DEI many times. For example, the AAMC has previously come under fire for advancing critical race theory on students, while also training physicians to become activists for DEI. Similarly, AACOM has pushed DEI policies in its accreditation standards for colleges of osteopathic medicine.
This resolution has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where it is likely to remain in limbo for some time.
Indeed, several members of the committee have co-sponsored Rep. Greg Murphy’s EDUCATE Act, which would ban DEI in medical schools which receive federal funding. Of course, the AAMC and other medical organizations have lobbied against the EDUCATE Act.
Dues-paying individuals in these organizations would do well to remember what these groups stand for and do with their resources when asked to renew their membership. And policymakers unamused by this resolution and these medical organization’s pro-DEI stands should remember this moment when these organizations lobby for more power and money.