The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) launched its 2023 annual education conference titled Meaning in Medicine: Making a Difference. As we recently reported, the organization strives to provide GME program directors with “continuous learning and process improvement” in DEI and anti-racism. But the ACGME is ready to refresh those DEI credentials with no fewer than 11 woke sessions at the annual conference – and even virtual reality isn’t left out of the new indoctrination strategies. Speakers at these sessions are from the AAMC, AMA, ACGME, and other professional organizations, medical schools, and academic medical centers. Here are the descriptions of the sessions, in the ACGME’s own words.
SES032: Progress in Demographic Data Alignment in Medical Education to Advance Health Equity. This didactic session will: 1) review the final categories for ethnoracial demographic collecting and reporting and how the organizations came to this schema; 2) provide a review of the existing literature related to the phenomenon of racial concordance in physician care and the educational value of diversity in medical education; 3) highlight examples of how diversity in the physician workforce may improve health equity, but that alone is insufficient; and 4) discuss how collection of data may be traumatizing for some and how the field can work to mitigate that and expand concerns about how data is used to a discussion of psychological safety.
SES050: Reimagining Residency Selection: Promoting Equity and Reducing Bias in GME. Residency selection should also emphasize the value alignment of applicants with that of programs. However, selection processes at many institutions continue to place a significant emphasis on academic metrics, which creates unequitable processes and impact on selection of diverse candidates.
SES056: Imposter Syndrome: How it Holds Our Learners (and Us!) Back and What to Do about It. Women and minorities in medicine are more likely suffer from higher rates of imposter syndrome due to frequent microaggressions that undermine an individual’s confidence and self-esteem, which likely contributes to the pervasive gender and racial leadership gaps in academic medicine.
SES060: Addressing Structural Racism to Promote Equity and Well-Being in the Learning Environment. This didactic session will describe examples of the experiences of residents from various marginalized groups as was captured in the ACGME Equity MattersTM Foundations in DEI materials, followed by a scoping review of the existing literature related to the well-being of residents of color and a menu of evidence-informed options for program directors to leverage as they continue their journey toward equity and resident well-being.
SES067: International Medical Graduates Add Valuable Diversity to US GME. The presenters will describe the regulatory and structural barriers and biases that [international medical graduates] in US GME face and guide a discussion about how best to support and encourage IMGs.
SES071: Implicit Bias and Group Decision Making in the [Clinical Competency Committees] and [Program Evaluation Committees]. At the end of this session, participants will be able to recognize how unconscious bias can be introduced into common decisions made in CCCs and PECs and will have a framework to mitigate bias and avoid committee groupthink.
SES077: Holistic Review in Practice: Real Programs with Real Results. Participants will leave with an understanding of tangible practices and tools they might adapt and adopt to create more equitable selection processes for their own programs.
SES100: Plugging the Leak: Creating an Inclusive and Equitable Environment for UIM Residents. Roles of “safe peer space;” accountability by providing public data surveillance of residents terminated or on probation by race; holistic review of due process policies; early mentorship and networking; empowered ombudsman support; strategy to rectify assessment inequities; effective, longitudinal, and mandatory diversity and anti-racist education for all faculty members, staff members, and residents; oversight; and governance will be reviewed.
SES114: ACGME Equity Matters™: DEI Outcomes from the Learning Communities. Participants will learn about the ACGME Equity Matters initiative and hear from participants of its first cohort of Learning Communities about what they are doing to improve recruitment and retention at their organizations.
SES121: Virtual Reality: A Longitudinal Simulation Curriculum for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. As the physician workforce continues to become more diverse, it is imperative to educate residents on strategies to combat acts of discrimination as they recognize their own biases. This session will describe one Sponsoring Institution’s longitudinal DEI simulation journey utilizing virtual reality (VR) in medical education.
SES123: Standing Up to Patient Microaggressions. Cumulatively microaggressions are detrimental to learning, patient care, and well-being; effects are compounded for non-white individuals. To create an optimal clinical learning environment, everyone must learn to stand up to microaggressions consistent with the 2022 Association of American Medical Colleges Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion competencies!
Is this really the way to provide “meaning in medicine”? The only way that ACGME is “making a difference” at their conference is by advocating for diversity over meritocracy in GME and pounding more woke ideology into the heads of residency program directors.
Is your professional organization promoting divisive ideology in its national conferences? Do No Harm wants to hear from you via our secure online portal.
S1E9: Standing Up Against Woke Ideology
Uncategorized Podcast Benita Cotton-Orr, Stanley Goldfarb, MDDr. Stanley Goldfarb and Benita Cotton-Orr discuss the role of government in implementing a woke approach in healthcare. Despite the federal bureaucracy’s embrace of woke ideology, they see hope in state-level politics and in emboldening medical professionals to speak out.
Biden Doubles Down On DEI Bureaucracy
Uncategorized Federal DEI Federal government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe Biden administration is already the most woke in history. Now it’s embedding this divisive ideology even deeper in federal agencies.
That’s the reality of the President’s Feb. 23 Executive Order, “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government.” It directs the federal bureaucracy to reach new levels of wokeness, including those that oversee and influence health care.
The President’s order compels all federal department and agency heads to establish “Agency Equity Teams” within 30 days. What’s more, they must submit an annual “Equity Action Plan” on diversity, equity, and inclusion to a new White House “Steering Committee on Equity.”
What does this mean in practice? Everything from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will be forced to create these teams and draft these plans. That surely means more staff focused on DEI and more policies that force woke ideology on physicians, patients, medical schools, and health care as a whole. The executive order also includes a command that agencies spend additional taxpayer money on woke constituencies.
This de facto DEI mandate for the federal government is bad enough. What makes it worse is the lack of transparency. The White House doesn’t have to disclose these new equity plans, meaning the public could be kept in the dark.
Americans deserve to know how the federal government is forcing divisive and discriminatory ideology on society. For that matter, we deserve better than a woke federal bureaucracy at all.
Twelve Universities Are Violating Civil Rights Laws By Partnering With The Perry Initiative
Uncategorized Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia DEI Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Duke University, New York University, Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics, Oregon Health and Science University, University of Arizona College of Medicine, University of Iowa, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, University of Virginia, Wake Forest University, Yale University Medical School, Private university, Public university Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffA federal civil rights complaint has been filed against twelve schools and universities that partner with an organization that openly discriminates on the basis of sex.
The Perry Initiative programs are for young women in high school who are interested in careers in orthopedic surgery, engineering, or both (The Perry Outreach Program), and for women in medical school (the Medical Student Outreach Program). Applicants for either program “must gender-identify as female or non-binary.” This requirement violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits such discrimination for recipients of Federal financial assistance.
Schools participating in The Perry Initiative that are named in the complaint are:
These 12 schools and universities are active partners with The Perry Initiative and hosts of the outreach programs, which are offered exclusively for females in violation of Title IX.
The complaint, filed by Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry, asks the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate each school for “using their resources to advertise, promote, host, and partner” with The Perry Initiative. Program flyers for the discriminatory events at each school clearly demonstrate that the programs are limited to applicants who meet specific sex and gender identity criteria. Also, the flyers prominently display the partner schools that host Perry Initiative events on their campuses.
Along with some major orthopedic equipment companies and academic medical centers, the Duke University School of Medicine’s Department of Orthopedic Surgery is listed as a corporate sponsor of The Perry Initiative.
Is your medical, nursing, or health professions school promoting or hosting a discriminatory program? Do No Harm wants to hear from you, and you may remain anonymous if you wish.
Another Medical Publisher Is Obsessed with Race
Uncategorized International DEI Publisher Commentary Do No Harm StaffWhy does Wiley Publishing care so much about scholars’ skin color? That’s the question based on the prominent medical research publisher’s new “DE&I Statement.” It’s similar to the race fixation at the publisher of The Lancet, which we previously covered. It appears Wiley is moving toward selecting scholars, reviewers, and staff based on race – discrimination that is sure to hold back medical research.
Wiley makes clear from the start that it’s drinking from the woke Kool-Aid:
Wiley is implementing these concepts by adopting the diversity data collection standards created by the “Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.” It will now ask scholars and reviewers to answer a host of questions about their identity, including:
The standards are explicitly designed to “ensure inclusion and diversity are integrated into publishing activities and strategic planning.” In practice, that likely means Wiley will solicit research from scholars based in part on their skin color, not just the quality of their research, with a similar race focus dictating who reviews submissions. The name for that is discrimination.
Let’s be clear: Putting race at the center of medical scholarship hurts medical scholarship. Wiley should be focused on finding the best research, researchers, and reviewers, regardless of what they look like or where they come from. Anything less is insulting to medical scholars – and injurious to medical progress.
Meet Chloe Cole, Patient Advocate
Uncategorized Gender Ideology Video Chloe ColeChloe Cole is an 18 year old detransitioner from The Central Valley of California. She started her transition at 12 years old, puberty blockers and testosterone at 13 and a double mastectomy at 15 years old.
She is now a strong advocate against gender ideology.
A Response to the BMJ article “Gender Dysphoria in Young People is Rising – And So Is Professional Disagreement”
Uncategorized International Gender Ideology Medical Journal CommentaryIt is vitally important to continue the fight to save young children, particularly adolescent girls, from hormonal treatments that may permanently alter their bodies, and surgeries that may lead to profound regret.
This conclusion by the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) shows incredible weakness of the arguments that medical organizations in the United States have used in favor of so-called “gender affirming care.” Flawed evidence is being presented in testimonies in front of legislative bodies and in promulgating recommendations for treatments that clearly, according to Norwegian experts, has the potential for doing more harm than good.
One of the key leaders of the evidence-based gender medicine movement, Dr. Gordon Guyatt, points out that the Endocrine Society guidelines vastly overstate the evidence for treating adolescents with new onset “gender dysphoria.”
Stanley Goldfarb, MD is the former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and chairman of Do No Harm.
The ACGME Administers a New Dose of Woke at the Annual Educational Conference
Uncategorized Tennessee DEI Accreditiing organization, Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) launched its 2023 annual education conference titled Meaning in Medicine: Making a Difference. As we recently reported, the organization strives to provide GME program directors with “continuous learning and process improvement” in DEI and anti-racism. But the ACGME is ready to refresh those DEI credentials with no fewer than 11 woke sessions at the annual conference – and even virtual reality isn’t left out of the new indoctrination strategies. Speakers at these sessions are from the AAMC, AMA, ACGME, and other professional organizations, medical schools, and academic medical centers. Here are the descriptions of the sessions, in the ACGME’s own words.
SES032: Progress in Demographic Data Alignment in Medical Education to Advance Health Equity. This didactic session will: 1) review the final categories for ethnoracial demographic collecting and reporting and how the organizations came to this schema; 2) provide a review of the existing literature related to the phenomenon of racial concordance in physician care and the educational value of diversity in medical education; 3) highlight examples of how diversity in the physician workforce may improve health equity, but that alone is insufficient; and 4) discuss how collection of data may be traumatizing for some and how the field can work to mitigate that and expand concerns about how data is used to a discussion of psychological safety.
SES050: Reimagining Residency Selection: Promoting Equity and Reducing Bias in GME. Residency selection should also emphasize the value alignment of applicants with that of programs. However, selection processes at many institutions continue to place a significant emphasis on academic metrics, which creates unequitable processes and impact on selection of diverse candidates.
SES056: Imposter Syndrome: How it Holds Our Learners (and Us!) Back and What to Do about It. Women and minorities in medicine are more likely suffer from higher rates of imposter syndrome due to frequent microaggressions that undermine an individual’s confidence and self-esteem, which likely contributes to the pervasive gender and racial leadership gaps in academic medicine.
SES060: Addressing Structural Racism to Promote Equity and Well-Being in the Learning Environment. This didactic session will describe examples of the experiences of residents from various marginalized groups as was captured in the ACGME Equity MattersTM Foundations in DEI materials, followed by a scoping review of the existing literature related to the well-being of residents of color and a menu of evidence-informed options for program directors to leverage as they continue their journey toward equity and resident well-being.
SES067: International Medical Graduates Add Valuable Diversity to US GME. The presenters will describe the regulatory and structural barriers and biases that [international medical graduates] in US GME face and guide a discussion about how best to support and encourage IMGs.
SES071: Implicit Bias and Group Decision Making in the [Clinical Competency Committees] and [Program Evaluation Committees]. At the end of this session, participants will be able to recognize how unconscious bias can be introduced into common decisions made in CCCs and PECs and will have a framework to mitigate bias and avoid committee groupthink.
SES077: Holistic Review in Practice: Real Programs with Real Results. Participants will leave with an understanding of tangible practices and tools they might adapt and adopt to create more equitable selection processes for their own programs.
SES100: Plugging the Leak: Creating an Inclusive and Equitable Environment for UIM Residents. Roles of “safe peer space;” accountability by providing public data surveillance of residents terminated or on probation by race; holistic review of due process policies; early mentorship and networking; empowered ombudsman support; strategy to rectify assessment inequities; effective, longitudinal, and mandatory diversity and anti-racist education for all faculty members, staff members, and residents; oversight; and governance will be reviewed.
SES114: ACGME Equity Matters™: DEI Outcomes from the Learning Communities. Participants will learn about the ACGME Equity Matters initiative and hear from participants of its first cohort of Learning Communities about what they are doing to improve recruitment and retention at their organizations.
SES121: Virtual Reality: A Longitudinal Simulation Curriculum for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. As the physician workforce continues to become more diverse, it is imperative to educate residents on strategies to combat acts of discrimination as they recognize their own biases. This session will describe one Sponsoring Institution’s longitudinal DEI simulation journey utilizing virtual reality (VR) in medical education.
SES123: Standing Up to Patient Microaggressions. Cumulatively microaggressions are detrimental to learning, patient care, and well-being; effects are compounded for non-white individuals. To create an optimal clinical learning environment, everyone must learn to stand up to microaggressions consistent with the 2022 Association of American Medical Colleges Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion competencies!
Is this really the way to provide “meaning in medicine”? The only way that ACGME is “making a difference” at their conference is by advocating for diversity over meritocracy in GME and pounding more woke ideology into the heads of residency program directors.
Is your professional organization promoting divisive ideology in its national conferences? Do No Harm wants to hear from you via our secure online portal.
My Testimony to the Kansas House – And How the State Legislators Reacted To It
Uncategorized Kansas DEI State legislature Commentary Executive Stanley Goldfarb, MDOn February 1, I provided testimony to the Kansas State Legislature’s House Health and Human Services Committee (HHHSC) to present Do No Harm’s position opposing the radical ideologies based on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and anti-racism that have infiltrated medical education and the healthcare industry. But some members of the HHHSC were not willing to consider the objective facts that informed my presentation, and criticized them in a confrontational manner.
After my 10-minute address about the effects of these DEI and anti-racism ideologies on the medical profession, there were some thoughtful questions posed by committee members who were seeking clarification on a particular point. However, not all the legislators were interested in engaging in a meaningful dialogue.
One member of the committee said he was “deeply offended” by my presentation and claimed that Do No Harm “advocate[s] for racist policies and practices” because of our stand against the concept of anti-racism. I explained that Ibram Kendi clearly communicates the intent of anti-racism when he states, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” The representative moved on to the issue of infant and maternal mortality in Kansas, but refused to reflect on the scientific literature. The evidence shows how a lack of early prenatal care and reliable access to facilities that can care for patients with severe maternal complications contributes to this problem, not systemic racism in the healthcare industry. “We must be looking at different data,” he said. “I guess we’ll just agree to disagree.”
Similarly, the next representative insisted the cause of poor access to care “is arguably systemic racism.” Despite my rebuttal citing a lack of data to show that health disparities in minorities are due to bias on the part of healthcare providers, she reiterated that “DE&I and these sorts of practices are extremely important” to address them; otherwise, “it’s doomed to repeat itself.”
Another committee member asked me, “Why are you here, and what do you want from us?” I explained our proposal including the removal of DEI questions from the med school application process and education in divisive concepts like Critical Race Theory and anti-racism. Her recommendation was for Do No Harm to change its name, stating, “Your group is providing much more harm to the public.”
Finally, a representative who is also a primary care physician mentioned the KU Urban Scholars Program in his questioning, which was quite argumentative. It was difficult to get an answer in, but he asked if my comments were based on what was seen on an internet site, which is correct. Do No Harm filed a federal civil rights complaint against KU Medical Center for racial discrimination in the eligibility criteria for this program, which were publicly visible on its webpages. Although this committee member described Urban Scholars as “a hallowed program” at KU, the Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into it earlier this year as a result of our complaint, which demonstrated how KUMC was violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having race-based eligibility criteria for the program:
Here’s the takeaway from my experience in front of the Kansas HHHSC: This wasn’t an easy Q&A, and it demonstrates how the ideological left attacks ideas they don’t agree with, rather than being willing to engage in an informative and productive discussion. But, armed with the facts and evidence, it’s possible to pose a cogent and confident response in the face of confrontation and criticism. And, when discriminatory policies and programs are exposed, they can be corrected to align with federal law. Don’t let the confrontational tactics of the ideologues deter you from speaking out: Fight back with the truth.
Stanley Goldfarb, MD is the former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and chairman of Do No Harm.
Full video of the Kansas State Legislature House Health and Human Services Committee session can be seen here.
Forcing Diversity When Lives Are on the Line
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical School Op-Ed Stanley Goldfarb, MDOur physicians should be the best of the best.
It’s heartening to see leaders of a prominent medical school acknowledge reality (“Med Schools Are Wrong on Rankings” by Fritz François and Gbenga Ogedegbe, op-ed, Feb. 16). The reason many medical schools have decided to abandon the U.S. News and World Report rankings is their inability to maintain excellence while pursuing politicized demands for racial diversity in their student bodies.
Read more at The Wall Street Journal.
Missouri Lawmakers Want Answers About Transgender Center Child Abuse
Uncategorized Missouri DEI State legislature Commentary Do No Harm StaffA stunning 96 Missouri lawmakers are demanding an investigation into the Washington University Transgender Center. They just signed a public letter to the director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, and it deserves a read. They’re responding to the recent allegations of taxpayer fraud and child abuse at the center – allegations that shocked America.
The letter clearly conveys lawmakers desire to protect children and taxpayers:
The lawmakers are equally clear in their call to action:
Here’s hoping these lawmakers get answers fast. Missourians deserve to know what really happened at the center, for the sake of vulnerable children and taxpayers alike. And lawmakers around the country should be equally worried about what may be happening at transgender centers for children in their states.
If You Pay for Gender Transitions, You Should Pay For De-Transitions Too
Uncategorized Florida Gender Ideology State legislature Commentary Do No Harm StaffWho’s going to cover the cost of gender de-transitions – that is, treatments that reverse a gender transition? For that matter, who’s going to cover the cost of ongoing treatments to address the harmful physical and mental effects of gender transitions?
A new bill in Florida would require employers who cover gender transitions to pay for the rest of these treatments, as well. This policy makes sense: Businesses should think twice before pushing invasive and life-altering treatments that many if not most people will come to regret.
This bill reflects basic facts about transgenderism. To start, it is often a temporary phase. Yet gender-reassignment surgeries can have permanent effects, including serious physical complications and major mental health issues. And those who take gender altering hormones can develop significant medical complications and attendant costs, including treatments to deal with the loss of bone density as well as psychological issues. At Do No Harm, we work with many people who are paying, in money and regret, for the treatments they received earlier in life.
Many employers no doubt cover gender transitions in order to score points with radical activists pushing extreme ideology on society. If they do that, they can’t just be allowed to walk away from the lifelong consequences of this ideology for patients. Doing so is a disservice to their employees and to society itself. It is the essence of putting political point-scoring ahead of individual well-being.
At Do No Harm, we support efforts that hold radical gender activists to account. Florida State Rep. Blaise Ingoglia deserves credit for this creative approach to protecting patients. Here’s hoping the Sunshine State continues to put patients first.
Pfizer Reverses Course, Changes Race-Based Fellowship Following Do No Harm Lawsuit
Uncategorized DEI Press ReleaseLast fall, Do No Harm sued pharmaceutical giant Pfizer over its Breakthrough Fellowship Program, a highly prestigious and competitive program which illegally excluded White and Asian candidates from applying.
The program’s requirements explicitly stated that applicants must “meet the program’s goals of increasing the pipeline for Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic and Native Americans.”
In short – Pfizer was picking winners and losers based on their skin color.
After a federal judge dismissed the case, Do No Harm immediately appealed, and following that appeal Pfizer has quietly – without any public announcement or fanfare – updated the Breakthrough Fellowships’ criteria.
The new FAQ states: “You are eligible to apply for the Breakthrough Fellowship Program regardless of whether you are of Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Native American descent.”
“Do No Harm is pleased that Pfizer recognizes its blatant racial discrimination is unlawful and immoral,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarm, MD, chairman of Do No Harm. “It is important to recognize that this significant change was made only after Do No Harm’s lawsuit, and only because Pfizer knows its fellowship is in jeopardy on appeal.”
Despite Pfizer’s under the radar change of course, Do No Harm will proceed with its lawsuit to ensure that Pfizer does not continue or resume its racial discrimination that has no place in society.
About Do No Harm
Do No Harm is a diverse group of physicians, healthcare professionals, medical students, patients, and policymakers united by an ethical mission: Protect healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology. They believe in making healthcare better for all – not undermining it in pursuit of a political agenda. Learn more at www.donoharmmedicine.org.
Oklahoma Medical Schools Should Educate, Not Indoctrinate
Uncategorized Oklahoma DEI Oklahoma State University, University of Oklahoma, University of Tulsa Medical School, Public university CommentaryAre Oklahoma’s taxpayer-funded universities pushing divisive and even discriminatory ideas?
That’s what Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters asked all 25 state colleges and universities in a January letter. It’s a valid question, given the politicization of higher education, and the truth is essential to ensuring that Oklahoma’s higher education provides the best possible learning experience. Yet the superintendent – as well as Gov. Stitt and state lawmakers – may want to pay special attention to places hardly anyone expects: Oklahoma’s medical schools.
Superintendent Walters is seeking details on “every dollar” state schools are spending on “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” as well as how many staff are devoted to this issue. DEI, as it’s known, is part of the political narrative that society suffers from “systemic racism.” It demands a greater focus on people’s skin color instead of their character or individual characteristics. DEI has even been used to justify policies like preferential treatment by race, which is racial discrimination by another name.
Such toxic ideas have no place in higher education, much less anywhere else. That’s why it’s so concerning that Oklahoma medical schools have embraced this ideology so thoroughly. Put simply, it threatens the quality of education future physicians receive, and the quality of care they will provide to patients for the rest of their careers.
My organization has spent the past year investigating the extent to which education has been replaced by indoctrination at medical schools. Consider what’s happening at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, which we’ve investigated using the state’s freedom of information law.
We found that the OU’s medical school has a department fully dedicated to advancing DEI within the institution, with frequent communication to faculty, staff, and students alike. There’s a permanent bureaucracy pushing divisive ideas on everyone, taking time and resources away from real medical education.
What’s more, the OU medical school now hires and promotes faculty based on their work on DEI. That’s a political litmus test that has nothing to do with medicine, and everything to do with forcing educators to toe the party line. Faculty should be hired based on their ability to teach and research at the highest level, not whether they hold specific views.
Other medical schools are offensive, too. OU’s Tulsa School of Community Medicine offers a course and stipend that are only available to students of particular races – and whites aren’t allowed. That’s racial discrimination, which is why we’ve filed a civil rights complaint with the federal government. We’ve also asked the feds to investigate 12 schools – including Oklahoma State University and the University of Tulsa – that participate in a recruitment program based solely on race. Federal authorities are already investigating such discriminatory practices in other states, for good reason.
Oklahomans deserve to know exactly how far the state’s medical schools have gone down this radical road. This issue goes well beyond the quality of the education they provide. Ultimately, it affects the health and well-being of everyone who will one day be treated by the physicians these institutions teach. Here’s hoping Oklahoma can cure this corruption of medical schools, along with the rest of higher education.
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, is chairman of Do No Harm.
S1E8: Standing Up Against Woke Ideology
Uncategorized DEI Podcast Benita Cotton-OrrDr. Stanley Goldfarb and Benita Cotton-Orr share best practices for standing up against the woke ideology that is infiltrating health care. From helping professors push back against DEI requirements for promotions to supporting physicians who reject ‘implicit bias’ training as a requirement for license renewal, the Do No Harm team is here to provide support and resources to fight back. And it doesn’t stop there.
Professional Development in Healthcare is Succumbing to Wokeness – and ACEHP is Leading the Way
Uncategorized Maryland, Washington DC DEI Professional organization Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions (ACEHP) is an organization for healthcare educators, offering support and resources for their professional development offerings and activities, including continuing medical education (CME). However, ACEHP is doing its part to drag the delivery of healthcare continuing education into the endless abyss of DEI and anti-racism.
As it demonstrated during its recent annual conference (sponsored in part by CME providers such as Talem Health, Healio, and CME Institute), ACEHP’s idea of best practices includes a “DEI Showcase” of woke topics.
Examples of the February 7, 2023, sessions include:
Policy & Medicine, a website that reviews and writes about healthcare-related regulatory and compliance issues, endorsed the conference, particularly the day dedicated to health equity. While praising the objectives of the sessions, their coverage included a curious reflection. “We must know more than that there is an issue and develop a plan,” the author said, “to ensure everyone is treated with dignity and respect and deliver the care patients deserve.”
Yet this is not the message of DEI activists, who push an ideology that declares the healthcare industry is systemically racist and certain groups of practitioners must be trained to recognize and mitigate their implicit biases. ACEHP and its members need to apply the standards of dignity, respect, and competent patient care delivery to the field of continuing professional development instead of redefining the meaning of best practices and creating discord in the healthcare industry.
Is your professional healthcare organization promoting divisive ideologies instead of adhering to the mission of providing competent patient care? Do No Harm wants to hear from you, and you may remain anonymous if you wish.
Lies, damn lies, and statisticians: A transgender paper that fails the test
Uncategorized Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah Gender Ideology Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffEconomist Ronald Coase observed that “if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” A paper recently published in PLOS One devised some particularly creative means for extracting a confession.
The authors of “Anti-transgender rights legislation and internet searches pertaining to depression and suicide” claim to observe “that the passage of a single [anti-trans] bill led to around a 13 to 17 percent increase in the volume of searchers for the word ‘suicide’ within that state.” Moreover, they said “that for every anti-transgender bill passed in a week, there was about a five percent increase in searches for the word ‘depression.’” They assert that the increased interest in these terms reflects increased mental health distress, brought on by legislation.
The researchers derive their conclusion from multiple regression analysis, a technique used to observe the relationship between a dependent variable (searches for “suicide” and “depression”) and multiple independent variables (the status and timing of “anti-trans” bills). Google searches constantly fluctuate for a variety of reasons, so simply observing whether searches increase or decrease in the wake of new legislation would not sufficiently address the researchers’ question. Indeed, sophisticated analysis is required to attempt to isolate the potential effect of new legislation on internet searches.
While sophisticated quantitative methods are useful tools for serious scholars who pursue truth, they can also be used by activist scholars to create the aura of “science.” It is easy to deceive readers who are uninitiated to the nuances of quantitative methods. And sure enough, a technical deep dive of the PLOS One paper reveals that its methods are flawed on their merits, rendering the conclusion invalid.
Only a limited number of health policy scholars have the statistical skillset required to interrogate the paper’s approach, including, perhaps the peer reviewers and editors at PLOS One. But even reviewers or editors not well-versed in statistical methods should assess whether a research paper passes a face validity test. The extent to which this new paper fails that test is staggering, which makes its publication particularly disconcerting.
The relationship between two phenomena (i.e., the timing of “anti-trans” bills and Google searches for “suicide” and “depression”) can only be observed to the extent that the items vary. It would be impossible, for example, to estimate the effect of sunlight on plant growth if it was cloudy or sunny 100% of the time. Herein lies a major issue with their dataset: Only two “anti-trans” bills were passed within their study time horizon, and both were in Idaho on the week of March 22, 2020. Given this limitation, face validity demands strong evidence that the bills in Idaho were in fact associated with an increase in searches for “suicide” and “depression.” At the very least, unsophisticated examination should track with their conclusion to verify that it isn’t simply derived from tortured data. Instead, Google Trends indicates that the adjusted number of searches in Idaho that week for the word “suicide” (derived by taking the frequency of a specific search term, dividing it by the total number of Google searches and then normalizing the results relative to a peak of 100) was below average for Idaho compared to the year overall, and aligned with national trends.
Searches for “depression” in Idaho were also consistent with national data, and just slightly above the state average for the year.
Put simply, the single data point that allows the researchers to make an inferential analysis tells a different story from the conclusion they attempt to torture from it.
It’s bad enough that the variables don’t have the relationship the authors try to impose upon them. But it should also be noted that the timing of the Idaho bills’ passage casts serious doubt about the wisdom of empirical analysis. The week of March 22, 2020 coincided with the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, which dominated news headlines and disrupted nearly all facets of life. “Anti-trans” bills can only provoke feelings of suicide or depression if individuals are aware of and thinking about such bills. Amidst a historic, spiraling public health emergency, would legislation that prohibits gender changes on birth certificates or forbids biological men from competing in girls’ sports have wide resonance with Idahoans? One should be skeptical.
Finally, even if the legislation was associated with an increase in searches for the terms “suicide” and depression” (it wasn’t), and even if Idahoans were in fact mindful of the new legislation (a questionable proposition), there’s another problem. Someone who prioritizes empirical rigor might wonder whether the search results are, in fact, a proxy for mental health distress, or whether they are an artifact of media coverage of the legislation. Transgender activists and their allies in the academy and media repeatedly make the erroneous claim that their policy objectives would curtail the high incidence of depression and suicide in trans-identifying youth. Consequently, it’s plausible that Google searches for “suicide” and “depression” increase in response to media-driven interest in the topic, not mental health distress. The authors never address this possibility nor attempt to disentangle it in their analysis.
Whether this paper was produced out of sloppiness or an attempt to advance a cultural objective is unknown, but the effect is all the same: More junk science obfuscates rather than informs debates around gender topics.
UMass T.H. Chan School of Medicine Scores 70.8% on its DICE Inventory – And is Promoting a Discriminatory Summer Internship
Uncategorized Massachusetts DEI University of Massachusetts T.H. Chan School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffJust how woke is the University of Massachusetts (UMass) T.H. Chan Medical School? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.
Here’s the background. In November 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges released a report showing that the vast majority of medical schools have embraced identity politics, despite their divisive and even discriminatory nature. The report was based on surveys of specific medical schools, which the AAMC didn’t name.
For the sake of transparency and accountability, Do No Harm submitted freedom of information requests to public medical schools nationwide, including the UMass Chan Medical School. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Massachusetts taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.
Here’s what the UMass Chan Medical School has self-reported:
The Diversity and Inclusion Office also sponsors the Emerging Professionals Summer Internship program, which includes racially discriminatory selection criteria that treats certain racial/ethnic groups differently than others. Do No Harm has filed a federal civil rights complaint against the university for this violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
All told, the UMass Chan Medical School has instituted 70.8% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.
Massachusetts taxpayers help fund UMMS. They, and the policymakers who represent them, should ask why they’re giving so much money to an institution that’s putting divisive and discriminatory ideology at the heart of medical education. More importantly, they should ensure UMMS stops, and soon.
UPenn Only Wants Woke Medical Faculty
Uncategorized Pennsylvania DEI University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffWant to work at UPenn’s Perelman School of Medicine? First, you have to prove how woke you are. This blatant political litmus test is now part of the faculty job application process. This prestigious institution is just the latest to put divisive ideology ahead of excellence and merit in its hiring process.
A tipster clued us into this disturbing turn of events at UPenn. Applicants for teaching positions must now submit a “Diversity Statement,” which is exactly what it sounds like: A statement proving their commitment to the divisive and discriminatory concepts of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”
UPenn doesn’t want rhetoric. It wants applicants to show their track record on DEI: “In general terms, diversity statement should include past experiences and activities, and also future plans to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The application guide asks a series of leading questions, too:
The list goes on. The application guide even provides a sample “Diversity Statement,” which lists things like publishing articles on DEI, teaching “equity” in the classroom, and other blatantly woke activities.
The UPenn mandate applies to every part of the university. Yet when it comes to the Perelman School of Medicine, the inevitable result will be harm to medical educators. They must either pretend to believe in these blatantly political ideas or actively subscribe to them, making them less suited to actually teach at the medical school. Political orthodoxy is not a legitimate qualification for teaching, yet by pretending it is, UPenn will do great harm to medical education.