Association Forwards Biden Administration Guidance on SCOTUS Affirmative Action Decision to Medical Schools Seeking Accreditation

, , , ,

Documents obtained by Do No Harm via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which has a say in whether medical schools get accredited, forwarded to medical schools guidance published by the Biden Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Education (DOE) concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision holding that race-based admissions programs in higher education violate the Constitution.

A “Dear Colleague” letter, dated August 14 and signed by Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, and Catherine E. Lhamon, assistant secretary for civil rights, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, condemned the Court’s ruling, stating it “restricts approaches that institutions of higher education have been using for decades to provide students the educational benefits that derive from diverse and vibrant campus communities.”

After the White House assailed the Court’s decision as threatening “to move the country backwards,” the DOJ and DOE observed in its letter the Biden administration was now calling “on colleges, universities, and other stakeholders to seize the opportunity to expand access to educational opportunity for all students and to build diverse student bodies, including by recognizing and valuing students who have overcome adversity.”

The “Dear Colleague” letter then linked to a “Questions and Answers” guide in order to “help colleges and universities understand the Supreme Court’s decision as they continue to pursue campuses that are racially diverse and that include students with a range of viewpoints, talents, backgrounds, and experiences.”

“The Departments also reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that educational institutions remain open to all, regardless of race,” the letter stated, with a claim that suggests programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion ensure schools do not discriminate against individuals of certain races:

Research has shown that such diversity leads to, among other things, livelier and more informative classroom discussions, breakdown of prejudices and increased cross-racial understanding, and heightened cognitive development and problem-solving skills.

“We stand ready to support institutions that recognize that such diversity is core to their commitment to excellence, and that pursue lawful steps to promote diversity and full inclusion,” the federal departments stated.

In their letter, DOJ and DOE further referred to their target population as “underserved students, including students of color”:

For institutions of higher education, this may mean redoubling efforts to recruit and retain talented students from underserved communities, including those with large numbers of students of color. It may likewise mean a greater focus on fostering a sense of belonging for students currently enrolled.

In the FOIA documents obtained by Do No Harm, one email contained information about Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School’s announcement in July of its “4th Annual Diversity in Medicine-Virtual Residency Fair,” to be held August 12.

“This event is a Brown-wide Virtual Residency Fair where Underrepresented in Medicine (UiM) residency candidates can meet the program leadership, learn about life as a resident, DEI initiatives, opportunities at Brown and more,” the invitation stated, reflecting language similar to that in the “Dear Colleague” letter.

According to one email reviewed by Do No Harm, Shelvy L. Campbell-Monroe, Ph.D., associate dean for diversity and inclusion at Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine (MUSOM), forwarded the Brown invitation while pointing out to her recipients, “Notice wording since – Supreme Court ruling.”

In its “Questions and Answers,” DOJ and DOE emphasized that while the Supreme Court’s ruling “limited the ability of institutions of higher education to consider an applicant’s race in and of itself as a factor in deciding whether to admit the applicant,” the Court still “made clear that ‘nothing in [its] opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.’”

“This means that universities may continue to embrace appropriate considerations through holistic application-review processes and (for example) provide opportunities to assess how applicants’ individual backgrounds and attributes—including those related to their race, experiences of racial discrimination, or the racial composition of their neighborhoods and schools—position them to contribute to campus in unique ways,” the departments stated.

The signal, however, from the federal departments that institutions of higher learning – including medical schools – might adjust the wording of their DEI language, from blatant mention of “race” to equity-conscious terms such as “underserved” or “underrepresented” is still likely to draw lawsuits when qualified students are blocked from admission in favor of those who claim to have non-academic obstacles to entry.

In July, for example, Liberty Justice Center called on more than 150 medical schools to end their race-based admissions policies in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating the decision “concludes that diversity is no longer a compelling interest under the Equal Protection Clause.”

“In an industry where merit and skill must be the most important factors when selecting the top applicants for admission, medical schools have a moral obligation to swiftly comply with the law and remove these discriminatory practices,” said Jacob Huebert, president of Liberty Justice Center.

The public-interest litigation firm asserted it is “prepared to challenge any higher educational institution that continues to discriminate against students, faculty, or board leaders.” 

The University of Nebraska College of Medicine Purges Its Website of Two Discriminatory Programs Following Initiation of Federal Civil Rights Investigation

Two “Underrepresented Minority Students in Medicine (URiM)” programs at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine (UNCOM) have been removed from the school’s website following the filing of a federal civil rights complaint and subsequent federal investigation.

Until the federal investigation was opened this week, the UNCOM Department of Dermatology was offering the Dr. Kristie Hayes Visiting URiM Medical Student Externship in Dermatology and the Karle Cordova Olnes UNMC Dermatology URiM Summer Medical Student Research Fellowship on its DEI Opportunities page (archived version). Both programs noted: “Preference will be given to students considered underrepresented in medicine: Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian.”

Discrimination on the basis of race violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and prompted the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to open a federal investigation into these programs on September 13.

A search of the UNCOM website using the names of the programs lists the programs in the results; however, the related webpages have either been taken down or significantly modified:

Figure 2. Search results for the Hayes and Olnes programs on September 15, 2023.
Figure 3. Result of clicking on the link for the Hayes program on September 15, 2023.
Figure 4. Result of clicking on the link for the Olnes program on September 15, 2023.

Do No Harm files federal civil rights complaints on discriminatory medical education programs with the hope that outcomes like the one obtained at UNCOM will be realized. Scrubbing the website of the program indicates that the school likely knew it was engaging in illegal racial discrimination. We call on the University of Nebraska College of Medicine to open its Department of Dermatology programs to all eligible applicants based on their qualifications, without regard to race or ethnicity.

Dr. Ivan Abdouch worked with transgender adults for 30 years. Now he’s speaking out to protect children.

Growing up, Dr. Ivan Abdouch had no intention of being a doctor. He wanted to be a mechanic, then explored college majors, but plans changed when his grandfather had a heart attack and was not expected to survive.

Ivan rushed to the hospital and prepared to say goodbye. He remembers the moment a doctor entered the room and saved his grandfather, who went on to live another 30 years. Ivan found his way to medical school after that, where he met another doctor who changed his life.

“I didn’t consider being a family doctor until I got sick in med school,” he says. “The guy doing student health was a family doctor, and when he walked into the room, I just felt better. And I thought, I’d like to be like that guy.”

“He had an air about him that you just knew you’re gonna be okay.”

Ivan never forgot that feeling, and he wants every family to feel cared for the way that he felt in the student health center. That’s one reason why after 42 years in medicine, Ivan is working with Do No Harm to preserve trust in medicine and speak out on gender ideology and minors.

Ivan worked with transgender patients for three decades in Omaha, Nebraska, long before it became popular to do so. He served as the medical director of the Omaha Gender Identity Team, which provided multidisciplinary services including psychiatry, psychology, social services and other allied professionals. The team was extremely thorough and selective in choosing which patients to treat.

“Maybe one or two out of every 10 adults passed through our evaluation as being transgender,” Ivan says. “The rest had other psychological or emotional issues that needed to be managed.”

Patient claims of transgenderism were not simply taken at face value. But as years passed, Ivan witnessed a radical shift toward a patient-led diagnostic approach along with tremendous physician bias and misinformation.

“I can’t think of any other condition in medicine where we treat someone just because they say they have it. When a patient walks in and says, ‘I think I have cancer’ we don’t just start them on chemotherapy. When they say ‘I think I have diabetes’ we don’t hand out insulin. Why are we doing this with transgenderism? I believe the condition is real, but just because people claim they have it, doesn’t mean they have it.”

Ivan began to feel that requests for treatment were becoming trendy. “It’s the reason I got out of the practice,” he says. “Although I was allowed to provide care for these individuals in my faculty position at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, the diagnosis and management of gender identity disorder was highly unpopular and even questioned by my colleagues. I gave a couple of lectures about it to the residents and faculty back in the late 1990s-early 2000s, but then I was told to stop because it was too controversial and unfounded. Fast forward to the present. The University of Nebraska Medical Center decided to offer transgender medicine—not only to adults, but to children. It felt to me like a commercial enterprise; highly publicized, highly marketed. Meanwhile, my patients are saying, ‘We don’t want all of this attention, we just want to blend in, to be with our families and living our lives.’ They told me that all the marketing, advertising, and publicity were making it increasingly difficult for them to blend in, and it was that circus act that made me say, you know, this isn’t what it’s supposed to be. I’m not going to be a part of it.”

Never once did his practice consider treating children. “We would offer counseling and support to help them through whatever issues were going on, but we wouldn’t even consider any sort of transgender management on a child. That would just be unheard of,” he says.

Dr. Ivan Abodouch, senior fellow at Do No Harm.

The rise in gender procedures on children is what motivated Ivan to step out of retirement and speak out. He made his concerns known in an op-ed for the Nebraska Examiner, and consulted with state legislators as they passed a bill banning gender-switching procedures for kids under age 19, and limiting hormone therapy and puberty blockers for kids in the same age range.

In his opinion piece, Ivan notes that even one of the most cited authorities for transgender care, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, admits in its own Standards of Care that there’s no way to predict a child’s gender evolution and some may regret switching.

It also warns the long-term developmental effects of these early interventions are still unknown. “Gender-affirming interventions pose particular risks to children and adolescents,” he writes. He continues on to describe the specific health risks in detail. You can read them here.

“What scares me most is the irreversibility of it all, and people are taking it so lightly. Yes, there may be some children who will go on into adulthood and transition. But in my experience, very few of these kids are going to end up being transgender adults. Yet, in starting this process, the damage is already done. It’s mistreatment in my book,” Ivan says.

He urges other doctors to educate themselves on the risks of gender-switching procedures on children before it’s too late. Like the family doctor Ivan met in college, these doctors also have young patients who are trusting them to keep them safe.

“If people don’t know anything and they trust the person that’s talking, they’re gonna go along with it. That’s what happens with parents and children. They assume the doctor is trustworthy and knowledgeable and knows what they’re doing,” Ivan warns.

“Don’t just go along to get along. When doctors are fanning the flames of transgenderism, my question to them is, what’s your experience in this? Do you have any idea what you are really supporting? If you don’t have experience with it, talk to somebody who does, to get your feet on the ground in terms of true knowledge of what you’re talking about.”

“Remember, these are children who are going to be affected for the rest of their lives. You’re going to have a difficult, if at all possible, time of correcting what you’ve created there.”

AAMC Peddles Misinformation Through its Own Peer-Reviewed Journal

Peer reviewed journals are entrusted to be truthful and reliable sources of medical information. Unfortunately, they are forsaking the principles of rigor and honesty in favor of political correctness. A recent and egregious example comes by way of Academic Medicine, the flagship journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

In “SHARPening Residency Selection: Implementing a Systematic Holistic Application Review Process,” the authors begin with the premise that “Traditional metrics used in residency application review processes are systematically biased against applicants from minoritized communities that are underrepresented in medicine (URiM).” They use this premise to launch a screed against traditional medical school admission metrics (e.g., GPA and MCAT scores) and in favor of a “holistic” admissions process.

The charge that traditional metrics are “systematically biased” doesn’t have a citation. That’s because it’s not true. In psychometrics, “bias” refers to the idea that a test could have different validity for one group compared to another. The MCAT would be biased, for example, if it was worse at predicting persistence through medical school among Asians compared to whites. A review of the literature shows “no evidence” of bias in the MCAT exam.

The authors are making a value statement—the belief that unequal outcomes are proof of unequal treatment—and conflating it with a factual claim. That a journal published by the AAMC would place narrative ahead of fact is disheartening, but it isn’t surprising. The organization embarrassed themselves in committing sloppy factual errors in service to opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling on race-based college admissions.

The AAMC claims that they are committed to combating medical misinformation. Unfortunately, the fireman is also the arsonist.  

California Medical Association Advocates for $700 Million Project for “Equity and Practice Transformation”

Does California ever get its fill of massive spending on woke health equity projects? Apparently not, according to the hundreds of millions of dollars the state is pouring into efforts to alter the way healthcare is delivered in medical practices.

The California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), the self-proclaimed “backbone of California’s health care safety net,” is dedicating $700 million to a “practice transformation program” for primary care providers (PCP). Called the Equity and Practice Transformation (EPT) Payments Program, the goal is to promote health equity, align with the DHCS Comprehensive Quality Strategy and Equity Roadmap, and provide funding for PCPs whose practices serve Medi-Cal patients.

The state’s leading medical organization was at the forefront of agitating for this funding. As announced by the California Medical Association (CMA), the organization “heavily advocated for this funding during the budget process.”

So what do they hope to achieve?

“Sixty-eight percent of the Medi-Cal population is Black, Latino, or people of color,” the EPT guidebook states. Funding will focus on the “50 by 2025 Bold Goals,” which include reductions in racial/ethnic disparities in well-child visits and immunizations by 50%, as well as disparities in maternity care “for Black and Native American persons” by 50% at the state level.

Oddly, we saw no goal for closing maternity care disparities for Hispanic patients in the EPT guidebook.

Figure 1. DHCS “50 by 2025 Bold Goals” of the Equity and Practice Transformation Program.

That’s not the only glaring inconsistency in the EPT program. The guidebook refers to the “Scaling of Evidence-Based Models Pathway,” which is also fixated on the Bold Goals and lists “implementing group prenatal care (e.g., centering pregnancy or Black Centering)” as the first initiative. According to UCSF, “Black Centering” is part of a group-focused prenatal care model “in a racially and culturally safe space.”

Of even greater concern is that healthcare providers who participate in the program are reimbursed for services via a “pay for performance” incentive system. “Phase 2 requirements,” the guidelines state, “would include pay for performance incentives based off certain targeted quality measures.” Those metrics must be aligned with the 50 by 2025 Bold Goals.

The application process serves to identify PCPs who will buy into the conditions of the EPT program. Potential participants must complete the 50-question Population Health Management Capabilities Assessment Tool (PhmCAT), which assesses “eight common domains” influenced by the Population Health Management Initiative (PHMI). The PHMI is DHCS’s partnership with Kaiser Permanente and community health centers across California, and is designed for “emphasizing populations of focus where disparities exist.” Participating health centers will “collect and analyze REAL (race, ethnicity, and language) data and social needs data.” This is reflected in the PhmCAT survey.

Among the questions related to operational workflows and resources, the survey asks about the practice’s dedication to providing “staffing, funding, and structures” to support DEI-related goals. Examples are “equity leads” and “internal equity workgroups.”

Figure 2. From the PhmCAT, Population Health Management Initiative (June 2023) – DEI goals.
Figure 3. From the PhmCAT, Population Health Management Initiative (June 2023) – Budgeting for DEI initiatives.

Recruiting and hiring practices are another theme of the survey, with the highest points earned for organizations that hire and promote staff based on DEI, as well as those that offer regular DEI-based training.

Figure 4. From the PhmCAT, Population Health Management Initiative (June 2023) – Recruiting and hiring practices.

The last group of questions on the PhmCAT focuses on “social health,” and the questions are based on information from a report by the National Academies. The report describes “social care integration” by healthcare systems “to improve the nation’s health and reduce health inequities.” In other words, doctors and other healthcare providers are told that addressing their patients’ “social determinants of health” is their duty in the name of health equity, despite having no agency to deal with these issues.

Figure 5. From the PhmCAT, Population Health Management Initiative (June 2023) – Addressing social needs.

Improving access to medical services is an important focus for all areas of healthcare. But are California’s Medi-Cal providers being incentivized to provide higher quality medical care to specified minority populations than other groups of patients? Are physicians and medical practices being told that they must act as social service providers for certain patients in order to receive optimal reimbursement? With the structure of the EPT program, DHCS is assuming that the cause of health disparities is largely due to the character of the healthcare system. Yet there is no evidence that any of the efforts the program promotes will actually improve health outcomes. There is a distinct difference in deploying initiative that improve access to care versus those that simply target increasing diversity and equity, which aims to change the nature of the patient/physician relationship.

Do No Harm is monitoring this situation. Please contact us if you’re a Medi-Cal provider with concerns about this program.

Do No Harm Obtains Its 35th Federal Civil Rights Investigation as Case is Opened Against Wayne State University Scholarship Program

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has opened a federal civil rights investigation against Wayne State University for a scholarship that illegally discriminates on the basis of both race and sex. This marks the 35th instance to date that a civil rights complaint filed by Do No Harm has resulted in a federal investigation.

The Detroit-Regional Elective Scholarship for Underrepresented Students (D-RESUS) at Detroit Receiving Hospital provides illegal preferences for students based on their race, color, or national origin and gender identity or sexual orientation. The D-RESUS award includes financial assistance for senior medical students – but only if they are “members of minority groups.” Specifically, applicants must self-identify as being “Black, Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander” or “gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender.”

Figure 1. D-RESUS scholarship eligibility at Wayne State University.

The scholarship application confirms the intent to collect information on gender, race, and ethnicity.

Figure 2. D-RESUS scholarship application at Wayne State University.

Wayne State University School of Medicine is engaging in illegal discrimination in violation of Title VI and Title IX by operating a scholarship program that illegally excludes medical students based on their sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, color, or national origin. Do No Harm expects that the OCR investigation into the D-RESUS program will result in the Department of Emergency Medicine being forced to make its scholarship available to all eligible applicants in alignment with federal civil rights laws.

Progress At Indiana’s Main Medical Association

Good news from Indiana. At its September meeting, the Indiana State Medical Association largely sided with common sense, medical ethics, and equal treatment over divisive ideology. As the primary representative of the state’s medical professionals, ISMA deserves credit for tackling tough issues and generally doing the right thing.

ISMA debated several resolutions, with positive outcomes:

  • No Trans Care For Children: ISMA passed a resolution opposing all “medical and surgical gender transition treatment for minors in the state of Indiana.” This is a big win for children, who deserve protection from invasive and irreversible treatments that can seriously damage their mental and physical health. This resolution also reinforces the fact that physicians oppose such treatments, which are largely pushed by radical activists and politicized medical associations.
  • No Condemnation of Anti-DEI Laws: ISMA refused to pass a resolution opposing state laws that get DEI out of medical schools. The resolution was introduced by a medical student, showing the radicalization that’s creeping into medical education. Instead of passing the resolution, ISMA kicked it to a board for further study – effectively killing it for now.

These positive steps should inspire the Indiana General Assembly to take up the torch of reform. State lawmakers should continue to protect children from transgender activists, while taking bold action to get DEI out of medical education – especially at the IU School of Medicine, which is one of the most politicized in America.

Lawmakers have the support of the state’s physicians. Now they just need the courage to act.

California May Take Your Child From You

The radicalism of the transgender movement is boundless. Look no further than California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom may soon sign a bill that would take children away from parents who disagree with their child’s chosen gender identity. The message is clear: Support your child’s sex change, or lose your child.

The bill in question passed the California Assembly on September 8 by an overwhelming margin of 57 to 16. It previously passed the California Senate. Named the “Transgender, Gender-Diverse, and Intersex Youth Empowerment Act,” a more accurate title is the “No Freedom For Families And Forced Sex Changes for Children” Act. This news story describes what the bill would do:

“Under the proposed law, parents who fail to acknowledge and support their child’s gender transition could face potential consequences, including the loss of custody rights to another parent or even the state itself.” 

Will Gov. Newson sign this bill? Not if he’s honest. Gov. Newsom recently said that California is “a place where families — not political fanatics — have the freedom to decide what’s right for them.” He further declared that “there is no state in America that supports local control and parental engagement like the state of California.” Yet this radical legislation is the opposite of parental freedom and engagement. It will destroy parents’ fundamental rights, to say nothing of children’s physical and mental health.

Transgender activists will brook no dissent in their campaign to control America’s children, not even a child’s own parents. Gov. Newsom should realize that the right call is obvious: Parents who defend their child should be praised, not punished by having their child ripped away.

Leaders at the UMass Medical School Notified of Federal Civil Rights Complaint Filing for a Discriminatory Pipeline Program

The chancellor the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (UMass Chan) in Worcester and the UMass General Counsel in Amherst have been notified of a federal civil rights complaint filed against a university-sponsored pipeline program that discriminates on the basis of race.

On September 7, as a courtesy to university officials, Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry provided a copy of his complaint to these officials regarding the Pipeline for underrepresented Students in Medicine (PRISM) program. Sponsored by the McManus Lab at UMass Chan, this clinical research opportunity’s eligibility criteria state that participants “must be a member of historically underrepresented groups in medicine; e.g., Blacks, Mexican Americans, Native Americans (American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), and of Hispanic origin.”

Figure 1. Eligibility criteria for the PRISM program at UMass Chan School of Medicine.

Perry’s complaint cites Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as students who are not a member of the four groups above are being illegally excluded based on their race, color, or national origin.

Do No Harm will legally challenge and call attention to medical education programs that are engaging in illegal discrimination in violation of Title VI or Title IX, despite the prohibition of such unfairness in their non-discrimination statements. UMass is no exception to schools that endorse and publicize these statements. We encourage UMass Chan to take immediate corrective action regarding the PRISM program’s eligibility criteria, as racial exclusion and inequality are against the law and have no place in medical education.

Is your school engaging in discrimination with programs that exclude certain groups of applicants based on race or sex? Please let us know via our secure online portal.

Yet Another Attempt to Circumvent the Supreme Court’s Ruling to End Race-Conscious Admissions

The American Medical Association is prodding medical schools to find workarounds to the Supreme Court’s ban on race-based college admissions. They aren’t alone. An article on a popular medical news and opinion site (KevinMD.com) features statements from other key players in the healthcare establishment who “retaliated [to the Court decision] by vowing to continue affirmative action practices.” For example:

  • The Association of American Medical Colleges: “We remain committed to enhancing health professional education and practice by emphasizing critical thinking, innovation, effective communication with all patients, and increased access to patient care for an increasingly diverse population … We will work together to adapt following today’s [June 29, 2023] court decision without compromising these goals.”
  • Thomas NASCA, CEO of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education: “ACGME standards do not require race-based affirmative action to achieve diversity, and this [Supreme Court] decision does not require programs and institutions to change their resident selection practices.”
  • Leaders at Stanford Medicine: “While we adjust to this new environment in a manner that conforms with the law, we want to emphasize that Stanford Medicine firmly believes in the transformative power of diversity, in all dimensions…While the ruling changes the landscape of university admissions, it does not change our resolve or our values.”

The article contrasts these statements with commentary from Do No Harm staff in claiming that “a vocal minority of physicians believe that admission to medical school should be based on merit alone.” Whether we’re truly a vocal “minority” or the voice of a dispossessed majority, we remain steadfast in the pursuit of common sense over ideology and reason over pseudoscience. These principles dictate our commitment to overseeing that the Court’s decision is implemented with fidelity. “Merit alone” must not simply be the rallying cry of “vocal” whistleblowers, but the modus operandi of all American medical schools.

The University of Iowa College of Nursing Takes Down Its “Anti-Oppression Statement” – But There’s Still Plenty of DEI To Go Around

The state of Iowa has a legacy of common-sense principles. Unfortunately, one needs to look no further than the University of Iowa – and especially the College of Nursing – for a heavy dose of woke ideology.

Do No Harm obtained documents from some of the university’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training materials on “Social Justice;” “Practicing Pronouns;” “Oppression;” and “Barriers to Inclusion.” References to phrases such as “the system of oppression,” “fae/faer/faerself,” and “guilt is the glue that holds prejudice in place” prompted us to take a closer look at their other DEI endeavors. While exploring the school’s webpages, I readily found more concerning information within the nursing education program.

The University of Iowa College of Nursing (UICON) places its DEI initiatives front and center for website visitors. Unfortunately, that’s not unusual for major universities in states that have not taken legislative measures to remove DEI offices from higher education. But the UICON goes beyond the ubiquitous bias resources and DEI models.

Figure 1. University of Iowa College of Medicine homepage.

While reviewing the IUCON’s DEI pages on August 3, 2023, I located one specific item that was particularly eye-catching: UICON’s Anti-Oppression Statement, which includes the following excerpts:

Across this nation there has been an increase in acts of hate (ex. racism, xenophobia, transphobia, sizeism, heterosexism, religious oppression) in the form of threats, harassment, bullying, body shaming, intimidation, assaults, scapegoating, discrimination, injuries, vandalism, violence, and death for members of the Asian, Jewish, Latino, African American, transgender, plus size, and immigrant communities. 

We cannot ignore the fact that hate is the fuel that is perpetuating divisive sentiment, bias, discriminatory behavior, and hate crimes.

We recognize the physical, emotional, and traumatic impact that these acts of hate and injustice may be having on our students, their families, and our colleagues who may represent these diverse identities that enrich our overall American culture. 

The University of Iowa College of Nursing emphatically denounces all forms of individual and systemic social injustices, including all forms of overt and covert oppression.

In our efforts to achieve the highest level of excellence in nursing education, research, practice, and service, the College of Nursing is committed to an anti-oppression/social justice approach that continuously examines the processes that repeatedly advantage and develop the potential of one group over another. We are committed to condemning all forms of oppression and we support education, policies and practices that advocate for and implement equity and social justice for all people, including reducing disparities in the delivery of high-quality and culturally responsive health care. 

We ask our students, staff, faculty, alumni, and members of our UI and global health sciences communities to join us in advancing health, igniting leadership, and engaging in educational partnerships and­­­­ practices with diverse communities that dismantle all forms of hate.

Figure 2. UICON Anti-Oppression Statement (archived page).

However, a September 5 visit to the webpage that previously contained the Anti-Oppression Statement produced an error message:

Figure 3. IUCON webpage with the Anti-Oppression Statement as it appeared on September 5, 2023.

Turns out it wasn’t a change of heart: just a modest change of messaging. Much of the same information has now been placed into the College of Nursing Humanity Statement, including these excerpts:

Welcome! 

The University of Iowa College of Nursing values different backgrounds, perspectives, and life experiences across the lifespan. The resources you see listed on this site are available for everyone to use. Our College is a microcosm of the larger American community and experience. We strive to celebrate our similarities and embrace and learn from our differences through civil and reciprocal discourse that respects everyone’s right to freedom of expression. It is our goal to provide a welcoming, inclusive and accessible environment for everyone in our college and our profession.  We know our work today will graduate tremendous future nurses and build safer and healthier communities where everyone belongs and is valued, needed, and appreciated.  

However, we also recognize the physical, emotional, and traumatic impact that acts of bias, discrimination, misconduct, and hate may have on our students, their families, our healthcare colleagues, and our patients who may be representative of diverse identities and/or diverse perspectives that enrich the tapestry of our vibrant American culture. 

The College of Nursing emphatically denounces all forms of bias, discrimination, misconduct, and hate. We strive to hold our faculty, staff, and students accountable for our attitudes, actions, and words as we uphold the tenets of the College’s Seven Pillars of Diversity.       

In our efforts to achieve the highest level of excellence in nursing education, research, practice, and service, the College of Nursing is engaged in education, policies and practices that advocate for and implement equity and social justice for all people, including reducing disparities in the delivery of high-quality, ethical, and culturally responsive health care to improve patient outcomes. 

The American Nurses Association (ANA) Code of Ethics guides nursing practice and states that all patients will receive nursing care no matter their background, resources, or situation. The ANA recognizes bias, discrimination, misconduct, and hate as a longstanding public health crisis contributing to inequities impacting mental, spiritual, and physical health and well-being. The ANA seeks to strengthen the nursing profession by increasing intellectual diversity and inclusive leadership while striving to establish anti-discrimination nursing practices and environments.

We ask our students, staff, faculty, alumni, and members of our UI and global health sciences communities to join us in working to dismantle all forms of inequitable care by advancing health, building healthy work and educational environments, empowering leadership, and fostering innovative partnerships and­­­­ practices with a broadly defined diverse group of colleagues and communities that welcome and utilize the perspectives, talent and contributions of all. 

The University of Iowa College of Nursing is more than a college – we are a community that cares for all. 

Figure 4. UICON Humanity Statement (current page).

While reducing the level of hyperbole is a positive adjustment to the statement, the addition of statements from the American Nurses Association that describe concepts regarding discrimination and hate is not. As we have previously reported, the ANA has moved far beyond its original mission of advocating for nurses and is fully entrenched in extreme ideology.

Last year, Do No Harm obtained documents from the University of Iowa in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Those documents exposed the UI medical school’s practice of training members of the faculty hiring committee in the concept of implicit bias. The training also provided instruction in hiring strategies based on advancing DEI instead of recognizing individual achievement when reviewing faculty candidates. Even so, the school has maintained entries on its website like the “Black Lives Matter at School – Iowa Teach In” event and the Anti-Racism Resource Guide.

Why is all of this bad for nursing? Spending the limited amount of time available to train students in ways to become skilled and competent nurses on topics that do nothing to achieve that objective is the obvious response. But the downstream effects on the profession as a whole are less visible, and they can be significant.

In my role at Do No Harm, I receive incoming messages from other nurses who are frustrated with the seemingly endless barrage of DEI training they are encouraged – and in some cases, required – to complete. They are insulted by ideological concepts pushing group identity politics being imposed on them in the name of continuing education. Some are close enough to retirement that they choose to give up nursing completely. Others, like Clete Weigel in Ohio, are forced out. These instances have resulted in the loss of highly experienced nurses in a time where the entire industry continues to sound the alarm about a critical U.S, nursing shortage.

It’s time for the University of Iowa to discard its commitment to divisiveness and dogma and provide the type of quality education that future nurses and physicians need. Their fellow Iowans (and future patients) care about the level of skill and talent of their healthcare professionals; not their knowledge of obscure pronouns and dedication to social justice activism.

Laura Morgan is a registered nurse and Do No Harm’s program manager.

The University of Colorado School of Medicine Suddenly Scrubs Its Website After Being Hit with Federal Civil Rights Complaint

The University of Colorado School of Medicine (CUSOM) promoted three discriminatory scholarships for “historically underrepresented” groups on its website – that is, until they were notified by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that those programs were being challenged.

On June 4, 2023, Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry filed a federal civil rights complaint with the Department of Education’s OCR for three “diversity scholarships” that discriminated on the basis of race/ethnicity or sex/gender identity/sexual orientation. Shortly after the Denver OCR received the complaint and contacted the university, CUSOM made substantial changes to the eligibility criteria for each of the three scholarships:

1. Medical Student Externship Diversity Scholarship

The original eligibility criteria stated, “The Program is open to applicants who belong to groups that are recognized as historically underrepresented in the health profession including African American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander and/or LGBTQIA+.”

Figure 1. CUSOM Medical Student Externship Diversity Scholarship webpage as it appeared in June 2023 (archived page).

The eligibility was later updated to remove the illegal race/sexual orientation/gender identity restrictions:

Figure 2. Updated eligibility criteria for the Medical Student Externship Diversity Scholarship (current page).

2. The Chair’s Diversity Scholarship

Eligibility for this scholarship was originally restricted to “a member of a traditionally underrepresented minority in health science graduate programs (African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaska Native, Vietnamese, or rural students).”

Figure 3. CUSOM Chair’s Diversity Scholarship webpage as it originally appeared (archived page).

The revised criteria now say that “any student in good academic standing” is eligible to apply:

Figure 4. Revised eligibility criteria for the Chair’s Diversity Scholarship (current page).

3. Visiting Student Diversity Scholarship

This scholarship was being promoted as an opportunity for 4th-year medical students with an interest in surgery; however, the discriminatory program was only open to “applicants who belong to groups that are recognized as historically underrepresented in the health profession including African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander and/or LGBTQ.”

Figure 5. CUSOM Visiting Student Diversity Scholarship webpage in June 2023 (archived page).

After being notified by OCR of the federal civil rights complaint, the CUSOM revised the eligibility criteria to say that anyone can apply:

Figure 6. Revised Visiting Student Scholarship (current page).

“In each case, CUSOM scrubbed the discriminatory and illegal eligibility restrictions based on race, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity after the filing of my complaint,” Perry said. “The remedy that Do No Harm and I sought,” he continued, “was to enjoin the University from continuing to engage in illegal discrimination.”

As soon as the OCR finalizes its investigation it has indicated that it will issue a closure letter to reflect the changes CUSOM has made to correct its non-compliance with Title VI and Title IX, according to an email Perry received from the Denver OCR.

Do No Harm applauds the steps that CUSOM has taken to stop its illegal discrimination and enforce federal civil rights laws including Title VI and Title IX – as is legally required by recipients of federal financial assistance. We encourage other medical education programs to follow suit.

This case at the University of Colorado School of Medicine demonstrates the effectiveness of challenging colleges and universities that are violating the law by offering discriminatory scholarships and academic programs. Do No Harm will continue to take the necessary action to correct these violations and restore fairness and the equal treatment of all individuals in medical education.

Do No Harm Submits Comment to CMS: Payment Policies Must Not Be Based On “Health Equity Goals” of the Biden Administration

,

Do No Harm chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb submitted comments to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding the proposed rule CMS–1784–P, which seeks to make changes to the way healthcare providers are paid for their services.

“The proposed rule gives our group of experienced medical professionals great concern in several areas,” Dr. Goldfarb wrote in a September 8 letter to CMS. “What should be straightforward updating of various payment policies,” he continued, “has instead become just the latest effort by the Biden administration to use critical government services as a carrier for its alleged ‘health equity’ goals.”

Stated plainly, the proposed rule change would directly incentivize healthcare providers to deliver more services to patients of certain races/ethnicities, sexualities, and religions. Such a system would constitute a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and pushing individual patients to the front of the line based on any factor other than their health status is morally wrong.

Read the full comments below:

Do No Harm Comment on CMS Rule 8-28-23Download

A Federal Civil Rights Investigation is Underway at the University of Delaware

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has opened a federal civil rights investigation against the University of Delaware (UD) for a program that discriminates on the basis of sex.

Mark Perry, senior fellow at Do No Harm, filed a Title IX complaint with the OCR for the school’s partnership with The Perry Initiative, a pipeline program exclusively for women entering the fields of medicine or engineering. One component of the project is the Perry Outreach Program (POP), which is for female high school students who are interested in orthopedic surgery. POP restricts applicant eligibility to those who “gender-identify as female or non-binary.” By using its resources, facilities, staff, and websites to promote The Perry Initiative, UD violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination based on sex and gender identity.

Figure 1. The Perry Outreach Program in orthopedic surgery at the University of Delaware.

The UD Delaware Rehabilitation Institute (DRI) also “proudly sponsors” The Perry Initiative in support of its “mission of advancing the science of physical rehabilitation.”

Figure 2. The UD Delaware Rehabilitation Institute, sponsor of The Perry Initiative.

One of the co-founders and board members of The Perry Initiative is Dr. Jenni Buckley, a mechanical engineer and UD faculty member.

Do No Harm is monitoring the progress of this investigation and anticipates a positive outcome from the Office for Civil Rights. In addition to the Title IX complaint against UD, Do No Harm is also challenging the discriminatory female-only Perry Initiative programs at 14 other colleges and universities.

Are you seeing programs or scholarships at your school that discriminate on the basis of race or sex? Please let us know; you may remain anonymous if you wish.

The Indiana University School of Medicine Just Can’t Get Enough of Woke Ideologies

The Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) is at it again pushing more identity politics on faculty and staff, this time with an online learning course called Mitigating Unconscious Bias in Decision-Making.

Do No Harm has previously covered IU’s other woke offerings, such as a training module from the IU Office of Academic Affairs that instructed job search committee members to consider their “implicit bias” and “whiteness” in the course of evaluating applicants, rather than focusing solely on their experience and suitability for the position.

The new course on “unconscious bias in decision-making” is an additional offering on the same topic, but for a wider audience. IUSM employees and students were notified of its existence via email, which Do No Harm was made aware of by an anonymous source. Even individuals who are not affiliated with the university can enroll: “While this training is designed with academic medicine in mind,” the email noted, “the content can be applied to any setting.”

Promoted by the woke dean of IUSM

The training module opens with a message from Dean Jay Hess, who notes that understanding one’s own perceptions is a fundamental step in making everyone at IUSM feel supported and encouraged. “On multiple occasions when I was faced with a decision,” he claims, “my decision-making was in fact influenced by unconscious bias.” He even acknowledges that the training itself is questionable. “There is some research and there are many people out there who question the value of unconscious bias training,” he says. But he encourages it as “important” for IUSM from the perspective of recruitment, evaluation, and promotion of people, and even to the care of patients.  

Figure 1. Course offered by the Indiana University School of Medicine.

Training places equity and justice at the center of patient care

The first unit of the module says that IUSM “commits to identifying and dismantling hate, oppression, systemic racism, and discrimination in academic medicine,” and instructs learners to do the same by taking steps to address diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice.

“As we become more aware of our biases, we can make better data-informed decisions,” said Dr. Alvaro Tori, associate dean for Diversity Affairs at IUSM. He also advised learners regarding “taking inventory of the identities that you ascribe to and the power, privilege, and oppression that we each navigate.” Dr. Tori said that these measures place equity and justice in the center of the work of patient care, education, and research.

Subsequent sections in the training provide a roadmap for taking such an identity-based inventory and buying into the concept of “equity.” Units 2 and 3 in the module used YouTube videos, created by the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2019, with the ubiquitous explanation of biases being our brains’ way of taking shortcuts to deal with information overload and numerous examples of types of bias.

https://youtu.be/BwYFhJO9t50
Video from “Mitigating Unconscious Bias in Decision-Making” at IUSM.

In Unit 3, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) is introduced, and despite its weak science, the module content states “the IAT is considered more reliable and valid than survey evaluations.”

But it goes to the extreme in an effort to make its misguided point. The UCLA video on this topic refers to “The Black-White Attitude Test,” and describes how the tester will see pictures of a young black male’s face and a picture of a young white male’s face. The tester is instructed to sort the faces by hitting a key on the left side of the keyboard for white, and key on the right side for black. The next step is to sort words in two “attitudinal categories” using the words “beauty,” “happy,” and “joy” or “filth,” “sick,” and “greed.” The tester then identifies the “good” words by striking a key on the left, and the “bad” words using the right side of the keyboard. The final step is to sort the words and the faces together. However, the exercise further conditions the tester to associate positive words with white faces and negative words with black faces by actually instructing him or her to do so. The narrator states that when good words are associated with white faces and bad words are associated with black faces, “you will find your groove and fly through this test. Most of us do.”

Figure 2. From “Lesson 5: The IAT” from the UCLA Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (a component of the IUSM Mitigating Unconscious Bias course).

However, when the procedure is reversed, the claim is that the process takes longer and testers will make more mistakes. The video attributes this to the so-called “IAT Effect,” which “reflects the strength of an attitude” and indicates “an implicit preference for whites.”

https://youtu.be/hr9xAcWv790?t=135
Video from “Mitigating Unconscious Bias in Decision-Making” at IUSM.

There is no proof that unconscious bias plays a role in clinical decision-making that leads to disparate outcomes. Beyond the fact that the IAT fails in its goals, there simply is no evidence that using it is beneficial in any way.

IUSM’s training offers conflicting advice

Unit 3 offers a discussion of the ways to address individual bias. The material moves into the “group mitigation strategies” and a section that describes “What We Will Do.” One of the strategies is to “go anonymous,” meaning that any information that could be used to identify an individual is to be eliminated from application documents, thus creating a “blind selection” process.

Figure 3. From “Mitigating Unconscious Bias in Decision-Making” at Indiana University School of Medicine.

But that doesn’t align with the IUSM Office of Academic Affairs training module, which makes it clear to search committee members that they are to use “equity benchmarks” at every point of faculty candidate review and selection (emphasis added):

Here are some strategies that serve to buffer outcomes from the impact of bias. First, search committees should adopt an inclusive mindset. Rather than trying to narrow the pool down, they should try to make it as inclusive as possible. Furthermore, at each point of the process that the pool gets narrowed, the committee should ensure that the percentage of minoritized applicants continues to reflect the percentage in the original pool. If it does not, then the committee might revisit their criteria for evaluating applicants. Second, establish and use well-defined criteria to guard against bias. As we discussed, criteria that seem valid on the surface may systematically disadvantage applicants of color. Wherever possible, eliminate biased metrics or find ways to adjust for them in the ratings. Finally, ensure accountability by agreeing that decision-making processes must be clear to all committee members and by slowing down the evaluation process so as not to rely on biases and heuristics when assessing candidates.

So what are IUSM community members supposed to do? Anonymize data, or insert percentage controls of minoritized applicants? It is no wonder that Do No Harm has heard from so many concerned stakeholders who feel that they’re being fed contradictory guidance that constantly pushes identity politics.

It’s time the Indiana University School of Medicine stops wasting time and resources on training that only serves to create division. State policymakers are starting to pay attention to constituent requests for help to force some sanity back into the school.

Is your school or healthcare organization requiring implicit bias training? Please let us know via Do No Harm’s secure online portal.

The University of Minnesota Department of Medicine Scrubs Its Website of a Discriminatory Program in the Wake of a Federal Civil Rights Investigation

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has completed its investigation of the Department of Medicine’s discriminatory single-sex, female-only early career research award at the University of Minnesota Medical School (UMMS), prompting the school to scrub its website.

In April 2023, we reported that the OCR was investigating the UMMS Department of Medicine’s Dr. Anne Joseph Women’s Early Research Career (WERC) Award, which limited eligibility to women, for violating Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. On September 1, Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry was notified by the OCR that the investigation into the WERC Award was complete. “The University provided documentation to OCR that the Award was open to all applicants who met the eligibility criteria,” the disposition letter stated, “and was not limited based on sex.” The university also confirmed that it will remove the word “Women’s” from the name of the award.

A search of the University of Minnesota (UMN) website for the term “WERC” produced a result:

Figure 1. Search of the UMN website for the term “WERC” on September 2, 2023.

However, that link has been taken down:

Figure 2. Broken link on UMN website (September 2, 2023).

An archived page displaying the award can be seen here:

Figure 3 & 4. Archived page on UMMS Department of Medicine website as of June 4, 2023.

As a result of Perry’s work in recent years, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities has been the target for two dozen civil rights complaints citing more than fifty violations of Title VI and Title IX. Do No Harm acknowledges resolution of the discriminatory limitations of the WERC research award, and encourages the University of Minnesota to revise the other programs it continues to sponsor that violate federal civil rights law.

Indiana Doctor and Educator: IUSM Needs Immediate Reform

Do No Harm recently spoke with Dr. Cindy Basinski, a practicing physician and medical educator in Indiana. She’s deeply worried about Indiana University School of Medicine, her alma mater. IUSM is one of the most radicalized medical schools in the nation. Dr. Basinski told us what’s at stake:

Every day, I talk with medical students and faculty at the IU School of Medicine. Their backgrounds and beliefs differ, but they all share the same concern. They see firsthand that IUSM is undermining medical education with divisive ideology. It’s creating a culture of fear and self-censorship that harms them and, ultimately, patients across Indiana and beyond.

IUSM is going the same route as most medical schools nationwide, though it’s arguably much further along the road. It has rallied around the ideology of “diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice.” Every medical student, educator, and physician I know is sympathetic to the goal of building trust and understanding among different communities and groups of people. But DEIJ goes much further, demanding conformity of views on campus.

Start with medical students. Before even getting into medical school, they are asked how they have promoted – or plan to promote – DEIJ objectives. Students have also told me about the politicized lessons they get in the classroom. IUSM is downplaying medical science and ethics in favor of politicized narratives about race and gender.

Students don’t dare disagree because they know it would destroy their chances of getting into residency programs they desire. They are completely dependent on recommendations from IUSM faculty, so they silence themselves for their own protection.

Faculty are also suffering. They cannot question the tenets of the DEIJ agenda, lest they be punished by administrators. Even worse, IUSM faculty are now required to show how they’ve advanced DEIJ in order to secure tenure or promotion. Whereas students are being forced into silence, IUSM faculty are being forced to be complicit with the corruption of medical education.

This runs counter to the purpose of medical education, the principles of medical science, and the pursuit of medical progress. The most incredible advances in medical history happened because students and faculty pushed the bounds of knowledge and questioned received wisdom. If faculty and future physicians aren’t exposed to a wide variety of views, or even free to share their own perspectives, they won’t move medicine forward. Patients will suffer.

Going public was a hard choice, but I know that staying silent jeopardizes the future of medicine. I’m speaking out for the countless students and faculty who cannot speak for themselves. IUSM is engaged in coercion at its worst, because it affects not only students and staff but the healthcare system in Indiana.  

We need our lawmakers to help restore balance in medical education. I urge our Governor and General Assembly to recognize what’s happening and reform IUSM and all of Indiana’s higher education. Now is the time to protect the free speech rights of students and faculty alike. Now is the time to refocus medical and higher education on actual education, not divisive ideology. Hoosiers’ health depends on it.

Cindy Basinski, MD, FACOG, FPMRS, Adjunct Faculty Member at IUSM

Do No Harm is grateful to Dr. Basinski. Here’s hoping divisive ideology is driven from the Indiana University School of Medicine as soon as possible.

Activists Scheme to Skirt Affirmative Action Ban – And Provide False Pretense For Doing It

,

Two commentaries published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on the same day leave no doubt that the American Medical Association remains committed to skirting rather than honoring the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action.

In The Supreme Court Decision on Affirmative Action—Fewer Black Physicians and More Health Disparities for Minoritized Groups, “researchers” argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling against race-based admissions “goes beyond college admissions for Black people and other minority groups to the very core of the health of the entire country…Multiple research studies have shown that patients have improved outcomes when they are treated by people of a similar background or race or ethnicity.”

The claim that black patients fare better with black doctors references a systematic review (i.e., an assessment of the evidence base on the topic) that offers some optimism when it comes to the effect of racial concordance on patient-provider communication. It conveniently neglects to reference the four other systematic reviews on race concordance in medicine which conclude that the evidence base does not reveal a pattern that demonstrates benefit, including a more recent review that also specifically focuses on patient-provider communication.

The JAMA piece isn’t the first occasion in which the American Medical Association has endorsed or promoted fictional claims that black patients fare better with black doctors. That they continue to promote these falsehoods in the face of public fact checking of sloppy factual errors reveals the depths of their conviction to continue lowering standards and engaging in racial preference for medical school admission. 

In the other piece of commentary ­– Affirmative Action Ruled Unconstitutional: Options for Building a Diverse Healthcare Workforce – “researchers” assert that “The Court’s opinion potentially leaves room to maneuver.” Citing Justice Sotomayor’s dissent that colleges can consider “socioeconomic diversity” in their admissions decisions, they mention the UC Davis “socioeconomic disadvantage scale” as a blueprint for the “maneuvering” that they advocate. The UC Davis Associate Dean of Admissions is explicit and unapologetic about the fact that their admissions policies are a technical workaround to the state’s prohibition on affirmative action and a solution to the imagined problem of the “overrepresentation” of Asian physicians.

The piece concludes with a warning: “Far from coming to an end for legal questions about race and ethnicity and university admissions, intense litigation will likely continue for many years.” So long as woke activists at the American Medical Association remain committed to skirting the Supreme Court’s decision, this prediction is all but sure to come to fruition.