States Can Ditch DEI At Medical Schools

, , , , ,

Full steam ahead on state reforms.

That’s the message state lawmakers received on July 25th. Since the start of this year, they’ve been told that getting divisive and discriminatory woke ideology out of medical schools would jeopardize the schools’ accreditation. The threat stopped necessary reforms in multiple states, including Missouri, Utah, and Tennessee. But the threat isn’t real, as the main accreditor has now made clear.

This clarity comes courtesy of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, led by Rep. Virginia Foxx. The committee asked the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical schools, to explain what its “diversity standards” really mean. The Wall Street Journal broke the LCME’s response to the committee:

LCME is now [signaling] its diversity requirement is not as inflexible as schools have assumed. In a letter responding to a questionnaire from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, LCME says that “nothing” in the text “mandates which categories of diversity a medical school must use to satisfy this element.”…

That’s an opening for Missouri, Tennessee, Utah and other states looking for ways to get the DEI bureaucracy out of medical schools. The Missouri Legislature considered a bill that would have banned schools from “conducting DEI audits” or hiring DEI consultants, but it later backed off for fear the schools wouldn’t be able to comply with both state law and the rules of the national accreditor.

The LCME also disavowed pursuing any so-called “anti-racism efforts,” which despite the name, require racial discrimination. The LCME also denies that America is systemically racist, and it doesn’t require medical schools to teach such a lie.

The message to state lawmakers couldn’t be more clear: There’s nothing blocking them from getting woke ideology out of medical schools. Now that this threat is off the table, every state should pass sweeping reforms as soon as possible. Medical students – and the patients they will eventually treat – deserve swift action.

When Family Physicians Forget Their Principles

,

Kansas City, watch out. The American Academy of Family Physicians is preparing to hold its 49th National Conference of Medical Students there. Before that happens, one of its executives has a message: Discrimination and division are good for medicine.

That’s the takeaway from a letter in the Kansas City Star by Karen Mitchell, the Academy’s Vice President of Medical Education. She laments the Supreme Court’s recent rejection of affirmative action, while calling on medical schools and policymakers to find new ways to discriminate by race and indoctrinate students and physicians.

Ms. Mitchell should ask patients what kind of physician they want to see. The answer will always be the best physician possible, not someone who was hired because of their skin color or someone who was trained to be a political activist. When the Supreme Court ended affirmative action, which medical schools have used for decades, it opened the door to recruiting students based on merit. Equal treatment under the law is essential to the quality of the future physician workforce.

The Academy should be supporting, not opposing, merit in medical education. It should also be supporting legislation that gets divisive and discriminatory ideology out of medical schools. Bills to that effect nearly passed in both Kansas and Missouri this spring. They deserve to be brought back up and signed into law as soon as possible.

For that matter, as Kansas City prepares to host the National Conference of Medical Students, residents should ask the American Academy of Family Physicians to explain why it’s so focused on race. You’d think it would be more concerned with ensuring that every patient gets the best physician and best possible care. That’s what patients in Kansas City and everywhere else deserve, even if it’s not what medical elites want.

USC Keck School of Medicine Makes Substantial Corrections in Response to Federal Civil Rights Investigation

The University of Southern California (USC) Keck School of Medicine has made significant changes in the eligibility criteria for a discriminatory program as the result of a federal civil rights complaint and subsequent investigation.

In late 2022, we reported that the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) had opened a federal civil rights investigation of the USC Keck School of Medicine for its Diversity in Medicine Visiting Clerkship. Mark Perry, senior fellow at Do No Harm, filed a complaint last August against this program for illegal race-based discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The previous version of the program said it supports fourth-year medical student groups who are “traditionally underrepresented in medicine (URiM).” The USC Keck School of Medicine defined URiM as “black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.”

Figure 1. USC Keck School of Medicine Diversity in Medicine Visiting Clerkship Award webpage as it appeared on January 31, 2023.

The current version of the program shows that the race-based eligibility has been removed, and the clerkship is now open to all fourth-year medical students in good standing. “Consistent with our Notice of Non-Discrimination Statement,” the site states, “we welcome all applicants.”

Figure 2. USC Keck School of Medicine Diversity in Medicine Visiting Clerkship Award webpage as it currently appears.

The associated application does not ask for race/ethnicity, but does request a  student’s “chosen pronoun.” The previous version of the clerkship did not refer to this application.

The OCR has informed Perry last week that the investigation into USC’s Keck School of Medicine has been resolved  due to the revisions made following the opening of the investigation last December. “Since then, the University has revised the language on the webpages to indicate that the Award is targeted at medical students from diverse backgrounds,” the OCR said, “including students who are underrepresented in medicine, but is not restricted by race or ethnicity.”

“Overall, I would say that it’s a pretty thorough correction of USC’s Title VI violation,” Perry said, “and is exactly the type of correction we are looking for when we challenge a medical school’s legally indefensible racial discrimination.” 

Have you seen fellowships or scholarships in U.S. universities with healthcare education programs that discriminate on the basis of race/ethnicity or sex? Do No Harm wants to hear from you.

DEI Indoctrination For All at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) is dedicated to injecting the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) dogma into every area of its patient care, education, and research operations.

A visit to the website of Cincinnati Children’s displays the facility’s commitment to DEI as “fundamental to who we are” and features its “first DEI Annual Report.” A graphic on this page shows that CCHMC applies more than 90 DEI metrics across the entire organization, which are highlighted throughout the 28-page report.

Figure 1. Cincinnati Children’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion webpage.

CCHMC promises “a unified, unwavering focus on DEI” to strengthen its mission, as the report clearly demonstrates by illustrating the “DEI journey.” Once the organization “declared racism a public health crisis” in July 2020, a five-year DEI Strategic Plan (approved by the Board of Trustees) was created to “embed DEI in every aspect of our work.” Employees were provided with “diversity stickers” and focused training to ensure they understood what DEI means and how to confront their unconscious biases.

Figure 2. CCHMC DEI Annual Report, p. 4.

The “diversity infrastructure” was further reinforced by forming a Diversity Council, steering committees, and Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), adopting the use of preferred pronouns, establishing a center for “child health equity,” and posting a “formalized DEI scorecard.”

Figure 3. CCHMC DEI Annual Report, p.13.

The DEI scorecard is updated on a quarterly basis to discover where goals are and are not being met, such in CCHMC’s hiring practices. “When we learned that more people of color were bypassing four-year BSN degrees for two-year associate degrees so they could enter the workforce earlier,” the report said, we developed a program that allows them to join Cincinnati Children’s while earning their BSN.” The program pays for tuition at the University of Cincinnati College of Nursing and provides mentors – however, eligibility is based on skin color.

Figure 4. CCHMC DEI Annual Report, p. 15.

But the organization doesn’t limit its indoctrination efforts to the patient care space. This year, CCHMC has sustained the DEI doctrine through ongoing education efforts. Its InterProfessional Continuing Education (IPCE) program published the DEI Guide for Health Educators to direct them on how to “create content and learning environments that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The online guide, distributed in the January 2023 edition of the IPCE Central Newsletter, provides “general DEI principles” to apply in the development of continuing education offerings, including considerations and cautions for the educator to heed, such as:

  • Avoid overuse of traditional images of medical professionals and patients. For example: physicians as white men, nurses as white women, patients as people of color.
  • In hypothetical case scenarios, only highlight aspects of a person’s identity if it is relevant and meaningful. For example, mentioning a patient’s race in relation to systemic racism and inequitable access to mental health resources is appropriate. Mentioning a patient’s race in an attempt at showing diversity is “tokenism” and depending on the scenario can reinforce stereotypes.
  • Focus on the person first, not their disability/diagnosis. Describe what the person has, not who the person is. Instead of “child is learning disabled,” say “child has a learning disability.”
  • Use all demographics included in a research study and consider if any intersecting identities correlate to the results.

The guide offers additional direction in eleven “deep dive” categories that “are often associated with marginalization in healthcare and healthcare education.” The considerations and cautions in these sections address elements such as “intersectionality” and “bias awareness and microaggressions.”

Figure 5. Deep Dive Categories in the DEI Guide for Health Educators.

For example, in the “Sex, Gender, & Sexual Orientation” section, educators are advised to:

  • Use they/them pronouns when referring to individuals whose gender is unknown or hypothetical characters in case examples whose gender is not relevant to the discussion.
  • Refer to individuals by their affirmed gender and pronouns – the gender and pronouns by which they wish to be known.
  • Avoid unnecessarily gendering items. Instead of “feminine hygiene products,” say “menstrual products.”
  • Recognize the importance of acknowledging both medically necessary sex information while still respecting gender identity. For example: a menstruating person.
Figure 6. From the Cincinnati Children’s DEI Guide for Health Educators.

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital invests in the advancement of DEI concepts and gender ideology, and is proud to display its woke credentials to patients, staff, and the public. But the health of Ohio’s children is better served by devoting scarce resources to developing and training staff members in models of care that are based on science and the best available evidence.

Gov. Youngkin Protects Virginia Children

Virginia children are safer now than they were last week. That’s the reality of new policies from Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin protecting children from transgender activism, especially in the context of public education. Other states should pay attention to these policies – and ideally, pass similar laws or regulations of their own.

Gov. Youngkin is undoing the damage of his predecessor, Gov. Ralph Northam. The Northam administration essentially gutted parents’ rights to have a say in their child’s medical care, especially in cases where school officials try to help children change gender. The Northam approach made it easier for children to obtain sex-change counseling and ultimately treatments, which lead to a lifetime of mental and physical health challenges.

Not anymore. Gov. Youngkin’s policies require schools to tell parents if their children are experiencing gender-related issues. Schools are prohibited from concealing information from parents, and before a child can use different pronouns, parents must consent. While the policies aren’t perfect, they represent a giant leap in the right direction.

Practically, these policies will stop radical activists from pushing children – whose minds aren’t fully developed – down a dangerous road of sex-change drugs and surgeries. And the empowerment of parents is especially praiseworthy. Parents should be involved in decisions about their children, especially when it comes to medical care. No one should deny them their rights or keep them in the dark.

Virginia’s move comes as a growing number of states enact policies to protect children from invasive and irreversible sex-change treatments. More and more European countries are also rolling back transgender treatments, recognizing that they do more harm than good. Kudos to Gov. Glenn Youngkin for putting common sense and science ahead of transgender ideology.

Taking Stock of a Milestone Moment in the Pediatric Gender Medicine Debate

, ,

A game-changer.

That’s the undeniable reality of a letter published last week in the Wall Street Journal by 21 clinicians and researchers from nine countries.

The authors, including some of the foremost experts in pediatric gender medicine, warn that childhood medical transition carries uncertain evidence of benefit but “the risks are significant and include sterility, lifelong dependence on medication and the anguish of regret.”

The letter directly contradicts a recent letter from Dr. Stephen Hammes, President of the Endocrine Society. Writing in response to a letter from Do No Harm, Hammes erroneously claimed that supposed mental health benefits of childhood medical transition are supported by robust evidence. The 21 experts rebuke that assertion in concluding that medical societies should “align with their recommendations with the best available evidence—rather than exaggerating the benefits and minimizing the risks.”

The new letter marks a critical milestone in the pediatric gender medicine debate for a couple of reasons. First, it provides further evidence that pediatric gender medicine is not based on consensus organically forged through open inquiry. Rather—like the Do No Harm letter that initiated this conversation notes—it is an illusion sustained through activist capture of medical societies and the suppression of dissent.

More importantly, the letter amounts to inconvertible evidence that trans activists have been lying about Europe’s reckoning with childhood medical transition. Activists recognize how politically damning it would be to acknowledge that some of the world’s most progressive countries are urging caution on pediatric gender medicine, so they claim that recent changes in Europe are simply procedural and not animated by concerns around over-treatment.

In reality, Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. have conducted systematic reviews of the safety and efficacy of pediatric gender medicine and concluded that it isn’t clear that risks exceed benefits. The Swedish review in fact concluded that the risks of puberty blockers exceeded the benefits. All three countries have restricted the use of puberty blockers to clinical research settings and the most exceptional cases of dysphoria.

Authorities in France and Ireland have also raised recent concerns about the use of puberty blockers as a treatment for childhood gender dysphoria.

The U.S. is an outlier in the extent to which the healthcare establishment professes certainty about the wisdom of pediatric gender medicine. Thanks to the courage and candor of these 21 experts, even activists will be forced to admit as much.

The University of Florida College of Medicine Hits the “Delete” Button on a Discriminatory Visiting Scholars Program

The University of Florida College of Medicine (UFCOM) in Jacksonville has done some housekeeping on its website since a federal civil rights investigation into a discriminatory scholar program was opened.

In October 2022,Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) regarding UFCOM Jacksonville’s Visiting Elective Scholars Program in the Department of Pediatrics (archived page here). The complaint cited violations of both Title VI and Title IX, as eligibility to apply was limited to “Individuals belonging to a group considered underrepresented in medicine (Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, and LGBTQ+).”

Figure 1. Eligibility criteria for UFCCOM-Jacksonville Department of Pediatrics Visiting Elective Scholars Program (archived page).

OCR referred the case for investigation, which was opened on April 10, 2023. However, a recent review of the UFCOM-Jacksonville website shows that it has been scrubbed clean of any evidence of the program, with no indication that it has been moved to another location.

Figure 2. URL that formerly housed the UFCOM-Jacksonville Department of Pediatrics Visiting Elective Scholars Program (https://pediatrics.med.jax.ufl.edu/404/?aspxerrorpath=/visiting-elective-scholars-program/)

UFCOM has used this tactic before. Last November, in response to media coverage of our comprehensive report, UFCOM permanently removed divisive and ideological material from its admissions homepage and DEI-related resources.

If you are aware of a scholarship, fellowship, or other program that violates federal civil rights laws at your school or institution, please inform us. Do No Harm will conduct a review and will take appropriate action if the program is discriminating on the basis of race or sex.  

Dear Medical Schools: Don’t Defy the Supreme Court

How will medical schools respond to the Supreme Court’s recent ban on affirmative action? Essentially every medical school practiced this race-based discrimination before the ruling. Now the man who took this issue to the Supreme Court is warning educational institutions to follow the law and do what’s right.

Edward Blum, who founded the organization at the heart of the case, has sent letters to 150 colleges and universities. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote that it is “incumbent on your institution to ensure compliance with this decision, starting with this admissions cycle.” The letters went to the schools’ presidents, deans of admission, and general counsels.

Medical schools have a choice to make. Some may try to get around the ruling by creating new race-based admissions options, such as scholarships that are restricted to people with certain skin colors. This approach violates the spirit of the ruling, and more importantly, the letter of federal law. Medical schools may also try other creative ways to continue discriminating, such as prioritizing students from gerrymandered zip codes.

This cannot be allowed. The best – and only valid – option is to treat every applicant equally, recruiting medical students based on merit. That’s what medical schools are supposed to do, not least because it leads to the best possible physicians who will provide the best possible care.

Kudos to Edward Blum for bringing this fight so far – and for continuing the fight until equality fully wins. Every American should hope this cause succeeds, and Do No Harm will do our part to ensure it happens.

Medical Schools Shouldn’t Teach “Structural Racism”

The Supreme Court has ended affirmative action at medical schools, but some activists want to keep divisive, race-focused education firmly in place. Look no further than recent commentary published in the Milbank Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal published on behalf of the Milbank Memorial Fund. The commentary calls for accreditors and policymakers to force medical schools to teach more about “structural racism.”

The Milbank Memorial Fund has spent more than 100 years shaping medical school practices and medical policy. In a recent foray in this field, its quarterly journal published a comprehensive plan to make medical education even more divisive and discriminatory than it already is. The plan has three key planks:

  • The Liaison Committee on Medical Education should develop and promulgate specific learning objectives and curricular offerings that require medical schools to teach about structural racism and antiracist medical practice in ways that are robust and standardized.
  • The federal government, through the Health Resources and Services Administration, should prioritize support for antiracism education in medical schools, residency, and continuing medical education in similar ways and with similar effort in scale and scope to its support for primary care, providing technical assistance and grants for programs across the educational spectrum that provide antiracist training.
  • State governments should mandate, as part of continuing education requirements for physicians, 2 or more hours per recertification cycle of antiracist training.

Nowhere do the authors provide any evidence that their recommendations would help improve the quality of care that doctors provide. Activists are simply hoping against reason and common sense that doctors can become trained and radicalized in topics like housing policy, education policy, and other topics native to fields like sociology and economics. These are not harmless goals. Rather, intense fixation on race crowds out the study of medicine. The more time doctors learn about so-called structural racism, the less time they spend learning to treat cancer, heart disease, or broken bones.

And what is structural racism? If it is economic, disadvantage, violent neighborhoods, poor K-12, education, and wealth differentials, what are doctors to do to mitigate these factors? Historically, when patients have had economic concerns regarding the cost of care or prescription medications, referral to social workers accomplished all that could be done to address these concerns. Current medical school curricula include discussions of social factors. Total revamping of the curriculum to expand more time on these issues is simply foolish.

And as the plan makes clear, the foundation wants policymakers and accreditors to force medical schools down this road.

They should do nothing of the kind. Accreditors and policymakers should ensure that medical education focuses on medicine, and medicine only. Anything less will further lower the quality of America’s future physicians – and jeopardize the care that the American people will receive.

The University of Washington Department of Medicine Must Answer the Office for Civil Rights Regarding Two Discriminatory Scholarships

In response to a federal civil rights complaint against the University of Washington’s (UW) Department of Medicine, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is investigating the school for illegal racial discrimination.

As noted in the complaint, UW operates two racially discriminatory programs that restrict eligibility based on race, color, and national origin. Both programs are described by the University as “a funded program designed to give students with diverse backgrounds a chance to experience the training that the University of Washington Department of Medicine has to offer.”

  • The Visiting Scholars Program: Eligibility is restricted to “applicants who demonstrate academic excellence and belong to groups that are recognized as historically underrepresented in the health and science professions, including Black/African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latino, and Pacific Islander.”
Figure 1. Eligibility criteria for the Visiting Scholars Program at the UW Department of Medicine.
  • Eligibility for the Visiting Resident Scholars Program is restricted to “applicants who demonstrate academic excellence and belong to groups that are recognized as historically underrepresented in the health and science professions including Black/African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latino, and Pacific Islander.”
Figure 2. Eligibility criteria for the Visiting Resident Scholars Program at the UW Department of Medicine.

In violation of Title VI, medical students who are not members of the five racial/ethnic groups listed in the eligibility criteria (e.g., whites, Asians, and Middle Eastern/North Africans) are excluded from the Program and discriminated against on the basis of their race, color, or national origin.

Do No Harm anticipates the OCR’s investigation will result in making these scholar opportunities available to all applicants, bringing the University of Washington Department of Medicine into compliance with federal law that prohibits racial discrimination.

Law Firms Warn Med Schools: No More Discrimination

Medical schools need to follow the Supreme Court’s new ruling that bans the racial discrimination known as affirmative action. That’s the timely message from two legal groups, which are publicly warning medical schools to stop their racial discrimination, which Do No Harm has long highlighted.

To start, the Liberty Justice Center is launching a major campaign “to notify more than one hundred and fifty medical schools across the country regarding their legal obligation to end race-based admissions policies in response to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.” It’s also “prepared to challenge any higher educational institution that continues to discriminate against students, faculty, or board leaders.”

America First Legal is also leading the charge. It has sent a letter to 200 law schools warning them of the “consequences” they will face if they “fail to comply with or attempt to circumvent the Court’s ruling.” While the letter was not addressed to medical schools, this warning applies equally to them.

Do No Harm has found, primarily through freedom of information requests, that almost every medical school has racially discriminatory admissions policies. We’ve also filed more than 100 federal civil rights complaints about racially discriminatory scholarships at medical schools, leading to numerous federal investigations. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, we’re doubling down on holding medical schools accountable for discriminating on the basis of race.

So are others. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has already sent a letter to his state’s colleges and universities, stating that “Missouri institutions must identify all policies that give preference to individuals on the basis of race and immediately halt the implementation of such policies.” The University of Missouri quickly announced an end to all race-based financial aid. Other state attorneys general are likely to issue similar warnings.

The Supreme Court was right to end this racial discrimination. Now it’s time to ensure this ruling is followed. Kudos to all the law firms and leaders who’ve joined Do No Harm in fighting for equal treatment and colorblind merit.

The School of Medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center is Under Investigation by the Office for Civil Rights

The medical school at Ole Miss, located in Jackson at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for a discriminatory scholarship.

The Underrepresented in Medicine Student Clerkship and Externship Support: Dr. Godfrey Arnold Scholarship is offered through the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and provides at $1,500 per month stipend to awardees. However, only “members of underrepresented in medicine groups as defined by the AAMC” are invited to apply.

Figure 1. Underrepresented in Medicine Student Clerkship and Externship Support: Dr. Godfrey Arnold Scholarship at the University of Mississippi School of Medicine.

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) definition of “underrepresented in medicine” is noted on its website:

Before June 26, 2003, the AAMC used the term “underrepresented minority (URM),” which consisted of Blacks, Mexican-Americans, Native Americans (that is, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), and mainland Puerto Ricans. The AAMC remains committed to ensuring access to medical education and medicine-related careers for individuals from these four historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups.

Figure 2. AAMC definition of “underrepresented in medicine.”

An email inquiry to the education administrator for this scholarship confirmed that the program is using the 2003 AAMC definition as a guideline for who is invited to apply. This means that individuals who are not members of one of the four racial/ethnic categories described above are not invited to apply for the Arnold Scholarship. This is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision banning race-based considerations in college admissions, and state legislative efforts to remove DEI from higher education, we call on the University of Mississippi School of Medicine – and all academic medical institutions – to abandon discriminatory practices and bring themselves into compliance with federal law.

Federal Civil Rights Investigation of Indiana University School of Medicine Comes to a Close – But Is the Institution Still Engaging In Racial Discrimination?

The Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) was forced to respond to a federal civil rights complaint and investigation into a discriminatory program filed by Do No Harm. However, that response – and IUSM’s ongoing actions – indicates the school doesn’t intend to end its discriminatory programs.

In late 2022, we reported that IUSM was under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for violations of Title VI and Title IX in its Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective. At the time of the complaint and investigation, the eligibility criteria stated that eligible applicants were limited to those belonging to specific racial/ethnic groups and/or sexual orientation identities.

Figure 1. IUSM URiM Visiting Elective Program eligibility criteria (July 23, 2022).

After the investigation was opened by the OCR in December 2022, IUSM changed the eligibility language, removing the race/ethnicity and sexual orientation criteria and replacing it with the statement, “Preference will be given to applicants whose personal statements establish that their background and/or perspective will contribute to IUSM’s diversity, equity, and inclusion goals.”

“The original eligibility was restricted to medical students who identify as one or more of the three diversity categories of Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and LGBTQ+,” said Mark Perry, senior fellow at Do No Harm. “Those restrictions have been removed, and IUSM also removed any mention of Race/Ethnicity on the program application,” he stated. As a result of these modifications, the OCR notified Perry that has closed the investigation as of July 3, 2023.

“However, IUSM hasn’t fully committed to stop discriminating,” Perry continued, “because the name is still the same and the program description still shows intent to favor applicants who are ‘underrepresented in medicine.’” The program description on its webpage states:

Indiana University School of Medicine is working to diversify the workforce by graduating more physicians from underrepresented groups and ensuring that all trainees are prepared to provide culturally competent care for patients from all walks of life. The Underrepresented in Medicine Visiting Elective Program supports 4th year medical students and qualified 3rd-year medical students attending a U.S. medical school including U.S. territories, from underrepresented backgrounds in medicine.

Further evidence of IUSM’s discriminatory actions is seen in its Underrepresented in Medicine Resident Scholar program, which attempts to circumvent federal law by stating:

The Underrepresented in Medicine Resident Scholar program is open to all IU School of Medicine residents and fellows, with intentionality towards Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx or other diverse perspectives.

Perry has filed an additional complaint with the OCR for another violation of Title VI by the Indiana University School of Medicine.

California’s Reparations Committee Reaches Into Medical School

,

It’s well known that a California government committee is demanding $1.2 million “reparations” payments to qualifying black people. Yet it’s also worth noting that the committee has demanded that all California medical schools implement so-called “anti-bias training.” It’s a clear-cut attempt to make divisive and discriminatory ideology an even bigger part of the Golden State’s medical education system.

The committee’s demands are explicit:

To address discrimination against African Americans in health care, the task force recommends the legislature add the completion of an evidence-based anti-bias training and an assessment based on such training to the graduation requirements of all medical schools and any other medical care provider programs in California receiving state funding.

In addition to doctors and nurses, the list of educators who would be covered includes “mental health professional programs (psychologists, Ph.D, or Psy.D), masters-level programs in psychology or therapy (for counselors, clinicians, and therapists), and programs for clinical social workers.” The committee also wants to extend bias training to dentists.

The problem is that anti-bias training is itself profoundly biased. It is grounded in the idea that white and Asian people are inherently racist and oppressors, while people of other races (especially black and brown people) are inherently victims. This worldview is discriminatory, and in the context of medical education, anti-bias training pushes future doctors to treat people differently based on skin. That’s racist – and wrong.

The most common methods of bias training, such as the so-called “implicit association test,” have been shown to be deeply flawed. Even its creators have acknowledged that it doesn’t work. California should be steering clear of anti-bias training, which is indefensible, ineffective, and deeply insulting to people of all races. It’s one more reason why the state’s reparations committee shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Trans activists aren’t ready to tell the truth about Europe

,

When will transgender activists tell the truth about Europeans reversing course on so-called “gender-affirming” care for kids?

Several weeks ago, the Ohio House Public Health Committee heard testimony from critics and proponents of House Bill 68, which would prohibit medical transition (i.e. puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries) for children expressing gender dysphoria. One of the opponents of the bill was Christopher Bolling, a retired pediatrician who coauthored “several American Academy of Pediatrics policy statements and clinical practice guidelines.”

After his prepared remarks, Dr. Bolling was asked to discuss policy changes in Europe.

Dr. Christopher Bolling testifying before the Ohio House Public Health Committee regarding House Bills 68.

Representative: Talk a little bit about where the evidence stands in terms of gender-affirming care and then maybe even what people are referencing about other countries. I think there’s a lot of confusion.

Dr Bolling: There is a lot of confusion…In other countries, I would really encourage you to drill down. The Tavistock situation gets brought up a lot. It’s a lot about decentralization of gender-affirming care across the National Health Service. There’s also a lot of discussion around the Swedish and Scandinavian models. In all these circumstances my colleagues in Europe are discussing what’s best for these patients. They’re not talking about banning the care.”

Dr. Bolling only added to the confusion. Indeed, these characterizations are plainly deceptive. The Tavistock gender clinic in London was ordered closed after years of whistleblower complaints and an NHS investigation that rated their services as “inadequate.” Among the concerns raised: Doctors were rushing kids into treatment and initiating puberty blockers after a single consultation.  Moreover, they were not conducting appropriate differential diagnosis, especially for kids with a history of trauma or those on the autism spectrum.

British clinical guidelines were informed by the “Dutch Protocol” which was written when the pediatric incidence of gender dysphoria was vanishingly rare and when most cases were natal males, a balance that has since shifted to 3:1 in favor of natal females. British health officials retain enough political courage to recognize that the dramatic shift in referrals can be linked to social and cultural factors (i.e. social contagion) and that higher guardrails are needed to prevent harm.

The recommendation to delegate services away from Tavistock emphasizes that a multidisciplinary approach to treatment demands “strong links to mental health services.” Unlike the American healthcare establishment, British medical experts acknowledge that expressions of dysphoria often arise from emotional or psychosocial disturbance rather than vice-versa. 

Pediatric gender services in the U.K. are being shifted toward clinical research settings (i.e., “decentralized”) precisely because Tavistock—like American gender clinics and professional medical associations— was not adapting to the explosive growth in referrals and the growing risk of transitioning kids who would be harmed by these irreversible “treatments.”

Changes in Sweden were similarly compelled by explosive growth in the medical transition of children. The Swedes too reject the theory that more kids are suddenly discovering their truer and happier selves. As one expert there frames it, “tolerance has been high in Sweden for at least the last 25 years, so you can’t say it has changed.” The decision to limit the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to clinical research settings is being done to ensure that these interventions are only provided in the most “exceptional” cases, a protocol that was easier to follow fifteen years ago when the incidence of dysphoria among natal girls was 1500% lower.

It all begs the question: Why deceive on what is happening in Europe when reality is so easy to discover? The plain truth is that activists must lie about it. “Gender-affirming care” for kids is a consensus-based rather than evidence-based practice. The revelation that the consensus doesn’t even extend as far as some of the world’s most progressive countries is so politically damning that its acknowledgement would almost certainly force the reckoning that activists are hoping to stave off.

The U.S. has become an extreme outlier when it comes to pediatric gender medicine. Activist gaslighting won’t allow it to remain that way forever. 

Ian Kingsbury is the Director of Research for Do No Harm.

Do No Harm Applauds the Decisions of the United States Supreme Court

Do No Harm applauds the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the Students for Fair Admissions cases. Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that our Constitution and laws are color-blind; that every person, no matter their skin color, is equal under the law. 

For decades, the Supreme Court allowed universities—both public and private—to discriminate against applicants based on their race. It told universities, including medical schools, that racial discrimination is legal so long as they adopt a “diversity” rationale. No more. The Court unambiguously ruled that the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit universities from discriminating against any applicants because of their race, including Asian and white applicants.

The rulings expose racially discriminatory policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, but they apply equally to all universities that receive public funding, including medical schools. Because of these decisions, medical schools can no longer racially discriminate against applicants.

“Do No Harm celebrates these landmark decisions with students all over the country who have suffered discrimination because of their race,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm. “Do No Harm will monitor universities to ensure compliance with the Court’s race-neutral mandate. If universities resist these rulings and continue to racially discriminate, Do No Harm is prepared to take legal action on behalf of its members.”

Do No Harm Files Amicus Brief with OCPA to Protect Minors from Gender Ideology

On Tuesday, Do No Harm filed an amicus brief alongside the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) in defense of Oklahoma’s law prohibiting the practice of experimental gender medicine on minors. In the brief, Do No Harm and OCPA make three points: (1) the current scientific evidence reveals that the practice of experimental gender medicine on minors causes significant harm, carries serious unknown risks, and offers no proven benefit; (2) the Court should not hesitate to depart the recommendations of politically motivated medical interest groups who peddle nothing more than ideology dressed up as “science”; and (3) even if legal briefs assert that there is a supposedly “robust” and “rigorous” screening procedure for experimental gender medicine, according to public reporting, many practitioners of experimental gender medicine oppose any screening that restricts a minor’s ability to obtain puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. A decision on the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is expected in late July or August.

For the full amicus brief for Peter Poe v. Gentner Drummond, see below or click here.

DNH-and-OCPA-Amicus-Brief_06.27.2023Download

The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Has More Discriminatory Programs to Address

The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) is once again under investigation for federal civil rights violations.

As we reported in January 2023, UNC-CH continued to offer programs that violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, despite being investigated for racial discrimination for sponsoring the Fellowship for Exploring Research in Nutrition FERN program. This week, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) notified Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry that it has opened yet another federal civil rights investigation into UNC-CH for the six programs described in his December 2022 complaint.

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity and Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. We are optimistic that the Supreme Court will soon issue a ruling that racial preferences in university admissions decisions are illegal because doing so violates Title VI. At the same time, the Department of Education is conducting an examination of UNC-CH for applying racial preferences in multiple scholarships, programs, and events. Will the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill finally discontinue its legacy of illegal and discriminatory practices?