Do No Harm Sues National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians For Engaging In Racial Discrimination

,

On January 10, 2024, Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against the discriminatory “diversity scholarship” offered by the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT), which excludes white students from being considered.

White applicants are excluded from consideration for the scholarship, which awards students $1,250 for educational materials and requires them to sign a contract before receiving the funds.

According to the lawsuit, this scholarship offered by NAEMT is illegal under several federal laws, including 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, which “protects the equal rights of all persons … to make and enforce contracts without respect to race.”

Do No Harm filed the suit on behalf of a student who needs the scholarship but cannot apply because she is white and requested:

  • A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring NAEMT from closing the application period, selecting scholarship recipients, or enforcing the racially discriminatory eligibility criteria;
  • A permanent injunction barring NAEMT from continuing the program;
  • And nominal damages in the amount of $1.

“The National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians is given the important responsibility of training America’s first responders,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Like all aspects of healthcare, training the best and brightest to provide the best care for patients should be the primary concern of all medical organizations, not the skin color of an EMT. First responders and all medical professionals should be given opportunities, training, and scholarships on the basis of merit.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Click here to read the complaint in its entirety.

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 6,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and in 14 countries, DNH has achieved more than 4,900 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

American Society of Hematology Says It Has ‘Moral Imperative to Confront and Dismantle Racism’

,

The American Society of Hematology (ASH) is committed to a lofty goal that has nothing to do with the delivery of sound medical care – what it calls a “moral imperative to confront and dismantle racism.”

The organization has joined many other medical societies on the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) train, even offering an ”Anti-Racism Toolkit” on its website with resources to counter so-called “systemic racism.”

The organization says it finds itself “called upon to discuss and address health disparities while teaching, conducting research and delivering care.”

“Racism affects one’s life experience in ways that have tangible consequences on our patients, our practice, and the field of medicine,” ASH continues, further stating:

Stereotyping, bias, lack of representation, and racism perpetuate false beliefs, lead to misdiagnosis, dangerously narrow clinical decision making, and perpetuate implicit bias, all of which lead to real health disparities. These forces also affect the integrity and safety of the learning climate and impact the success of future hematologists. Therefore, we at ASH have a moral imperative to confront and dismantle racism. 

Figure 1. American Society of Hematology Anti-Racism Toolkit landing page.

The “toolkit” is just one of many DEI initiatives at ASH.

In October, Do No Harm (DNH) reported ASH was offering a medical student “award” – for minority applicants only. “How does the Society justify this racial discrimination?” DNH observed, adding, “The award is supposed to help people who are ‘under-represented in health-related sciences.’ Activists say that recruiting such individuals is essential to eliminating health disparities.”

The narrative of health equity and health disparities claims “systemic racism” and “oppression” prevent minority individuals from obtaining access to adequate health care. According to the radical dogma, more healthcare providers from “marginalized” identity groups would allow the healthcare system to achieve “racial concordance,” and supposedly enable more patients from these same minority groups to obtain higher quality health care. However, a recent report by Do No Harm’s Director of Research Ian Kingsbury and senior fellow Jay Greene shows that racial concordance does not ensure better care or better outcomes.

The ASH website also contains a “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Health Care” page that boasts the organization “continues its long-standing commitment to combating inequities in hematology, supporting scientists and clinicians from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine, and embracing diverse voices across the patient and health care communities.”

The organization’s statement that “ASH stands in solidarity with our members and patients in communities that are targets of discrimination, harassment, and violence, and remains committed to combatting all forms of bigotry” sounds more like a political and ideological statement reflecting the tenets of CRT than one concerning its field of medicine. ASH continues about its DEI “four-pronged approach to fulfilling the Society’s commitment to diversity and inclusion”:

  1. Inspiring, recruiting, and supporting researchers and clinicians from diverse backgrounds to pursue and succeed in careers in hematology and related fields.
  2. Involving people with diverse perspectives, talents, and experiences in leadership, volunteer, and staff positions.
  3. Providing resources and education to help build awareness of and seek to dismantle systemic racism and other forms of discrimination affecting our members and patients.
  4. Advocating for policies and supporting programs that aim to eliminate health disparities in the care of hematology patients.
Figure 2. Resources available via the ASH’s “DEI in Health Care” page.

Like many organizations demanding compliance with DEI ideology, ASH has reportedly insisted attendees at its annual meetings commit to the practice of its radical doctrine.

A current Hematology representative for his state to the Carrier Advisory Committee to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) told DNH he was instructed to sign ASH’s “code of conduct” in order to attend its annual meeting. The opening statement in the Volunteer Code of Conduct notes that the mission of ASH is to foster “equitable” – not individualized – care to patients.

“Often, ASH will see me as a ‘volunteer’ and invite me to ASH headquarters for the annual meeting,” the source said. “I received the provided document from ASH demanding that I sign their ‘code of conduct.’ Due to previous political actions that ASH has endorsed,” the source continued, “I am not a member, nor do I consider myself a volunteer of the organization. However, if I do not sign the document, I suspect that ASH will no longer allow my participation at the annual CAC Hematology-Oncology meetings.”

Figure 3. Opening statements of the ASH Volunteer Code of Conduct.

DNH also obtained screenshots from a source familiar with ASH procedures regarding the November issue of the organization’s flagship journal Blood – for which the 2023 subscription rate is a pricey $2,050. The journal contained an ad for a DEI program that promises to teach hematologists “how to address implicit bias” in their field.

“Deepen your knowledge about systemic racism and health inequities in the field of hematology,” the ad in the screenshot promises to instruct, describing the program’s topics as:

  • Hematological malignancies inequities in acute myeloid leukemia
  • Disparities in access to cell therapies and transplants
  • Gender disparities in bleeding disorders, and more
Figure 4. Advertisement from the print edition of Blood, the ASH journal (November 9, 2023).

Though the ad sends hematologists to the website hematology.org/health-equity, that site now delivers an error message with no archived versions available.

Politicized medicine in the form of “health equity” and radical concepts like anti-racism and racial concordance cultivate an activist mindset intended to create division according to immutable characteristics and group identities. As a scientific organization, the American Society of Hematology must abandon ideologies that have no evidence to support them, and return to its scientifically-based mission from early 2020 – a time when DEI and anti-racism did not dominate every corner of its operations.

Do No Harm Files Amicus Brief In Support of Texas’ Efforts to Protect Children From Harmful “Gender Medicine”

,

Add Texas to the long list of states where Do No Harm is taking action to protect children from dangerous gender ideology and medical treatments.

On Friday, December 22, 2023, we submitted an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief to the Supreme Court of Texas, showing support for the state’s efforts to uphold its law prohibiting the practice of experimental gender medicine on minors. The plaintiffs challenging the law include physicians who are practicing so-called “gender-affirming care” and others who want these harmful interventions to continue. In the brief, Do No Harm explains that:

  • Physicians who claim to be experts in dispensing “gender-affirming care” actually do not have any more expertise than the general community of pediatricians in dealing with children with gender dysphoria. Therefore, their argument that their opinions should be determinative is invalid;
  • The plaintiffs and their experts changed critical definitions from the sources they cite to make it appear as if gender identity is innate and immutable and, therefore, justifies imposing unproven medical therapies onto adolescents;
  • The current scientific evidence reveals that the practice of experimental gender medicine on minors causes significant harm, carries serious unknown risks, and offers no proven benefit; and
  • The plaintiff physicians who brought the lawsuit (and the hospital they are affiliated with) have misrepresented and hidden their experimental gender interventions while flouting established ethical standards, including informed consent.

We are watching the developments of this litigation, and oral arguments will take place in the coming weeks. Do No Harm hopes that the Court will not be misled, and will uphold Texas’s law (SB14) to protect children from these harmful and irreversible treatments.

Read the full text of the amicus brief here.

Do No Harm Sues Louisiana Governor to Block Racial Discrimination in Medical Board Appointments

The lawsuit argues the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners appointment criteria is unconstitutional

On January 4, 2024, medical watchdog Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards due to unlawful racial mandates requiring the governor to exclude non-minority candidates for a certain number of positions of the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.

The lawsuit, filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of Do No Harm, alleges that the racial mandate is unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Do No Harm seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction preventing Governor Edwards from enforcing or attempting to enforce the racial mandate.

“Choosing candidates to oversee the critical aspect of the state’s medical field based on anything other than merit is corrosive to the mission and perception of the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “This type of discriminatory mandate is not only unconstitutional, but also reflects the politicization of healthcare that is dangerous for patients and physicians. Expertise should be the determining factor, and Louisiana must get rid of discriminatory practices to refocus on medical excellence.”

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division.

Background

  • The Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners is comprised of ten members appointed by the governor.
  • In 2018, the legislature enacted a law requiring the governor to make every other newly appointed member for certain Board slots on the basis of race.
  • Given this racial mandate, four seats that require race-specific appointments will become available within the next two years.
  • Do No Harm’s lawsuit says that qualified potential board appointees will not be given equal consideration for the seats that will come open, which is a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment protections.

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 6,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and in 14 countries, DNH has achieved more than 4,900 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

The Nebraska Legislature Proposes Implicit Bias Training Requirements for Health Professionals

Yet another state is seeking to impose offensive DEI-related training requirements onto its physicians, nurses, and multiple healthcare professionals.

Lawmakers in Nebraska have introduced a bill with the intent “to require implicit bias or diversity, equity, and inclusion training for medical providers credentialed under the Uniform Credentialing Act.” Legislative Bill 291 (LB291) will compel all healthcare professionals – even veterinary medicine providers – to complete DEI or implicit bias training on an annual basis.

With new credential applications and renewals that begin on or after October 1, 2024, licensees must complete “a program designed to increase awareness of prejudices and partialities” and “reduce prejudice and discrimination.” The result is purported to be “reducing inequitable health treatments and outcomes.” To administer LB291, the total cost to Nebraska taxpayers is estimated to be $328,896. This money would have a real impact on health care disparities if it were committed to improving outreach programs to communities with insufficient health care access.

Do No Harm has explained that “implicit bias” is a concept that places people into identity groups based on skin color, labeling them as either the “oppressed” or the “oppressors.” Despite constant claims to the contrary, there simply is no evidence that medical professionals deliver patient care differently based on their patients’ immutable characteristics. A so-called “test” that has been widely used to measure an individual’s implicit biases has been proven to be unreliable and based on flawed science. Yet, state legislatures like Nebraska continue to create DEI training mandates that place additional burdens on healthcare providers who are already struggling with burnout and constant demands for their time.

States like Oklahoma and Texas have taken measures to remove divisive and dangerous DEI initiatives from their public universities, and Kentucky recently rescinded its implicit bias training requirement for nurses. Policymakers in Nebraska need to give serious consideration this trend, as well as the negative impact that LB291 will have on its 114,000 healthcare professionals.

Vituity’s (CEP AMERICA LLC.) Racially Discriminatory Incentive Program Ending Following Do No Harm’s Challenge

Do No Harm agreed to settle its lawsuit against the unlawful and discriminatory incentive program offered by Vituity. The medical staffing agency said it would end the “Black Physician Leadership Incentive, ” an incentive program (with a sign-on bonus of up to $100,000) solely offered to black physicians. After Do No Harm sued, Vituity quietly took down the advertisement for the Black Physician Leadership Incentive from its website.

The federal court observed that Do No Harm made a “compelling argument” that Vituity was “blatantly violat[ing] various federal laws.” The court also found that it was “undisputed” that Vituity’s program “discriminate[d] based on race.”

Moving forward, Vituity will no longer consider race when giving doctors incentives.

“The end of Vituity’s racist program is a victory for patients. Medical professionals should be hired on merit alone and medical organizations should abandon the divisive identity politics being used as the basis to implement the debunked theory of racial concordance. Patients want and deserve the best doctors and the best medical care regardless of skin color or the racial makeup of their physician.” Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, board chair of Do No Harm.

Rutgers University Shows Support for Radical Activist Organizations – And Seeks Med School Applicants Dedicated to Social Justice

,

Rutgers University and its schools of medicine have long been dedicated to pushing politicized ideologies in its medical education programs and application policies, and the M.D. program selection process seeks to determine which of its applicants will be similarly committed to the social justice agenda. But most concerning is that the university’s activism has included radical and discriminatory causes.

The Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (NJMS) in Newark and the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS) in Piscataway both have active DEI offices with many of the typical “resources” to promote its social justice positions. RWJMS even says that its “racial and ethnic diversity and equity” efforts for faculty and student numbers specifically target “Blacks and Hispanics.”

Figure 1. From the Rutgers RWJ Medical School Office of Inclusion & Diversity.

This perspective is reflected in the RWJMS and NJMS secondary essay questions for applicants to the M.D. degree program. Since the 2018-2019 application cycle, the school has been asking for information to identify students according to identity groups and activist causes:

  • 2018-2019: How do you identify racially? Ethnically? Culturally?
  • 2020-2022: We are committed to an environment which fosters collaboration, cohesiveness, equity and social justice. With this in mind, how will you contribute to the NJMS community?
  • 2023-2024: We are committed to supporting our NJMS community by enhancing collaboration between students, staff, and faculty, with a dedicated focus on humanism, health equity and social justice. How do you envision yourself contributing to the NJMS community?

As we reported in October, “humanism” is a progressive viewpoint that “advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice.” Of course, while this sounds like a worthwhile approach, what it really means is discrimination based on group characteristics and has led to the revolting surge in antisemitism that is damaging our nation.

It’s no wonder that the medical schools at Rutgers have evolved to adopt these philosophies. In June 2020, the Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences (RBHS) Faculty Affairs office took an additional step in fostering radical activism with a post by the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Inclusion, and Development. There were no words associated with this post – titled “white coats for black lives”–which featured a picture of students wearing white lab coats staging a “die-in.”

Figure 2. RBHS Faculty Affairs blog post from June 5, 2020.

During the winter of 2021, RWJMS continued its support of White Coats for Black Lives (WC4BL) with a 48-page publication describing “A Quest for Anti-Racism.”

Figure 3. RWJMS publication from Winter 2021.

The piece features multiple photographs of medical students kneeling with fists in the air and holding signs promoting Black Lives Matter. It also confirms RWJMS’s policy on student selection: “Rather than only prioritizing on standardized test scores,” the article states, “the medical school values a candidate’s commitment to service, experience working with underserved populations, and understanding of social determinants of health.”

Figure 4. From the RWJMS publication “White Coats for Black Lives: A Quest for Anti-Racism” (Winter 2021).

Do No Harm has publicized how WC4BL (an offshoot of Black Lives Matter) has supported anti-Semitic activity at other medical schools, such as the University of Minnesota, the University of Tennessee, and the University of Utah. And, as the faculty at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA have learned, the anti-racism dogma only serves to exacerbate discrimination and division.

State after state across America are waking up to the destructiveness of DEI in institutions of higher education, implementing legislation to remove those practices from their universities. Rutgers University must also take an objective look at its processes and practices, and resolve to create knowledgeable clinicians instead of social justice warriors.

Do No Harm Board Member Edward Blum Named 2023 Man of the Year

Washington Free Beacon Staff

December 31, 2023

2023 Man of the Year: Edward Blum

It’s not clear that the Civil Rights Movement could have succeeded without the Jews.

Henry Moscowitz helped W.E.B. Du Bois found the NAACP. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel joined Martin Luther King Jr. in King’s march on Selma. Jewish donors supplied the capital for numerous civil rights organizations and black colleges, and in 1964, Jews made up half of the participants in the Freedom Summer project, a voter registration drive aimed at black Mississippians.

So it’s only fitting that the civil rights hero of our own time is himself a Jew—born to Yiddish-speaking cobblers, no less.

Since the 1990s, Edward Blum has worked tirelessly to dismantle a sordid, state-backed regime of racial discrimination that has structured and subverted nearly every institution in the United States. His first victory, in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder, chipped away at the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a patently unconstitutional law that gerrymanders electoral districts based on race and assumes all minorities vote the same way.

Edward Blum, Do No Harm Board of Directors

Read more at the Washington Free Beacon.

Do No Harm Closes Out 2023 With 40 Federal Civil Rights Investigations

In December 2023, Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry secured two additional federal civil rights complaints against universities in Ohio and Michigan for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As we recently reported, the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is investigating Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine (HCOM) for its Physician Diversity Scholars Program. Shortly thereafter, Perry also obtained a federal civil rights investigation against the Western Michigan University (WMU) School of Medicine for its Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective Scholarship Program. The informational brochure for the program confirms that the eligibility criteria require the applicant to “identify as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.”

Figure 1. Eligibility criteria for Western Michigan University School of Medicine’s Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective Scholarship Program.

While the brochure still contains the racially exclusive language in the eligibility requirements, the Visiting Medical Students page has been scrubbed of this language. At the time of Perry’s OCR complaint filing, the “Eligibility Requirements” stated that applicants “must identify as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, or Hispanic/Latino.”

Figure 2. WMU School of Medicine “Visiting Medical Students” webpage as it appeared on January 8, 2023.
Figure 3. WMU School of Medicine “Visiting Medical Students” webpage as it currently appears.

Similar to the HCOM program, Perry called upon the DOE OCR to investigate the Visiting Scholars Program at WMU in lieu of the Health and Human Services (HHS) OCR. While there are partner medical facilities within WMed Health where students complete their electives, the school is extensively involved in supervising and administering the program, including granting credits at WMU for clinical work required for graduation.

Since our launch in April 2023, Do No Harm has filed more than 150 federal civil rights complaints with the DOE and HHS OCR offices against institutions of higher education that are discriminating on the basis of race and/or sex. These complaints have resulted in multiple favorable decisions so far to remove discriminatory and exclusionary eligibility criteria from scholarships, fellowships, and awards, or the complete discontinuation and removal of them from the universities’ websites. Our work to restore merit and achievement as the driver of the selection process in medical programs will continue into 2024 and beyond.  

Racial Discrimination At the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society

Another day, another racially discriminatory medical program.

The latest injustice comes from the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, which is “dedicated to creating a world without blood cancers.” Apparently, it thinks racial discrimination can advance that goal, based on its Underrepresented Minority Medical Student Research Program (archived page).

The program’s discrimination is obvious. It’s only available to 2nd-to-4th-year medical students who are “Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino(a), American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander.” In other words, Whites and Asians need not apply.

Figure 1. Eligibility requirements for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s “Underrepresented Minority Medical Student Research Program.”

This program is illegal and unconstitutional. It’s also morally unacceptable. And last but not least, it’s unjustifiable. The Society surely hopes this program will elevate physicians who can help minority patients with Leukemia or Lymphoma. But the best way to ensure they get the best treatment is to elevate the most talented physicians, regardless of race. There are many White and Asian physicians who would surely excel if this program was available to them.

More to the point, it won’t help to have more minority physicians paired with minority patients—a concept known as “racial concordance.” As Do No Harm demonstrates in a new report, studies show that racial concordance doesn’t improve health outcomes or decrease disparities. In fact, it’s more likely to harm patients by encouraging lower standards. Yet patients deserve the most qualified physicians, no matter their skin color.

The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society should be ashamed. Plenty of diverse candidates deserve a shot at this program, including less fortunate whites and Asians. The Society shouldn’t be surprised if someone files a lawsuit to end this blatant racial discrimination. The best course of action is for the Society to stop the discrimination on its own, immediately. Then it can get back to focusing on its real mission of curing blood cancer.

If you see a discriminatory scholarship or fellowship at your professional society, please let us know via our secure online portal.

Do No Harm Files Amicus Brief In Support of Oklahoma’s Law Protecting Children

Once again, Do No Harm is engaged in the battle to protect children from gender ideology.

On Monday, December 18, Do No Harm filed an amicus brief along with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The brief asks the Tenth Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision, which held that Oklahoma’s law prohibiting the practice of experimental gender medicine on minors is likely constitutional. In the brief, Do No Harm and OCPA explain that:

(1) the current scientific evidence reveals that the practice of experimental gender medicine on minors causes significant harm, carries serious unknown risks, and offers no proven benefit;

(2) the Court should not hesitate to depart from the purported objective recommendations put forth by the politically motivated medical interest groups opposing Oklahoma’s common-sense law; and

(3) the advocates of experimental gender medicine criticize any screening procedures for these interventions as too strict.

We are watching the developments of this filing and are hopeful that the Court will uphold Oklahoma’s law to protect children from these harmful and irreversible treatments.

Virginia May Force Physicians and Nurses Into Divisive Training

Is Virginia about to attack physicians and nurses—and even claim they’re racist? That’s the question now that the state House and Senate have introduced legislation that would mandate “unconscious bias” training as a condition of licensure. Such training is insulting, unsupported by the evidence, and inherently divisive—all while paving the way for racial discrimination.

“Unconscious bias” is another name for “implicit bias,” and either way, this concept holds that people are either victims or oppressors based on their skin color. That fact alone makes the concept deeply concerning, as it reflects a skin-deep understanding of human beings. People are more than their melanin, yet implicit bias training reduces individuals to a caricature based on group identity.

It gets worse. There is no evidence that medical professionals treat patients differently based on skin color, and in fact, physicians and nurses train to give everyone the best and most personalized care. Additionally, implicit bias tests have been widely condemned by scholars, while the creators of the most widely used test have admitted its severe limitations.

Implicit bias training is anything but harmless. By telling whites and Asians that they’re biased or even racist, it encourages them to provide different levels of care to patients based on skin color. Such preferential care is inherently discriminatory and has no place in medicine.

Virginia’s legislation would create one of the most aggressive implicit-bias training mandates in the nation. Every physician and nurse in the state would be forced to endure the training every time they apply for or renew their license—i.e., every few years. The constant race-based insults will worsen the crisis of burnout in the medical profession, while sowing divisive ideas across medicine.

Virginia’s medical professionals have devoted their lives to providing equal and excellent care to all. They deserve better than for their own state to attack them and tar them as racist.

Do No Harm Releases New Report: “Racial Concordance in Medicine: The Return of Segregation”

Today, Do No Harm released a new report on racial concordance in medicine entitled “The Return of Segregation.” This report debunks the narrative pushed by medical organizations and political leaders that matching the races of physicians and patients leads to better healthcare outcomes.

“Healthcare and media organizations continue to push racial concordance despite the weight of evidence against it,” said report author and Do No Harm Director of Research Ian Kingsbury. “These groups are playing a dangerous game by putting their politics over scientific evidence and cherry-picking preferred studies to reach their political goals. We hope our report puts to rest the fashionable but dangerous idea of racial segregation in medicine.”

“The research that claims to find evidence of the benefits of racial concordance in healthcare is generally of low quality,” said report co-author and Do No Harm Senior Fellow Jay Greene. “Even the studies that appear in higher-status journals have obvious and severe defects that prevent them from being offered as support for racial concordance. The fact that such low-quality research appears in top journals says more about the politicization of research than it does about racial concordance.”

“We all want to see the elimination of healthcare disparities, but without solid proof that racial concordance would benefit patients we needlessly racialize an aspect of American life and divide American communities,” said Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “The same divisive identity politics pushed by supporters of ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ is being used as the basis for racial concordance.”

Top Takeaways

  • Of the systematic reviews of racial concordance, four of five show no improvement in healthcare outcomes when segregating patients and doctors based on race.
  • Racial concordance holds no promise for producing better care or better outcomes. Instead, patient-provider pairings should be determined by convenience, practicality, and expertise.
  • Efforts to increase the number of doctors from any particular racial group will not result in better patient care. Attempts by medical schools to deprioritize merit and skirt the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action would instead jeopardize patient care. Research indicates that strong academic readiness, not racial concordance, predicts clinical performance.

Read the full report below.

Racial Concordance in Medicine – The Return of SegregationDownload

Big Win: Oklahoma Bans University DEI Departments

,

Three cheers for Oklahoma. On December 13, Governor Kevin Stitt took a major step toward rolling back divisive and discriminatory ideology at public universities, including the state’s two medical schools. So-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is now on the retreat in Oklahoma.

Gov. Stitt signed an executive order with multiple necessary reforms. University faculty, staff, students, and applicants are protected from being forced to sign “DEI statements” or other forms of woke loyalty oaths. What’s more, state funds and property can no longer be used toward for woke training or on departments that “grant preferential treatment” based on “race, color, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.”

That’s essentially a ban on DEI departments. But DEI goes well beyond specific departments, which is why the Governor’s order also requires universities to review their overall DEI policies. That will sure bring plenty of disturbing policies to light.

The Governor rightly declared that “diversity is an asset that shouldn’t be abused to advance a political agenda.” He further stated that Oklahoma is now “taking politics out of education and focusing on preparing students for the workforce.”

Yet the President of the University of Oklahoma is trying to defend the indefensible. In a letter responding to the executive order, he stated “this news evokes deep concern and uncertainty about the future, and in many ways feels like a step backward.” In fact, Oklahoma’s reform is a huge step forward.

The OU President’s letter indicates that state universities and medical schools will surely try to get around this order. They’re obsessed with DEI and determined to continue spreading division and discrimination. DEI initiatives have embedded identity politics into all aspects of university life. The result of this has been to further group-based biases like anti-Semitism. Beyond Oklahoma, universities like Harvard and others are doubling down on DEI. Oklahoma schools likely want to do the same, regardless of state restrictions.

Do No Harm will be watching them closely. We’re grateful to Gov. Stitt for moving Oklahoma’s higher education in the right direction.

Senior Fellow Stephanie Winn Comments on “Conversion Therapy” Bans

,

On August 10, 2023, the Detroit News published an article by Do No Harm Senior Fellow and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist Stephanie Winn on the truth behind “conversion therapy” bans.

Read Stephanie’s article below.

Conversion-Therapy-Bans-Hinder-Real-CareDownload

AAMC Pushes Race-Based Recruitment Tool Post-SCOTUS Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the use of race-based admissions practices isn’t constitutional in higher education settings, including medical schools. But the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) continues to promote a recruiting tool that aggregates information on medical school applicants who “self-identify as being from groups historically underrepresented in medicine or who are economically disadvantaged.”

The AAMC, which oversees the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and cosponsors the accrediting body for all medical schools, appears to be continuing in their efforts to find ways to undermine the Court’s landmark ruling.

Do No Harm obtained a screenshot from the MCAT registration platform describing the “Medical Minority Applicant Registry” (Med-MAR), which requires the applicant to provide specific information about his or her race and ethnicity. The registrant must opt-in to this service, which AAMC says “enhances admission opportunities for students from groups historically underrepresented in medicine.”

This description has not changed since at least April 2021, which is the first time the program’s webpage was archived.

Figure 1. Screen that candidates see when logging into the AAMC’s MCAT registration website.

“If you choose to participate in Med-MAR, your basic biographical information and your MCAT scores will be distributed to the minority affairs and admission offices of AAMC-member schools and to select health-related agencies whose mission is to increase opportunities for students historically underrepresented in medicine,” AAMC tells applicants from racial and ethnic political identity groups.

They indicate by omission that whites and Asians need not apply:

You are eligible if (a) you are a U.S. citizen, U.S. National, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States (“Green Card” holder), or have been granted refugee/asylum or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status by the U.S. government, and (b) you are economically disadvantaged or of low socio-economic status (SES), or you self-identify as a member of a racial or ethnic group historically underrepresented in medicine–African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

Interestingly, the AAMC offers a disclaimer for the Med-MAR system: “Med-MAR serves only as a means of identifying and communicating the availability of applicants from groups who self-identify as underrepresented in medicine and/or as economically disadvantaged. No attempt is made by Med-MAR to advise students where to apply or to influence any admissions decisions.”

As Do No Harm noted in August, AAMC continues to push ways to erode the Court’s ruling.

“Nothing in the Supreme Court decision compels us to deviate from our goal of diversifying the health care workforce,” AAMC CEO David Skorton said during a webinar with medical school leaders in July.

Strategies promoted by AAMC include:

  • Holistic review – a term that conceals the word “race” but urges medical schools to subjectively consider the “whole” applicant;
  • Essays penned by the applicants to evaluate strengths and experiences that might be related to their race; and
  • The development of strong relationships with undergraduate schools and community groups with a high percentage of racial and ethnic minorities.

Do No Harm has been following AAMC’s plunge into radical Critical Race Theory-inspired DEI practices for some time. And, because of its heavy influence over medical school officials, the organization has taken these institutions along with it.

In November 2022 – prior to the Court’s ruling against affirmative action policies – Do No Harm Chairman Stanley Goldfarb, M.D. sounded the alarm that medical schools seeking accreditation were being coerced into expanding their woke practices.

In a survey of 101 institutions, Goldfarb wrote at the New York Post, AAMC asked schools to respond to 89 questions about whether they employ particular DEI practices.

The Do No Harm chairman revealed the results of AAMC’s “report card”:

All told, more than six out of 10 medical schools scored 80%. The Ohio State University College of Medicine audit shows a score of 93%, making it one of the most woke medical schools in America. Crucially, no institution scored lower than 50% — meaning virtually every medical school is implementing at least half the policies woke activists want.

Goldfarb observed at the time that medical schools have organized and well-funded bureaucracies in place pushing woke ideology on both faculty and students.

“These efforts take away time and money from actual education,” he asserted, adding:

The AAMC is pushing 100% of medical schools to score 100% in each category, and most are trending in that direction. This doesn’t bode well for the future of health care. Medical schools are broadly lowering standards for admissions, faculty and research while devoting a higher share of resources to political lobbying, politicized bureaucracy and public virtue signaling.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts noted that implementing “application essays or other means” is not a valid tactic for universities to get to the results they had prior to the decision ending race-based admissions. “In other words,” he continued, “the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual – not on the basis of race.” Workarounds such as these will undoubtedly be successfully challenged. Yet, considering AAMC’s continued use of the Med-MAR applicant registry service for specific racial and ethnic groups, not much has changed in this organization in the wake of the Court’s ruling.

Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine Scholars Program Is the Subject of a Federal Civil Rights Investigation

A program at the Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine (OUHCOM) is under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for illegal racial discrimination – and the school wasted no time in scrubbing its website of the evidence.

Offered in partnership with the Cleveland Clinic, the Physician Diversity Scholars Program “takes a proactive approach to building diversity” by being “open to all underrepresented minority medical students” at OUHCOM (archived page here). “Underrepresented minority for the Heritage College,” the website stated, “is defined as Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaskan Native and pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian.”

Limiting eligibility to specific racial groups while excluding others violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.

Figure 1. Cleveland Clinic Physician Diversity Scholars Program at OUHCOM, as seen on May 12, 2023.

The modified webpage now says that the program provides “purposeful and meaningful health care interactions with community populations that are underrepresented in medicine.”

At the time the complaint was filed with the Cleveland OCR, the “How to Apply” page provided further evidence of OUHCOM’s intent to discriminate, reiterating the racial/ethnic groups that were eligible and instructing applicants to include a professional photograph (archived page here).

Figure 2. Application instructions Cleveland Clinic Physician Diversity Scholars Program at OUHCOM, as seen on May 12, 2023.

The cleanup was not as thorough on this page, as it still states, “The Physician Diversity Scholars program is open to all historically underrepresented students in medicine at Heritage College, Cleveland.” However, the specific racial/ethnic categories have been removed in the modified version.

Ohio taxpayers and the lawmakers who represent them must ask the Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine why the school is willing to remove a discriminatory program only after a federal civil rights complaint is filed and an investigation is opened. Do No Harm will be monitoring for full resolution of our complaint.

Mizzou Med Claims “No DICE,” But Its Actions Suggest They Are Still Fully On Board With DEI

The University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine (Mizzou Med) said that it didn’t participate in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ (AAMC) Diversity, Inclusion, Culture, and Equity (DICE) Inventory, but its devotion to all things DEI raise the question of “why not?”

The DICE Inventory is an 89-question survey that 101 North American medical schools participated in during 2022. Institutions voluntarily submitted their yes/no answers to AAMC, indicating whether or not they engage in specific DEI-related initiatives, programs, or practices. Last year, Do No Harm submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Mizzou Med for the school’s DICE Inventory response, but the Custodian of Records for the University of Missouri System told us, “I am informed there is no document responsive to your request.”

A follow-up query confirmed that Laura Henderson Kelley MD, MPH advised that no such document exists. Board certified in internal medicine and pediatrics, Dr. Henderson Kelley carries the title of “Associate Dean for Diversity, Inclusion, Culture, and Equity (DICE),” and leads the school’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI).

Yet Mizzou Med follows the AAMC on other DEI-related concepts.

The Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Cluster document, received by Dr. Henderson Kelley in March 2022, further illustrates Mizzou Med’s dedication to the AAMC’s guidance on DEI. The document, supported by Dr. David Acosta, AAMC’s Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, provides direction “to assist you with the DEI work at your institutions.” The Cluster document includes “three portfolios” of Equity and Social Accountability (ESA); Workforce Diversity; and Organizational Inclusion and Development. For example, the Cluster document notes that the ESA Portfolio will help medical schools to become “anti-racist leaders who acknowledge and understand systemic racial inequities,” as well as adopting policies “that promote racial justice and equity.”

Figure 1. Examples of initiatives in the ESA Portfolio of the AAMC Cluster document.

As reported in April, Mizzou Med provided its Class of 2024 orientees with the Common Read program “to facilitate meaningful conversations around health inequities and social injustice early in medical school education.” This aligns with the ESA Portfolio’s aims to “develop an emerging generation of physicians with an equity mindset” and “encourage the inclusion of anti-racism” in the curriculum. This conviction was readily apparent during the 2023 legislative season when 150 students at the medical school demanded that state lawmakers “protect our school’s right to require DEI education.”

The Class of 2024 was also informed by Steven Zweig MD, dean of medical school, that their newly received white coats symbolize “a commitment to fighting racism in medicine.”

The Mizzou Med Class of 2024 is also aligned with the AAMC’s Workforce Diversity Portfolio aim of increasing the numbers of students “who are underrepresented in the health professions,” and prepared an infographic to illustrate it. AAMC recommends holding career fairs and workshops for “diversifying the next generation of doctors” or participating in the “Action Collaborative for Black Men in Medicine” to achieve that metric. The university has long shown that it fosters discrimination on the basis of race with scholarships it offers within the School of Medicine. The Office for Civil Rights is currently investigating Mizzou Med for ten scholarships that violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits such discrimination.

Figure 2. Mizzou Med Class of 2024 enrollment information.

But the Cluster document’s most concerning recommendations come from the Organizational Inclusion and Development Portfolio, as it recommends actions for “equity-minded medical schools” that infuse the DEI agenda into every corner of their operations.

Figure 3. AAMC’s Organizational Inclusion and Development Portfolio.

A new six-session faculty course titled “Addressing and Reducing Cultural Bias in Medicine” was recently sponsored by Mizzou Med, featuring instruction on “medical racism” and “privilege, implicit bias, and microaggressions.” The topics in this course demonstrate how the school aligns with initiatives recommended by the AAMC in the Cluster document, such as the Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Anti-racism (IDEAs) Learning Series and the Restorative Justice in Academic Medicine (RJAM) training program.

These concepts do not reflect what it means to receive an education in the art and science of medicine. Do No Harm calls on Mizzou Med to return its focus to the patient-based training it claims to offer, which is in the best interests of the individuals its graduates who will one day be responsible for diagnosing and healing.