A Better Way To Beat Anti-Semitism at UCLA: Ditch DEI

The faculty of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine don’t understand why anti-Semitism is rampant on campus. That’s the gist of a letter that dozens of the educators sent the dean this week. They think that “diversity, equity, and inclusion” should have stopped this awful hatred, but if they’re smart, they’ll realize that DEI is designed to stoke hatred toward the Jewish people and Israel.

The UCLA faculty argue that DEI should have stopped anti-Semitism in its tracks. They write: “While the David Geffen School of Medicine has established an anti-racism curriculum and advocated the principles of the ‘Cultural North Star’, the experience of Jewish faculty and students has been vastly different.” Instead, as they write, “parts of the anti-racism curriculum apportion blame to the Jewish people for racism.” (Anti-racism is an offshoot of DEI that explicitly demands racial discrimination.)

You don’t say. In fact, anti-Semitism is engrained in DEI, because DEI is built on a foundation of Critical Race Theory. As Do No Harm senior fellow Dr. Tabia Lee (a former DEI director at a California college) has proven, DEI divides the world into “oppressors” and “oppressed,” and the Jewish people are always lumped in with the oppressors. For diehard DEI advocates, anti-Semitism isn’t a bug – it’s a feature.

The UCLA faculty urge their medical school to “reevaluate the contents of the ‘Systemic Racism and Health Equality Course’ to ensure accurate representation of our shared values.” But that’s a fool’s errand. So long as DEI reigns supreme at UCLA, anti-Semitism will be encouraged, and medical students will be indoctrinated to hate the Jewish people and Isael.

In their letter, the UCLA faculty write that “for centuries, physicians and medical schools have served as beacons of hope, justice, and compassion.” They can again, but only if institutions like UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine abandon the hateful ideology of DEI.

Minnesota’s Racially Discriminatory Board of Social Work

Minnesota is discriminating by race and ethnicity.

Look no further than its mandate on who’s eligible to serve on the Board of Social Work. As the Pacific Legal Foundation has uncovered, the state is putting race above the qualification that matters most in health care: Expertise. This discrimination is therefore a direct threat to patients. It must be stopped immediately.

The Board of Social Work is made up of fifteen members appointed by the Governor. However, state law requires that, of the ten social worker members, “at least five members must be members of: (1) a community of color; or (2) an underrepresented community.” A supplementary section of the statute makes it clear:

“Underrepresented community” means a group that is not represented in the majority with respect to race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical ability.

Such discriminatory mandates reflect the woke corruption of health care. States like Minnesota likely make these mandated on who can serve on this board in order to please woke activists who demand race and gender quotas in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Yet discrimination violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Minnesota has no right to restrict membership based on race.

The Board of Social Work oversees critical parts of the medical field. When board members are chosen by race, they are potentially deprived of more qualified experts. It can result in less medically sound policies and more woke extremism. Health authorities should be solely focused on improving health outcomes, regardless of race, gender, or any other consideration.

Do No Harm is dedicated to fighting discrimination in health care. If you or anyone you know wants to serve on this board, please contact us. We’d love to work with you to restore fairness and equal treatment to Minnesota.

Arkansas Has a Racially Discriminatory Board of Pharmacy

Look no further than its mandate on who’s eligible to serve on the State Board of Pharmacy. As the Pacific Legal Foundation has uncovered, the state is putting race above the qualification that matters most in health care: Expertise. This discrimination is therefore a direct threat to patients. It must be stopped immediately.

The State Board of Pharmacy consists of eight members. Five are experienced pharmacists and two are representatives of consumers. However, Arkansas Code (2020) requires that “one (1) member shall be a minority who is a licensed practicing pharmacist in the state,” appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.

Such discriminatory mandates reflect the woke corruption of health care. States like Arkansas likely restrict membership on boards in order to please woke activists who demand race and gender quotas in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Yet discrimination violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Arkansas has no right to restrict membership based on race.

The State Board of Pharmacy oversees critical parts of the medical field. When board members are chosen by race, they are potentially deprived of more qualified experts. It can result in less medically sound policies and more woke extremism. Health authorities should be solely focused on improving health outcomes, regardless of race, gender, or any other consideration.

This board is under the umbrella of the Arkansas Department of Health, which is the same agency that oversees the Arkansas Minority Health Commission (AMHC). As we reported in May 2023, Do No Harm settled a federal lawsuit with the AMHC regarding its unconstitutional “Minority Healthcare Diversity Scholarship.” This scholarship was also discriminating on the basis of race by limiting eligibility to “African American, Hispanic, Native African/American Indian, Asian American or Marshallese.” As a result of the settlement, the AMHC no longer offers the award.

Do No Harm is dedicated to fighting discrimination in health care. If you or anyone you know wants to serve on this board, please contact us. We’d love to work with you to restore fairness and equal treatment to Arkansas.

East Carolina University DEI Slide Show Exemplifies Prominence of Critical Race Theory in Medical School Training

A slide presentation authored by East Carolina University (ECU) diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) deans shows the prominent role awarded to DEI philosophy and Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the school’s medical education.

Documents obtained by Do No Harm via a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) show Cedric Bright, M.D., ECU Brody School of Medicine vice dean for medical education and admissions, and an interim associate dean for diversity and inclusion, engaged in discussions with colleagues both immediately before and on the day of (June 29) the release of the Supreme Court’s decision affirming that race-based admissions practices are unconstitutional.

The emails show that Bright, who, according to the school’s website, is also among ECU’s DEI “researchers and practitioners,” was anticipating his presentation at a conference in New Orleans for National Medical Fellowships (NMF), of which he is a member of the board of directors.

Before and after the release of the Court’s ruling, Bright conversed with Kema Gadson, Ed.D., Brody associate dean for student affairs, about possible slides that could be included in his presentation. On June 27, Gadson shared a link to a PowerPoint that had been “used for our Council on Diversity & Inclusion Orientation Session (CoDI).”

“We called it Live the Mission since everyone should be working towards living the mission as student, faculty, and staff,” Gadson wrote.

The slide presentation, co-authored by Irma Corral, Ph.D., assistant dean for diversity and inclusion, was divided into two parts: (1) “’Unpacking’ the social determinants of health [SDoH]” and reviewing “key concepts of culture, rurality, and racism in medicine;” and (2) “Discuss academic medicine today and what we need to do next to approach equity.”

Notes that appear to be included in the PowerPoint also assert that “racial disparities in health outcomes in the United States” often lead to medical providers learning “faulty assumptions” that individuals belonging to certain racial groups are responsible for their poor medical outcomes.

Equity “involves moving away from thinking of Race as the cause of health disparities (blames the impacted population), and moving towards understanding the social processes that are the actual cause (contextualizing disparities),” one slide claims.

“Having good health doesn’t just happen … Social factors create significant hurdles,” another set of slides states, and adds, “Hurdle free society when equity is achieved.”

In other words, individual people cannot take responsibility for their own health because systemic racism, and the lack of “health equity,” prevent them from doing that.

“Interpersonal bias training” and “systemic anti-racism training,” are necessary to train the workforce in order to achieve equity, the presentation continues. Another slide features a cartoon supposedly showing that some people have great social hurdles to overcome in order to be healthy.

Figure 1. Cartoon from ECU presentation by Dr. Cedric Bright.

Notes added to explain the CRT-like message of the cartoon reference Dr. Joy DeGruy, author of the book Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome: America’s Legacy of Enduring Injury and Healing, who describes the “syndrome” on her website:

It is a condition that exists as a consequence of multigenerational oppression of Africans and their descendants resulting from centuries of chattel slavery. A form of slavery which was predicated on the belief that African Americans were inherently/genetically inferior to whites. This was then followed by institutionalized racism which continues to perpetuate injury.

The slide show presenters added their own notes:

The ball and chain are the vestiages [sic] of slavery known as Post traumatic slave syndrome by Dr. Joy DeGruy. The land mines are poor public schooling and crowed [sic] housing, barbwire represents indifference of teachers and subtle bigotry of low expectations, the alligator can represent personally mediated racism and social barriers, the brick wall, institutional racism [sic] such standardized testing unequal pay, job discrimination, and the final pit the internalized issues such as imposter syndrome, self fulfilling prophecy, and feelings of guilt.

The presenters continue to identify “barriers” to achieving health equity, referencing a greater need for what appear to be Marxist concepts. Such “barriers” include a society that is focused on the “individual,” with both “limited sense” of “interdependence” and “collective efficacy,” whereby “systems and structures” are “invisible” or “irrelevant.”

Health equity is further obstructed, according to the presentation, by

the “myth of meritocracy,” the concept that “if you work hard you will make it.” This concept, according to the presenters, is based on a “denial of racism,” and ultimately “fosters competition over cooperation” and “masks the costs of inequity.”

Another slide further casts “American exceptionalism” as a “myth,” and equates that concept with “disinterest in learning from others,” and a “sense of U.S. entitlement.”

“White supremacist ideology” is also viewed as a barrier to health equity, says the presentation.

The show’s authors further profess equity can’t be achieved because “White” is viewed as “the ideal and the norm,” and a “sense of ‘White’ entitlement” exists that causes the “dehumanization of people of color” and the “fear at the ‘browning’ of America.”

How are blatantly discriminatory and contentious claims like the statements of Vice Dean Bright of any value to the medical students at ECU Brody School of Medicine? Even worse, it reflects how the leadership at the medical school is dedicated to perpetuating absurd philosophies that aim to place people into identity groups instead of promoting sound science and facts. North Carolina taxpayers and policymakers must insist on an immediate end to the indoctrination of its future physicians.

University of Colorado Medical School Officials ‘Remain Fully Committed’ to Advancing DEI Post-SCOTUS Decision

Deans at the University of Colorado School of Medicine (CUSOM) expressed “disappointment” with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that race-based admissions policies are unconstitutional and affirmed in a statement they “remain fully committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion,” documents show.

Emails obtained by Do No Harm via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests reveal that, on June 29, in response to the Court’s decision, Carol Rumack, M.D., CUSOM associate dean for the Graduate Medical Education (GME) community, sent a draft statement for review to Shanta Zimmer, M.D., senior associate dean for education and associate dean for diversity and inclusion, and Linda Montgomery, M.D., family medicine residency director.

Rumack stressed it was her plan to “send this statement by the end of today to the entire GME community.”

The statement reflects a claim that “the diversity of the physician work force” is tied to “achieving excellence in medicine and science,” and also indicates GME’s concurrence with the joint statement of university president Todd Saliman and Donald Elliman, Jr., chancellor of the CU Anschutz Medical Campus, as well as that of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), regarding the Court’s ruling.

Figure 1. CUSOM statement on the SCOTUS affirmative action decision (June 29, 2023).

“[W]e are also disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision to prohibit the limited consideration of an applicant’s racial or ethnic background in admissions decisions,” Rumack’s statement read, affirming CUSOM GME programs “remain fully committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion for the health of the patients and communities we serve.”

In their joint release, Saliman, Elliman, and other CU officials wrote their school “is unwavering in its commitment to fostering a diverse, inclusive and equitable environment … Diversity, Inclusion, Equity & Access is one of the four pillars of our strategic plan, and our commitment to this pillar will not diminish.” 

The officials also indicated they will employ a “whole student” admission process:

We will continue to employ admission processes that consider the whole student and their ability to succeed in our academically rigorous and supportive environment. Our dedication to cultivating a diverse university community runs deep. In fact, our board has set policy that makes it clear that diversity encompasses demographic characteristics while also encompassing diverse life experiences and perspectives.

Also on June 29, Zimmer forwarded an email message reaction to the SCOTUS decision from Michael Harris-Love, DSc, who heads the CUSOM Physical Therapy Program.

In his comments, Harris-Love appeared to be speculating about whether the health professions could be “exempt from the SCOTUS decision”:

Interestingly, the ruling allows that certain occupational segments of society linked to public safety such as the armed forces and military academies are “distinct interests” which are exempt from the SCOTUS decision. It will be a matter of continued national debate and federal jurisprudence to reassess if the health professions also constitute a distinct societal interest intrinsically linked to public health and safety.

Harris-Love further recommended a “holistic review process” for admissions which, he wrote, was “championed by Dr. Canham and the Recruitment and Admissions Committee,” as the means “to do our part in building a more inclusive student body and profession.”

“I will be contacting Committee Chairs, Coordinators, and Section Directors to conduct a review of our policies concerning student admissions and recruitment scholarships,” he said. “This step will further our efforts to remain in compliance while keeping our focus on the university and program academic mission.”

The FOIA email documents reveal that, immediately following the release of the Court’s decision, CUSOM officials began messaging each other about an interview request from education media outlet Chalkbeat for reactions to the ruling.

The Chalkbeat bureau chief expressed interest in an interview, rather than just CU Boulder Chancellor Phillip DiStefano’s formal statement she was sent:

As I’m sure you can appreciate, in our stories we try to go beyond just reprinting portions of formal statements. I would love to talk to someone in admissions about what steps are still accessible to you in terms of recruiting diverse students and what you might have to stop doing. Other states that have banned the use of race in admissions and have struggled to maintain the diversity they had before that policy change, so I really want to hear about the practical steps you plan to take — things that will be meaningful to readers beyond the value statements.

The email documents suggest CUSOM officials wanted to appear supportive of statements opposed to the SCOTUS ruling.

In an email dated June 30, Dean John Reilly, Jr., M.D. wrote to AAMC requesting that his school be added “to the list of signatories for the AAMC statement on the SCOTUS decision concerning the consideration of race in education admissions.”

Figure 2. Email from Dean Reilly signing onto the AAMC’s statement following the SCOTUS decision (June 29, 2023).

Between June 29 and July 6, the documents show an email thread that includes Zimmer, Mark Couch, chief of staff and associate dean of public relations, and Christopher Read, CUSOM data manager, regarding “data on class diversity” for classes of 2023-2026.

“Dean asks for current numbers in medical class diversity,” Crouch emailed Zimmer and others on June 29. “Can you please send asap?”

After Read sent the data, Zimmer thanked him and asked if he could provide their source.

“I often get different info depending on our source,” she wrote. “Also, we have the ability for some students to check multiple boxes.”

“The data was pulled from AAMC reports and the individual flavors of race and ethnicity were further grouped,” Read responded.

On July 5, Zimmer received an email from colleague Jaime Daly who inquired about procedure with admissions interviews following the SCOTUS ruling.

“I know you said that our current cycle of applications wouldn’t be affected by the decision, but I am wondering if we can still have our DEI discussion on interview day,” Daly asked. “Usually, Dr. Clavijo will talk to our applicants for 15 minutes or so about the department’s DEI initiatives and discuss our DEI scholarship. Is this still okay? I’m hoping it is but want to make sure.”

“Yes, totally fine!” responded Zimmer.

The email records show as well that, on July 6, Regina Richards, Ph.D., vice chancellor of DEI and community engagement, asked CUSOM’s “DEI Liaisons” for the following information: “What are the top 3-5 strategies your school/college utilizes for targeted recruitment and retention of minority students?”

Zimmer responded for the “MD Program:” “Attendance at Recruitment fairs (LMSA, Atlanta HBCUs, AAMC, SNMAO); Diversity Scholarships; Holistic Review; Implicit Bias training of admissions committee; Affinity group outreach; Second look days; and Tracking of applicants, interviews, acceptances, matriculants.”

The University of Colorado School of Medicine is clearly discussing ways in which it can circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision to ban the consideration of race in the medical school admission process. These discussions should not be taking place, and may even be describing measures that do not align with federal law. Instead, CUSOM must make legitimate plans on how it will recruit and admit the applicants who will make the most competent and successful future doctors.  

Two of Louisiana’s Healthcare Boards Are Engaging in Racial Discrimination

The Louisiana State Boards of Dentistry and Medical Examiners are discriminating by race.

We reviewed the statutes that have race-based criteria on who’s eligible to serve on these boards. As the Pacific Legal Foundation has uncovered, the state is putting race above the qualification that matters most in health care: Expertise. This discrimination is therefore a direct threat to patients. It must be stopped immediately.

  • The Louisiana State Board of Dentistry’s 15-member board is required to include an “At-Large Seat A” that is filled “from a list of three black dentists certified by the board secretary to the governor.” A ballot is sent via postal mail to all black dentists in the state, who nominate their choices for that list.
  • The ten-member State Board of Medical Examiners must select at least one minority appointee from the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at New Orleans and at least one minority appointee from the LSU Health Sciences Center at Shreveport.

Such discriminatory mandates reflect the politicization of health care. States like Louisiana likely restrict membership on boards in order to please woke activists who demand race and gender quotas in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Yet discrimination violates federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Louisiana has no right to restrict membership based on race.

The Louisiana State Boards of Dentistry and Medical Examiners oversee critical parts of the medical field. When board members are chosen by race, they are potentially deprived of more qualified experts. It can result in less medically sound policies and more woke extremism. Health authorities should be solely focused on improving health outcomes, regardless of race, gender, or any other consideration.

Do No Harm is dedicated to fighting discrimination in health care. If you or anyone you know wants to serve on these boards, please contact us. We’d love to work with you to restore fairness and equal treatment to Louisiana.

Washington’s Woke Brainwashing For Doctors And Nurses

Are doctors in the state of Washington racist? Yes, according to a law that goes into effect on January 1, 2024. Washington lawmakers are mandating that all medical professionals complete so-called “health equity continuing education training” every four years. Physicians, nurses, and many others are going to subjected to insulting accusations of bias and racism, and worse, pushed to discriminate by race.

Washington’s law is grounded in divisive and discriminatory woke ideology. It states, without evidence, that “health outcomes are experienced differently by different people based on discrimination and bias by the health care system.” The solution, apparently, is for medical boards to develop woke training programs for every part of the medical profession.

Washington physicians, nurses, and others can expect woke training that includes “strategies for recognizing patterns of health care disparities on an individual, institutional, and structural level.” They may be force-fed “implicit bias training to identify strategies to reduce bias during assessment and diagnosis.”

Implicit bias training is grounded in the lie that people are racist based on their skin color, especially Whites and Asians. Implicit bias tests have been widely condemned by scholars and the creators of the most widely used test have admitted its severe limitations. Medical professionals shouldn’t be accused of racism, especially when they’ve devoted their lives to providing equal and excellent care to all.

It gets worse. Washington’s mandatory trainings may also include content on “ensuring equity and antiracism in care delivery.” Anti-racism is code for reverse discrimination – i.e., providing preferential access to care for minority patients. This disturbing practice has already been announced at medical providers in other states. It inevitably means that some patients will be pushed back in line based on skin color.

This law could hardly be more extreme. It accuses medical professions of racism, while pushing them to discriminate by race. That’s what woke activists want above all else. Washington patients, beware of what your state is shoving down your doctor’s throat.

Mayo Clinic Keeps Up Its DEI Spending By Hosting the Creator of “Blackademics”

, ,

Last month, Do No Harm program manager Laura Morgan reported how the Mayo Clinic is spending tens of millions of dollars on ideological training for its faculty and staff. Seems the organization has plenty of money left for indoctrination of the clinicians in the Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, as evidenced by the Grand Rounds session it held on October 11.

Titled Reframing Anti-Black Racism and White Supremacy as Illness and presented by non-clinician Dante D. King, the grand rounds session aimed to:

  • Explore the historical, legal, academic, and scientific foundations of structural racism and anti-blackness in America.
  • Describe anti-black racism and psychosocial, psycho-political, and psycho-economic cultural and organizational properties.
  • Identify the modern-day impacts of legalized anti-blackness and white supremacy in American culture and institutions.
Figure 1. Flyer for the Mayo Clinic Department of Psychiatry and Psychology Grand Rounds from October 11, 2023.

In addition to serving on the faculties of the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and the UC San Francisco School of Medicine, King produces books such as The 400 Year Holocaust: White America’s Legal, Psychopathic, and Sociopathic Black Genocide and the Revolt Against Critical Race Theory, and invents divisive concepts as “an antiracism strategist.” One such project is “Blackademics,” which has a mission of “educating children and adults about anti-Blackness, White supremacy, and other forms of racism.”

Figure 2. “Blackademics” by Dante D. King.

On the heels of Mayo’s RISE for Equity conference, King recently completed another multi-day event for the Mayo Clinic with activist Robin DiAngelo called Developing Anti-Racism Leadership Competencies to Achieve Inclusive Practices and Health Equity. For $495, participants received more anti-racist rhetoric “to achieve racial equity at both levels of organizational change and individual leaderships practices.”

Mayo Clinic apparently still believes it still contains “systemic and institutionalized” biases and continues to lay out an astounding number of financial resources to pay radical activists – who have no medical credentials – to badger its healthcare professionals into adopting their ideologies. It’s further evidence that Mayo no longer deserves to hold its once lofty position as a respected academic medical institution that places patients above politics. 

Is your healthcare organization spending money on so-called “training” meant to indoctrinate instead of educate? Do No Harm wants to hear from you, and you may remain anonymous if you wish.

A Racist Award At The American Society of Hematology

No whites or Asians allowed. That’s the message from the American Society of Hematology, which offers an explicitly racist “medical student award program.” The Society should realize that racial discrimination is immoral, illegal, and utterly unacceptable.

The award criteria could hardly be more racist. It states that applicants must “identify as a minority,” and it defines exactly which minorities it wants. The list includes: “Indigenous American Indians or Alaska Natives, Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, African Canadians, Inuit, and First Nation Peoples.” Note which races are missing.

Figure 1. Flyer for the ASH Minority Medical Student Award Program.

How does the Society justify this racial discrimination? 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. According to this argument, healthcare needs more minority medical professionals who match the skin color of the patients they treat. Activists call this “racial concordance”; the assumption is that physicians will provide better care to patients of the same race or ethnicity.

Yet as Do No Harm has shown, racial concordance has no support in medical research, and there is no evidence that it improves healthcare outcomes. The preponderance of evidence suggests that it doesn’t even improve patient-physician interaction, such as through enhanced communication. Instead, racial concordance is more likely to hurt patients by pushing healthcare to resegregate by race. Patients are also hurt when medical societies and groups like the American Society of Hematology prioritize skin color over merit. The best way to close health disparities is to recruit and train the best doctors, regardless of what they look like.

The American Society of Hematology should be ashamed. It should eliminate this racist award immediately, for the sake of patients of all colors. Racial discrimination has no place in healthcare.

UK College of Medicine’s Sneaky Woke Racial Discrimination

Sneaky. That’s the only way to describe what’s happening at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine. The medical school knows that racial discrimination is unconstitutional, yet it’s so woke, it’s trying to find a way to keep discriminating without admitting it. Kentucky lawmakers should take note.

Some background: For more than a year, Do No Harm has filed federal civil rights complaints against medical schools that offer racially discriminatory scholarships. These scholarships are typically available to people who are “under-represented in medicine,” with a clear focus on Black and Hispanic applicants. What’s more, they explicitly ban Whites and Asians from applying, which violates the Constitution. To date, Do No Harm has successfully ended this racial discrimination at two dozen medical schools and counting.

But UK’s medical school doesn’t want to stop. Its “White Coats for Black Lives” fellowship has been designed in a way that all but guarantees racial discrimination without admitting it. (For the record: It’s named after an organization, “White Coats for Black Lives,” that’s spewing anti-Semitic hatred.) While the fellowship says that “all current first-year medical students are eligible to apply,” it also requests a personal statement designed to weed out applicants who aren’t the right race.

Figure 1. University of Kentucky College of Medicine “White Coats for Black Lives Fellowship” (archived page).

Most notably: Applicants should “describe if they meet criteria for an under-represented in medicine.” In other words, if you have the right skin color, tell us, and you’ll increase your likelihood of getting the fellowship without UK having to say it’s only for people of certain races.

The application also asks applicants to “detail service or leadership in social justice organizations and/or organizations focused on healthcare equity.” Applicants can further show their “commitment to addressing health disparities and/or healthcare inequities within the African-American community.” Once again, the goal is clearly to find applicants who are Black without being so explicit.

Scholarships and fellowships like these are usually touted as a way to tackle racial health disparities. Yet while disparities are real, the best way to ensure that everyone has the best outcomes is by focusing on merit. We need the best doctors, regardless of race. And no one needs merit-based recruiting more than patients suffering from health disparities.

The UK College of Medicine may think it’s found a legal loophole, but that’s all the more reason for Kentucky lawmakers to close it. Sneaky racial discrimination is still racial discrimination – and racial discrimination is always wrong.

Does your medical school discriminate by race to advance the woke agenda? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

Do No Harm Unveils Groundbreaking Detransitioner Bill of Rights

Model legislation extends ethical care and rights to children harmed by experimental sex change procedures

Richmond, VA – Do No Harm, a prominent national nonprofit committed to safeguarding healthcare from radical and divisive ideology, published the first-of-its-kind Detransitioner Bill of Rights.  This pioneering model legislation is designed to provide support and justice to those who have been abandoned by the medical community when seeking to detransition from harmful and experimental sex change treatments they received as children. 

“The Detransitioner Bill of Rights represents a crucial step in protecting the rights and well-being of children who have been subjected to experimental sex change treatments,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Do No Harm Chairman. “Medical professionals should publicly acknowledge the plight of detransitioners and research ways to help and support those who regret undergoing these procedures.”

CLICK HERE to read the full text of the Detransitioner Bill of Rights.

The Detransitioner Bill of Rights is a comprehensive piece of legislation that advocates for six fundamental rights for detransitioners, addressing critical issues that currently lack adequate legal protection:

  • Right to Informed Consent
  • Right to Effective Care
  • Right to Public Transparency
  • Right to Insurance Coverage
  • Right to Legal Restoration
  • Right to Justice

“We cannot remain passive while the well-being and rights of children are at risk,” said Do No Harm Executive Director Kristina Rasmussen. “The Detransitioner Bill of Rights is a significant step toward helping young people who’ve been funneled toward treatments that can lead to life-long suffering.”

Do No Harm is making the nonpartisan model legislation available to all, including state and federal policymakers, thereby reinforcing the protection of patient rights and upholding ethical healthcare practices. The organization encourages everyone to join their mission in supporting the Detransitioner Bill of Rights, striving for its broadest and most enduring impact.

For more information about the Detransitioner Bill of Rights or to support Do No Harm’s mission, please click here.

###

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 5,000 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 Pediatric Endocrine Society Fears The Truth

What is the Pediatric Endocrine Society afraid of? Apparently, the truth about transgender interventions on minors.

That’s the unmistakable conclusion after the PES denied Do No Harm senior fellow Dr. Daniel Weiss’s request to host a session at the group’s upcoming Annual Meeting. He asked to cover the most important topic in pediatric medicine: Children de-transitioning after experiencing the physical and mental health problems of gender transitions.

But that’s the last thing PES wants to talk about it. Remarkably, the society said in its denial letter that it “aimed to put together a program that covered all topic areas in pediatric endocrinology.” So why isn’t it discussing a pressing topic that directly affects children’s health?

Excerpt from Dr. Daniel Weiss’s proposal to the Pediatric Endocrine Society’s annual meeting.

It seems PES doesn’t want an honest and open discussion about the effects of transgender interventions on minors. These interventions — which include puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones, and surgeries — are often invasive and irreversible. As Do No Harm’s Chloe Cole has personally experienced, once a child endures these interventions, they often regret their decision. A growing number of people who as minors “identified” with a gender in spite of their biologic reality are now seeking to change back.

PES appears to be fearful of these facts. When Do No Harm set up a booth at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting earlier this year, many endocrinologists expressed agreement with our opposition to transgender interventions on minors. The same thing would almost certainly happen at PES’s annual meeting.

The Pediatric Endocrine Society should be fighting for children’s health. Instead, it’s stifling discussion about a critical threat to children’s health. The organization should be ashamed. Its members and the children they treat deserve better.

University of Tennessee Officials Seek to End-Run Affirmative Action Ruling

Medical education officials at the University of Tennessee (UT) have expressed frustration with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that race-based admissions policies are unconstitutional, and they’re looking for pathways to realize their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, documents show.

Emails obtained by Do No Harm via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request revealed that, on June 29, UT System President Randy Boyd emailed his statement regarding the ruling to Dr. Claudette Jones Shephard, associate dean of diversity and inclusion at the College of Medicine.

“Over the coming days and weeks, we will be diving into the details of this ruling to determine whether it will impact our campuses and institutes,” Boyd said in his statement to his UT colleagues, but added that, despite this review of the decision, “Our focus on access, retention and engagement, as well as our commitment to the mission of the UT System remains unchanged: to serve all Tennesseans and beyond through education, discovery and outreach.”

Boyd continued: “Education is the great equalizer and serves as an important foundation to democracy, and our great university system was created to serve all of the people of Tennessee through its land grant mission. We are committed to ensuring Tennessee continues to model educational opportunity for everyone.”

“I look forward to hearing from your office on next steps,” Shephard responded to Boyd’s statement.

Letter from University of Tennessee president Randy Boyd to faculty on June 29, 2023.

In a subsequent email to UT Chancellor Dr. Peter Buckley, Shephard expressed again she was “happy to see this response from President Boyd.”

“I forwarded it to our Council on Inclusion and Diversity members to make sure they knew the institution would be addressing it and there was more information to come,” she added. “Sometimes our silence on topics speaks louder than words (and I am aware that many do not open emails from the larger system…).”

Other officials also weighed in with their take on the Court’s decision. On June 30, the day after the Court released its ruling, Dr. Melody Cunningham, of the UT Health Science Center College of Medicine, emailed her colleagues with the greeting, “Good morning, all, I hope you have rejuvenating plans for the holiday weekend … and can leave the angst about the Supreme Court decision on Affirmative Action to the side for the weekend. Arggh!”

The FOIA documents also revealed UT College of Medicine officials sharing a notice of a webinar provided by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) titled “The Recent SCOTUS Decisions on Race-conscious Admissions and Implications for Academic Medicine.”

“In this webinar on July 10, Frank Trinity, JD and Heather Alarcon, JD, the AAMC’s legal counsel, will discuss these decisions and potential implications for improving the diversity in medical and other health professions schools and the health care and medical research workforce,” the announcement read.

The emails obtained by Do No Harm also showed UT medical college officials sharing “resources” from other left-leaning organizations, such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, both of which denounced the Court’s ruling on affirmative action policies.

Shephard also thanked Paul Schwartzberg of Erlanger Health System for sharing with her the statement from Dr. Thomas Nasca, president and CEO of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), who wrote in his “Follow-Up” to a June 13 letter about other “strategies and tools available that can be utilized in institutions’ achievement of their mission-oriented workforce plans.”

“Some of these alternative strategies can be found in the ACGME Equity MattersTM Equity Practice Toolkit,” Nasca noted.

In his statement, Nasca touted the DEI radical narrative that “research confirms that being treated by a racially diverse care team, or by physicians with exposure to diverse professional or educational environments, greatly increases the likelihood of positive medical outcomes, particularly for patients from minoritized backgrounds,” a statement that suggests the view that patients from minority groups recover more quickly or completely when treated by doctors of a particular racial or political identity, rather than those who have achieved a high level of medical competence.

Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, however, rejects claims of “any solid evidence that a more diverse workforce leads to better clinical outcomes.”

“We have looked at this carefully and found no real evidence for racial concordance between patients and physicians providing better outcomes,” Goldfarb recently told National Review. “The data claiming otherwise is scanty and contradictory.”

In April 2023, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed a bill that begins to roll back DEI requirements at publicly funded colleges and universities – including medical schools.

As Do No Harm has noted, the Tennessee Higher Education Freedom of Expression and Transparency Act includes one provision that prohibits the requirement of DEI statements from employment and admission applicants, and another that bans medical schools from using state funds for fees, dues, subscriptions, or travel relating to an organization that requires an individual to endorse or promote a divisive concept.

Tennessee’s approach “should be a model for every other state that wants to ensure its medical schools uphold the highest standards of education and excellence in health care,” Do No Harm has stated.

JAMA Once Again Favors Orthodoxy Over Rigor, Curiosity

, ,

A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) observes that black patients on dialysis are less likely than others to be placed on the kidney transplant waitlist. In what appears to be a matter of orthodoxy for JAMA, the researchers assume that differences in outcomes represent evidence of discrimination.

In Disparities in Kidney Transplant Waitlist Among Young Patients Without Medical Comorbidities, “researchers” observe that 22 percent of young black patients without comorbidities are placed on the kidney waitlist within a year of initiating dialysis. Among young whites and Asians without comorbidities, 34 and 42 percent are referred within a year, respectively. The researchers don’t scrutinize the various potential reasons for this phenomenon, instead concluding that it is “likely reflective of structural racism in access to transplants.”

Logic and evidence for the conclusion is wanting. If group differences alone provide proof of racism, one ought to wonder how Asians supplanted whites as the primary benefactor of structural racism. The higher likelihood of referral for Asian patients is never explained in the text.

Less interesting but more sensible explanations for group differences in referral to the kidney transplant waitlist point to factors other than racism. When doctors weigh which patients should be prioritized for kidney transplantation they consider factors such as social support, medical literacy, likelihood of adherence to a strict medical protocol, history of substance abuse, and willingness of candidates to undergo a rigorous medical evaluation that sometimes entails cardiac catheterization. Potential average group differences in any of these factors plausibly explain the observed disparities in referral for the kidney transplant waitlist.

Researchers interested in understanding the root cause of differences in organ transplantation would have considered multiple explanations. Unfortunately, JAMA and activist “researchers” favor dogma over rigor or intellectual curiosity, and American healthcare is forced to bear the consequences.

Do No Harm Pens Letter Asking Lawmaker to Remember Taxpayer-Funded Medical Schools in DEI Investigation

On September 19, 2023, Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb sent the following letter to Sen. Dan Sullivan of Arkansas ahead of an investigation into the prevalence of DEI within Arkansas’s state-funded colleges and universities.

Dear Senator Sullivan,

Thank you for your upcoming investigation of DEI in Arkansas’s higher-education system. As the chair of an organization focused on getting DEI out of health care, I urge you to include medical schools in your probe. This divisive and discriminatory ideology is especially dangerous in medical education, literally jeopardizing the health and well-being of every Arkansan.

Do No Harm – which represents physicians, patients, and medical students in Arkansas and nationwide – has already discovered that DEI has seeped into medical education in Arkansas. Earlier this year, we sued the state for offering racially discriminatory scholarships under the guise of DEI. The Attorney General settled the case and terminated the program’s race requirements. Yet this is just the tip of the DEI iceberg.

In Arkansas and nationwide, medical schools are engaging in many dangerous and destructive practices grounded in DEI:

  • Lower standards: In the name of diversity, medical schools are ditching standardized tests and academic requirements. This ultimately leads to worse quality physicians who provide worse care to patients.
  • Ideology and Lies: Virtually every medical school now teaches DEI, Critical Race Theory, “systemic racism,” and/or the so-called “social determinants of health.” An entire generation of medical students is being indoctrinated as political activists, not medical professionals.
  • Discriminatory treatment: In the name of “equity,” medical schools are teaching that patients should be prioritized – and de-prioritized – based on race. Such blatant discrimination inevitably leads to worse health outcomes when people are pushed back in line for treatment.
  • Political litmus tests: Medical schools are increasingly demanding “DEI Statements” for faculty and student applicants. By forcing individuals to hold specific politicized beliefs, medical schools are violating free speech and undermining the academic freedom that leads to medical progress.

This is only a partial list of DEI’s infection within medical education. We hope you will investigate DEI’s true extent at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and the Arkansas College of Osteopathic Medicine. Arkansas’ future physicians and patients deserve medical education that improves lives, not ruins them in the name of divisive and discriminatory ideology.

We appreciate your leadership on this life-or-death issue. Please reach out if we can be of any assistance.

Respectfully,

Stanley Goldfarb, MD

Chairman, Do No Harm

Osteopathic Medicine Association Doubles Down on DEI Mission in Revised Standards for Accreditation

The American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine’s (AACOM) accrediting body is doubling down on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled race-based admissions policies and practices are unconstitutional. This is just more evidence that medical schools plan to prioritize radical ideology in academic curricula and culture.

Osteopathic schools, which confer the D.O. (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) degree, have a similar accreditation process that traditional allopathic schools (which confer the M.D. degree) have. The AACOM has the same level of influence over osteopathic schools that the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has over allopathic schools, and develops similar accreditation standards.

The recently revised standards approved by the Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation (COCA) became effective August 1. All Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (COMs) must comply with the standards by July 1, 2024, and they make numerous references to meeting goals for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Examples include:

  • A COM must include a commitment to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its mission, values, vision, goals, or objectives.
  • A COM must produce and publish a current strategic plan addressing all core aspects of the COM mission, including the advancement of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

A COM and any associated branch “must designate an individual with responsibility for oversight of DEI initiatives of the COM.”

So important is DEI to AACOM, that COMs are also required to submit a copy of the DEI leader’s job description and curriculum vitae to COCA.

The COCA standards mandate that, to achieve accreditation, COMs “must have space available for use by students in a manner intended to support diversity, equity, and inclusion, and must consult with students in the process of establishing such a space.”

The schools must also provide a description of “how the COM assesses the adequacy and efficacy of facilities intended to support diversity, equity, and inclusion, including how students are involved in the assessment.”

COCA further requires that, for accreditation, COMs “must have an Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) (or similar) that supports students, faculty, and staff, and the COM’s efforts to promote recruitment, retention, and success of its students, faculty, and staff throughout the osteopathic medical education program.”

Osteopathic schools of medicine “must incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion into its curriculum,” COCA states, adding as well that COMs “must offer DEI training to employed faculty and staff at least annually.”

COCA asserts that its standard for student evaluation of instruction requires the COM to demonstrate that student assessments are “incorporated into the COM’s self-assessment to improve curriculum, including that which promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion; and address deficiencies in student experiences.”

These standards show how far afield major medical gatekeepers have gone from their core focus, which should be helping train the best and brightest doctors of tomorrow.

On the same day the Supreme Court released its ruling on affirmative action policies and practices, AACOM published a press release titled “Osteopathic Medical School Graduates Increase in Racial and Gender Diversity,” boasting about its increases in Hispanic, American Indian, and black osteopathic medical school graduates, and vowing to continue DEI political activism as a primary goal of the organization.

Figure 1. AACOM press release on June 29, 2023.

“[W]e know there is more work to do to ensure that our future physician workforce represents all our communities,” Robert A. Cain, DO, president and CEO of AACOM, said, stressing the importance of the political identities of the future doctors rather than competency to provide excellent medical care.

“We are proud of the rich osteopathic tradition of inclusion,” Cain added, touting further his DEI ideology. “It is one of our foundational pillars and we will continue to work with our colleges to recruit and educate as diverse a class of graduates as possible.”

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Do No Harm Chairman and former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, warned in November 2022 of what is at stake for the future of American medical care if medical schools remain more intent on producing doctors who “represent all our communities” rather than ones who are skillful at identifying and treating illness and disease.

Dr. Goldfarb noted in an op-ed at the New York Post how medical schools are sacrificing sound medical education of future physicians in order to achieve such a high level of wokeness.

Medical schools, for example, are using their “precious resources” to push their divisive ideology, he asserted, when such funds and clout could be spent on medical training.

“More than 40% of medical schools offer tenure and promotions to faculty who conduct DEI scholarship,” Dr. Goldfarb added. “The message to current and potential faculty is clear: If you want to advance in your career, you better toe the party line. Yet politicizing faculty research will worsen, not improve, medical education and care.”

Taxpayers, he wrote, are actually “paying administrators who fixate on applicants’ skin color,” and observed such continued focus on DEI ideology – instead of education and training – will ultimately lead to substandard quality of care.

KU Medical Center and the KU School of Medicine Continue to Facilitate Radical Programs and Initiatives

In April 2023 we reported that the KU Medical Center (KUMC) and the University of Kansas School of Medicine (KUSOM) were partnering with the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) to sponsor the REPAIR Project, a far-left anti-racism program. But a subsequent public records request has revealed KUMC’s plans for how to inject divisive anti-racism ideology into the KUSOM curriculum.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Do No Harm obtained the Scope of Work document for the KU Medical Center REPAIR Project collaboration with The Black Archives of Mid-America in Kansas City. Among the text describing the purpose of the project (i.e., “to address Anti-Black Racism and augment Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) voices and present in Science and Medicine”) was a revealing statement about KUSOM’s intentions for the material:

This project addresses racism in health care as an educational problem by providing a theoretical framework for coordinating and implementing social justice and anti-racism curriculum throughout the university.

Figure 1. Purpose statement in the scope of work document for the DUMC REPAIR Project.

KUMC’s funding contribution to the project totaled $10,000.

The financial contribution from KUMC to this program is a relatively minor amount for a large academic medical center. However, the implications for the KUSOM curriculum are substantial. The integration of rhetoric that stems from the far-left agenda of UCSF – a university system that has very little in common with an institution in America’s heartland – is fraught with consequences. The ideas about racism in healthcare that the REPAIR project is perpetuating are purely theoretical constructs with no empirical data to support them. The dyad of “oppressed” vs. “oppressors” as the only means for individuals of different racial backgrounds to interact with each other is one that has been created out of thin air by ideologues whose motivations have nothing to do with the human-to-human interaction that physicians have with their patients. Simply making these assertions does not transform such a philosophy into reality, nor does it require compliance with the ensuing demands.

Slavery did exist a century ago, and indeed, there has been a history of mistreatment of people simply because of their race. However, every disparate outcome is not the result of a particular patient being mistreated, and pointing out past wrongdoing does not justify the current anti-racism crusade. Concepts such as “medical reparations” and “decolonizing the health sciences” are not topics that are worthy of the limited instructional time that medical students have to learn their craft. KUMC and the KU School of Medicine have an obligation to teach future doctors how to recognize illness and treat medical conditions based on their patients’ individual needs, not a group identity intended to promote a social justice narrative.

Is your school promoting radical ideology in its curriculum instead of sound healthcare principles? Please let us know – and you may remain anonymous if you prefer.

New JAMA Commentary Illustrates Perils of Medical Mission Creep

Doctors are experts in their craft. But that expertise doesn’t always translate to other disciplines. Newly published commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association highlights the perils of medical mission creep and the belief that doctors can and should solve all of the world’s problems.

“Diversifying the medical pathway in a post-affirmative action world” begins with lamentation about the Supreme Court’s decision on race-based college admissions. In what has become a familiar pattern, they cherry pick a small number of studies which suggest that patients receive better care from doctors of their own race or ethnicity. In so doing, they ignore a much larger body of evidence which indicates that no such phenomenon exists.

The authors propose various “solutions” to the imagined problem of the Court’s decision. Their very first solution observes that “the foundational steps to a medical career often start in grade school.” Consequently, “we first propose the earnest effort to achieve equity in funding for public K-12 schools…[as] to invest equally in each K-12 student.” The writers envision seeing benefits downstream since “school district expenditures on education have a significant impact on student education outcomes.”

The claim that K-12 schools inequitably underfund black students is empirically false. Districts tend to spend modestly higher amounts of money on black students compared to white students in the same district. Moreover, the average black student attends a district that spends slightly more per student compared to the average white student.

Claims that “expenditures have a significant impact on student education outcomes” are no less dubious. As Do No Harm Senior Fellow Jay Greene has documented, “evidence” that causally links spending to achievement outcomes is rife with statistical manipulation that fails to hold up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny.

JAMA editors clearly envision no limit to the problems that doctors can solve. Just last month, an editorial called on doctors to take on a leading role in advocating for the reduction of nuclear weapon stockpiles.

If the most recent example provides any indication, doctors operating outside of their expertise makes for bad medicine.