North Carolina Physician: My Hospital Is Coercing Us To Say We’re Woke

We received a tip from a physician who works for Novant Health in North Carolina. The physician wanted to highlight a concerning development at their hospital and asked to remain anonymous. Here is the story.

My hospital wants patients to know how woke I am. It’s a blatant attempt to coerce me to broadcast political views. My fellow physicians and I are not only insulted but deeply worried about our careers because of this blatant coercion.

Here’s the backstory. I recently got an email from my hospital’s parent organization asking if we would like for our online profile to include a ‘LGBTQ friendly’ stamp. The stamp is rainbow colored and flashes under the doctor profiles.

In one respect, the stamp is meaningless. It was offered as a “grandfathered-in” certification, with or without any training or actual certification. Yet in a bigger sense, it’s filled with meaning. If I don’t adopt this stamp, my hospital gives patients the impression that I’m bigoted and hateful. It may even be grounds to push me and my colleagues out of the medical profession.

This move is concerning on so many levels. First of all, who in the medical practice is NOT LGBTQ friendly? Are there actually doctors who are unfriendly to their patients because of their sexual orientation? Of course not.

I’m a case in point. LGBTQ patients score me very high on patient satisfaction. Every physician and nurse I work with provides the highest level of care to these patients. This is our job and we don’t need a politicized stamp to prove anything. Yet if we don’t take it, we will somehow be ‘assumed’ to be unfriendly to LGBTQ people.

Something much more sinister could be at work. I fear an attempt to label people who will later be weeded out. Frankly, I’m terrified for my job if I don’t take the stamp. And I know dozens of my fellow physicians feel the same way. Medicine is heading in a dark direction, with physicians more worried about who they’ll offend than how to provide the best possible care.

Such are the wages of woke medicine: More posturing and politics, less professionalism and personalized care. I can’t imagine anything worse.

Is your hospital or health care provider forcing you to adopt woke views? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

A Civil Rights Investigation is Underway at Mizzou School of Medicine

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has opened an investigation into illegal race-based discrimination at the University of Missouri School of Medicine (MUSOM).

Figure 1. University of Missouri School of Medicine (https://medicine.missouri.edu/financial-aid/types-of-aid/scholarships)

OCR is investigating Mizzou for ten university-funded scholarships in the School of Medicine that contain race/ethnicity restrictions for applicants, which is prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

  1. Guy Eastman Brown II and Ellen Tarshis Brown Scholarship Fund
  2. Marvin W. and Lilith E. Valle Scholarship Fund
  3. Medical School Minority Scholarship
  4. Richard A. Holmes, M.D. Minority Medical Students Scholarship Fund
  5. Lillie Graham Medical Scholarship Endowment Fund
  6. Medical Minority Scholarship
  7. Thomas J. and Sharlyn Cooper Minority Medical Student Scholarship Fund
  8. Dr. Judy Wells Memorial Scholarship Endowment Fund
  9. Minority Medical Student Scholarship Fund
  10. Nouri Sandoval Scholarship Endowment

The investigation was initiated in response to a federal civil rights complaint filed in August 2022 by Do No Harm program manager Laura Morgan.

MUSOM’s financial aid office says, “Most scholarships received by medical students are institutionally funded from donations and gifts from alumni and friends of our school.” Donors to the School of Medicine must insist their gifts are used for scholarships that are fair, open to all, and compliant with federal law.

Race-Based Medicine and “Gender-Affirming Care:” Two Faces of the Corruption of Medicine

We at Do No Harm are devoted to combating divisive ideology in health care. To date, we’ve focused on the rise of race-based medicine, most notably Critical Race Theory and the diversity-industrial complex that endanger patients by lowering standards and demanding discrimination. Now, another destructive ideology demands our attention – so-called “gender affirming care.” The health and happiness of countless children are at stake, which is why we’re now fighting to curtail this unscientific and individually harmful practice.

Race-based medicine and “gender-affirming care” arise from the same distorted view. In both cases, patients are viewed as part of a group, instead of unique individuals with unique medical challenges, including psychological ones. In the case of race-based based medicine, minority patients are seen as victims of oppression, which leads to disparate health outcomes, instead of individuals with specific health issues and treatment needs. As for “gender-affirming care,” it holds that any child who questions his or her sex should automatically be given the benefit of the doubt, instead of first identifying and treating underlying or contributing medical problems. In both cases, medical associations are quick to demand adherence to this view, while dismissing any counter-arguments – a clear sign of elevating political ideology over individual patients.

The refusal to approach each patient on an individual basis is reason enough to oppose the movement toward “gender-affirming care.” Yet there’s another reason it deserves criticism: It ignores the impossibility for informed consent of the children who are subjected to this approach. Put simply, young children and adolescents are inappropriately being allowed to make potentially irreversible life-altering decisions.

“Gender-affirming car involves several treatment stages. First, children as young as 6 to 8 years are encouraged to change their names, their hair styles, and their dress to enable their belief that they are the opposite sex. Then, as early as 8 to 10 years, they are treated with drugs called puberty blockers to prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics that develop during puberty. As early as 13 to 15 years, they begin hormonal treatments that lead to secondary sex characteristics of their desired gender. Finally, and once again as early as 13 to 15 years old, they can receive surgical procedures like mastectomies, genital revisions, and plastic surgery.

These procedures are not cost-free. To the contrary: They can lead to altered bone development and cognitive maturation, and even infertility and the inability to engage in sexual relations. It is dangerous and destructive to let children, whose minds are still developing, make decisions at such young ages.

Then there’s the lack of scientific research – a key component to sound medical treatment. No one knows the risk/benefit ratio for these procedures. No one knows how many children decide to reaffirm their biological sex in the middle of these procedures, during which time their minds are developing and maturing. And no one knows how many of these patients ultimately regret their decisions and are left with devastating alterations in their psyches and bodies.

What we do know is this: As few as 12% of children who believe they are a different gender continue to hold that view as adults. Yet the gender-affirming care model assumes that 100% will maintain this belief, while subjecting them to invasive and often irreversible medical procedures. While these children may feel supported and even satisfied for a few months after entering even the earliest stages of the treatment, the longer-term results are unknown and unstudied, and the likelihood is that they’ll wish they had waited before pursuing such a drastic course. Overall, the lack of evidence makes informed consent on the part of children impossible to obtain.

To be clear, adults who decide to undergo “gender transition” have the right to pursue such treatments. But children do not. In holding this position, Do No Harm parallels the best medical judgments of most European countries, including Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom, which have abandoned the “gender-affirming care” model precisely because it endangers children. European countries have largely adopted a first step of intense psychological assessment and counseling, which makes sense. If there is an underlying condition or medical need, it should be addressed first, instead of jumping straight to life-altering treatments.

Sadly, the United States refuses to take this common-sense approach. At best, psychological assessments are a quick pro-forma step with no chance of derailing a gender transition. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics and transgender activists oppose any delay in providing gender-affirming care, including the cautious and thoughtful assessment of depression, eating disorders, and other underlying problems that have been found in many children seeking synthetic transition. As a result, compared to Europe, the U.S. offers treatments like puberty blockers and sex-reassignment surgeries to patients at a much younger age and with much less mental development. The U.S. is an outlier – and children are being victimized because our country puts ideology ahead of individual patients.

Do No Harm is committed to ensuring that children who believe they have Gender Identity Disorder are treated with the utmost care, caution, and concern. We are working closely with experts in Pediatrics, Psychiatry, Endocrinology and Social Sciences to assess the literature on this topic and identify the path forward, both for medical practice and government policy. Yet this much is already clear: The U.S. should follow Europe’s lead and abandon “gender-affirming care” for children, instead applying a more individualized and medically accurate approach. In the same way that Do No Harm fights for equal access to care, and against divisive race-based medicine, we will fight to protect children from the dangerous ideology of “gender-affirming care.“

Harvard Medical School’s Climate Change

Forget medicine: Harvard Medical School has put climate change into its curriculum. It’s the latest sign of how the nation’s most prestigious medical school prefers extreme ideology over medical education and excellence – and it’s a sad day for medical education as a whole.

Do No Harm is primarily focused on the rise of radical race-based and gender ideology in medicine, yet we ultimately deplore any ideological corruption of health care. Harvard’s move, which happened earlier this month, fits the bill. Here’s what’s in store for the future physicians it teaches:

“[The new curriculum] will include instruction on the effects of climate change on human health, the role health care systems play in contributing to climate change, and how physicians can work to be part of the solution…”

What’s more, Harvard Medical School has even hired a new “climate and health curriculum theme director.” That’s just what it needs: More administrators and bureaucrats focused on indoctrinating students with divisive and non-medical ideas.

The Boston Globe notes that Harvard is not alone: “Some 55 percent of US medical schools now teach students about the health effects of climate change, up from 27 percent in 2019.” However, in the past, medical schools taught students what they needed to know about the effect of heat on human physiology and the consequences of working in hot environments. Also, despite their rarity in the US, students were taught about tropical diseases such as malaria and trypanosomiasis.

The new focus on climate change is not about learning to care for diseases more prevalent in tropical climates. It is about climate activism. The school should be honest about what it’s doing: Turning students into activists. It should be doing the opposite: Helping students learn the skills and knowledge necessary to treat their patients. Harvard Medical School pretends it is doing that, but physicians can’t solve climate change any more than they can homelessness, poverty, or food insecurity. 

Is your medical school putting ideology ahead of education? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

The MSU College of Osteopathic Medicine Seeks Fidelity to DEI In Job Applicants

The Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine (MSUCOM) is seeking a new administrative team member in its medical education department. But, there’s one notable qualification: Candidates must declare their devotion to the DEI agenda with their applications.

In a public job posting, MSUCOM is in search of a faculty-level position with the title of “Assessment Specialist.” This role “supports the development of effective assessment methods” at the MSUCOM program to evaluate “the efficacy of curriculum design and delivery.”

Figure 1. Job #832898 (Assessment Specialist) at MSUCOM.

In addition to the usual cover letter and CV, applicants are required to submit a “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) statement,” describing their “past experiences and contributions to inclusive excellence.” Successful contenders for this position will propose “ideas for future initiatives” in support of “MSUCOM’s commitment to inclusive excellence.” In other words, MSUCOM is screening applicants for their willingness to go along with the woke agenda.

Figure 2. Required DEI statement for application.

The link included in the “Required Application Materials” section of the job posing is broken, but the MSUCOM Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives webpage is publicly accessible. Here applicants can browse the current and upcoming “Diversity, Inclusion, and Safety” projects, such as the MSU Dialogues events. A recent offering was the Decoloniality Dialogues Workshop Series, which invites administrators and staff to consider the “systemic harm and complicity that make up the fabric of colonizing universities.”  

Figure 3. MSUCOM Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives: MSU Dialogues event.

These programs are sponsored by MSUCOM and the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee, which assists the College Curriculum Committee “to integrate principles of diversity and inclusion into the curriculum.” No doubt the new “assessment specialist” will be tapped to embed the indoctrination into the fabric of the Michigan State University’s College of Osteopathic Medicine’s course materials.

Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, take note: Even the University of North Carolina no longer compels applicants, students, and faculty members to submit “DEI statements,” and at least six Florida medical schools say they won’t force Critical Race Theory onto anyone. MSUCOM needs to follow their lead and take a different path.

Have you been required to submit a DEI statement at your healthcare institution or for a job application? Please let us know via our secure portal.

The UNC School of Medicine Scores 92% on the AAMC DICE Inventory

Just how woke is the University of North Carolina School of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it 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 UNC School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that North Carolina taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the UNC School of Medicine (UNCSOM) has self-reported:

  • It has adopted racially discriminatory admissions practices under the guise of “affirmative action.” This means it’s potentially lowering standards in the name of diversity, thereby threatening patient health. Specifically, UNCSOM reported, “The SOM Admissions Committee practices holistic admissions. Additionally, all committee members are required to participate in an in-depth implicit bias workshop.”
  • It has a “dedicated office, staff, or resources” dedicated to DEI. This means there’s a permanent woke bureaucracy pushing ideology on faculty and students. The ODEI is well-entrenched: “The SOM unified [its] DEI programs and initiatives related to all SOM groups (clinical faculty, basic science faculty, clinical students, basic science students, postdocs, residents, and fellow, and staff) under the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in March of 2020. https://www.med.unc.edu/inclusion/.”
  • It offers tenure and promotion to faculty who prove their commitment to extreme identity politics and woke priorities. This is a litmus test that requires faculty to toe the party line instead of teaching medicine at the highest level. “In 2021, the SOM added a DEI statement to the dossier requirements for all faculty.”
  • Its administrators are active within local, regional, and national forums to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. This means it’s wasting resources that would be better spent on real medical education. Example: “The SOM leadership supports DEI efforts that improve health equity and advocates for these in multiple venues.”

All told, UNCSOM has instituted 92% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. With this score, AAMC declares UNCSOM is engaging in “substantial Diversity, Inclusion, Culture, and Equity efforts.” 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.

Figure 1. UNC School of Medicine DICE Inventory score.

North Carolina taxpayers help fund the UNCSOM. 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 the University of North Carolina School of Medicine stops, and soon.

Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine is Being Investigated for Violating Civil Rights

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has opened an investigation against Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine for race-based discrimination.

The investigation is in response to a federal civil rights complaint filed by Do No Harm program manager Laura Morgan in August 2022. Eligibility criteria for the Diversity in Surgery Visiting Sub-Internship Program states that applicants must be “African American/Black, Hispanic/Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.” This is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.

Applicants are also required to submit a photo with their submission documents.

Figure 1. Eligibility criteria for the Diversity in Surgery Visiting Sub-Internship Program.

Awardees receive a stipend of up to $2,500 to cover the costs of travel and accommodations for the 4-week sub-internship.

Have you been denied access to a scholarship visiting student program because of race-based eligibility criteria? Do No Harm wants to hear from you via our secure platform.

S1E6: Academic Journals and the Infusion of Censorship, Bias, and Bad Research

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb and Senior Fellow Benita Cotton-Orr expose how medical journals are excluding research that doesn’t align with diversity, equity, and inclusion – representing a massive intrusion of racial issues into objective science.

Are respected academic journals seeking the truth or is science now serving prejudged outcomes?

Hold Florida Medical Schools Accountable for Abandoning Wokeness

At least six Florida medical schools say they don’t and won’t compel anyone to accept Critical Race Theory. That’s the news out of the Sunshine State on Thursday, when 28 universities, six of which have medical schools, publicly made this promise. It’s a good sign, but it demands further investigation. Florida medical schools are doing a lot more with this divisive and discriminatory ideology, and every trace of it needs to be eliminated for the sake of physicians and patients.

This turn of events follows Gov. Ron DeSantis’ recent request that all publicly funded Florida colleges and universities disclose their spending on Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. As Do No Harm chair Dr. Stanley Goldfarb recently wrote in the Orlando Sentinel, medical schools are particularly bad offenders:

“My organization has spent the past year investigating whether and to what extent medical excellence has been replaced by political indoctrination at these institutions. What we’ve found casts doubt on the quality of education that medical schools provide to the future physicians who will treat Floridians.”

The list of offenders includes the University of Florida School of Medicine, the Florida Atlantic University Schmidt College of Medicine, and many others. Florida medical schools are injecting divisive ideology into the application process, the classroom, and faculty training.

Does the new public promise mean medical schools will abandon these deeply concerning actions? It remains to be seen, but it seems unlikely. The schools are saying they won’t force anyone to hold specific views, but that leaves plenty of room to continue beating the woke drum in other ways. Medical schools may not technically force faculty and students to be woke, but they will surely try to indoctrinate them through other means. Gov. DeSantis is right to focus on wokeness in Florida higher education. Hopefully he and state lawmakers will continue to hold colleges and universities, especially medical schools, accountable. Divisive and discriminatory ideas have no place in higher education – and any institution that dabbles in dangerous ideology deserves the highest scrutiny.

Breaking: UNC Won’t Force Faculty To Be Woke

Big news: The University of North Carolina will no longer force applicants, students, and faculty to prove their commitment to divisive and discriminatory ideology.

This important reversal applies to the UNC School of Medicine, which currently demands that potential students and current and future educators demonstrate their wokeness. These litmus tests lower the quality of medical education, and ending them protects faculty, students, and patients alike.

Do No Harm has previously drawn attention to the UNC School of Medicine’s dangerous policy, which essentially compels so-called “DEI Statements.”

  • On its student application, the UNC School of Medicine includes the following prompt: “We believe that education and professional development are enhanced in educational settings that include individuals from diverse backgrounds and experiences… describe how your background and/or experiences would contribute to the UNC SOM community.” Translation: Prove you will advance the woke agenda in order to get admitted.
  • For faculty, the “Required Common Criteria for Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion for Variable, Fixed-Term, and Tenure-Track” document demands that academics demonstrate their “positive contribution to DEI efforts” on campus, including in their teaching plans and the trainings they’ve taken. Translation: Prove you put woke ideology ahead of medical education.

Do No Harm chairman Dr. Stan Goldfarb previously wrote a letter the School of Medicine’s dean, as well as North Carolina’s governor and senior legislative leaders. He stated:

“It is inappropriate to require that candidates for promotion and tenure demonstrate their commitment to a political ideology… Forcing candidates to declare their support for DEI when many undoubtedly oppose it would compel dishonesty. Moreover, forcing candidates to show a track record of involvement in DEI would compel participation in political activities. All of this is deeply illiberal and violates the basic tenets of academic freedom.”

Fortunately, the UNC School of Medicine can no longer engage in such dangerous and agenda-driven activities. It still promotes divisive and discriminatory woke ideas in plenty of other ways, yet the end of DEI Statements is still a huge step in the right direction. Let’s hope it’s just the first of many.

DEI Runs Deep at the University of New Hampshire College of Health and Human Services

How deep does wokeness run at the University of New Hampshire College of Health and Human Services (UNHCHHS)? Do No Harm found out – and the results should raise concern in the minds of New Hampshire taxpayers.

UNHCHHS offers numerous degree programs in several health sciences at its Durham, NH campus, including social work. In response to a public information request, Do No Harm received two course syllabi from the Department of Social Work: Race Equity in Health and Human Services (SW630) and Implications of Race, Culture, and Oppression for Social Work Practice (SW840).

Because learners will “examine their own experiences of both privilege and oppression,” the Race Equity in Health and Human Services course material provides them with a trigger warning before listing the course objectives.

Figure 1. From the Race Equity in Health and Human Services syllabus.

While students are being prepared to understand how racism and oppression has an impact on their personal and professional lives, Race Equity in Health and Human Services assists them in the development of “anti-racist strategies.”

Figure 2. From the Race Equity in Health and Human Services syllabus.

Implications of Race, Culture, and Oppression for Social Work Practices is described as a “foundation course” to increase awareness of multi-factorial “aspects of oppression directed at Black, Indigenous, and persons of color (BIPOC).” Future social workers examine the theoretic concepts surrounding “issues of oppression and social justice” and the “dynamics of race, culture, and oppression in U.S. society.” To make this point early in the course, students are assigned a text on “white privilege,” a video by anti-racism proponent Kate Slater, and the “Matrix of Oppression” in week 2.

Figure 3. Implications of Race, Culture, and Oppression for Social Work Practices, Week 2.

The College of Health and Human Services shows its support for these ideologies through its sponsorship of the Committee on Ethnic, Racial, and Gender Equity (CERGE) within the Department of Social Work. With its own Anti-racism Statement, CERGE affirms that it places DEI at the center of its mission.

Figure 4. Committee on Ethnic, Racial, and Gender Equity (CERGE) anti-racism statement.

To ensure all parties are speaking the same language, CERGE provides the “AIDE Glossary” to define terms such as anti-racism, social justice, and Critical Race Theory.

Figure 5. From the Committee on Ethnic, Racial, and Gender Equity (CERGE) AIDE Glossary.

Finally, the CHHS urges students, faculty, and staff to sign the Wildcat Pledge to UNITE Against Racism. Signers vow to “do the work” to educate themselves on their biases, “have the conversation,” strive to be more inclusive in their education, and thank those who correct their mistakes so they can “do better.”

Figure 6. Wildcat Pledge to UNITE Against Racism.

New Hampshire residents and policymakers need to hold the UNH College of Health and Human Services accountable for the divisive philosophies it is indoctrinating its students into at the expense of state taxpayers.

Is your school subscribing to woke ideologies that promote divisive attitudes? Do No Harm wants to hear from you via our secure platform.

UCSF Shows Where Every Med School Is Heading

Kudos to the University of California San Francisco: It just showed America where every medical school is headed. We obtained a copy of its 2022 report of its Task Force on Equity and Anti-Racism in Research. The report makes clear that radical activists want a wholesale takeover of medical education.

Figure 1. UCSF Task Force on Equity & Anti-Racism in Research Final Report, 2022.

UCSF is completely dedicated to medical and health sciences, yet since 2020, this task force has been devising plans to reorient the school’s mission. It’s specifically focused on research, which is a core component of UCSF’s work and affects everything from faculty hiring to teaching to grant funding.

Figure 2. UCSF Task Force on Equity & Anti-Racism in Research: Foreword.

The task force makes clear that UCSF is insufficiently woke, stating that it’s “abundantly clear that we have yet to create an approach to science that has diversity as foundational.” It further states that “Racism and inequity are embedded in this country and its healthcare and health research systems,” requiring a complete overhaul in the university’s research enterprise.

Figure 3. UCSF Task Force on Equity & Anti-Racism in Research: Foreword.

What, specifically, is the Task Force pushing UCSF to do? There are four things, each of which represents a departure from sound research and medical education.

  • First, “establish a system of accountability on anti-racism and equity for the UCSF research enterprise.” This means creating a permanent woke bureaucracy that pushes UCSF faculty and staff to prioritize ideologically driven research.
  • Second, “promote and support UCSF anti-racism scholarship.” This means evaluating and funding all clinical research through the lens of divisive and discriminatory ideology. The more extreme ideas will be more likely to proceed.
  • Third, “create and support a more diverse UCSF research workforce.” This means hiring faculty and staff based on skin color instead of just expertise, which will lead to lower quality research.
  • Fourth, “promote and support community engaged research.” This means prioritizing research and partnerships with ideological allies, instead of emphasizing the best possible research.
Figure 4. UCSF Task Force on Equity & Anti-Racism in Research: Introduction.

UCSF is all but certain to accept these demands. Together, they represent the replacement of hard science and research with a political agenda. Research funding should be based on presenting high quality proposals initiated by researchers, not activists. Anything less will undermine the integrity and quality of research upon which patients depend.

Figure 5. UCSF Task Force on Equity & Anti-Racism in Medicine, page 31.

One final line from the task force report caught our eye:

“IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHILE MANY OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED WERE CONSTRUCTIVE AND HELPFUL, TASK FORCE MEMBERS WERE TRAUMATIZED BY A STRIKING NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF INEQUITIES AND RACISM, AND OTHERS THAT MINIMIZED THE BURDEN THAT RACISM HAS IMPOSED.”

Translation: UCSF won’t tolerate any dissent, disagreement, or even discussion. It will only force divisive and even discriminatory ideas on faculty and staff alike.

Figure 6. Comments on recommendations by the UCSF Task Force.

This is the direction every medical school is headed: Coercion, censorship, and groupthink about identity politics, replacing cutting-edge medical research. Patients should be worried – and policymakers should be stepping up to stop this madness before it’s too late.

Statement About Harvard’s Ranking Decision

The U.S. News and World Report magazine’s ranking system for medical schools has long presented a problem for prestigious institutions like Harvard and Penn, where I used to teach. These medical schools desperately want to admit more students based on race, which they’ve done by lowering standards and admitting some students who didn’t take the MCAT. They want to admit more, but the U.S. News Rankings won’t let them without rightly penalizing their ranking. Now Harvard medical school can admit whoever it wants, on whatever standards it wants, and it can still claim to be #1. Harvard just cancelled ranking systems.

We should see this move for what it is: The denial of merit in the name of diversity. There was a time when admission to Harvard medical school meant you had superior academic achievement. That is no longer true, and Harvard should be ashamed for emphasizing skin color over academic and medical excellence.

Missouri Bill Targets Woke Medical Schools

Will Missouri be the first state to stop the woke takeover of medical schools? Yes, if State Rep. Ben Baker’s new bill passes. It’s called the “Do No Harm” Act – and it’s a model piece of legislation for any state lawmaker who wants to ensure their medical schools teach medicine, not divisive and discriminatory ideology.

Rep. Baker wrote this week about what his bill does, and why it’s needed:

The decline of our state’s medical schools was made clear by a recent expose on the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. A lecturer was caught declaring that students shouldn’t debate her on matters of “systemic oppression” and Critical Race Theory, which is a divisive ideology that sees racism basically everywhere and in everyone. The lecturer warned that if students dared contradict her, she would “shut that [expletive] down real fast.”

This incident is far from unique. The medical schools at Washington University and the University of Missouri are spending more and more time – and more and more taxpayer dollars – on “diversity, equity, and inclusion” as well as so-called “anti-racism.” These divisive concepts are used to justify outright racial discrimination, supposedly in pursuit of righting past wrongs. The leading proponent of anti-racism has explicitly stated that “future discrimination” is in fact necessary and praiseworthy.

Such woke ideas have no place in medical school, much less the rest of health care or anywhere else. That’s where Rep. Baker’s “Do No Harm” Act comes in:

My bill would stop the decline and corruption of our medical schools. To start, it would require every taxpayer-funded Missouri medical school to get the legislature’s approval before lowering standards for admission. This policy is common sense: Medical schools should look for the best qualified students, because they will provide the best care as physicians.

My bill would also stop taxpayer-funded medical schools from forcing applicants, students, and faculty to hold political views on matters like Critical Race Theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion. The schools would also have to publish their course materials in a public database, so taxpayers can learn exactly what medical students are being taught.

And beyond education, my bill would prevent state medical boards from forcing physicians and nurses to take woke training to receive or keep their license. Medical professionals should focus on treating individual patients, not identity politics.

Rep. Baker concludes by saying, “These protections need to be put in state law as soon as possible.”

The University of Florida College of Medicine Continues to Exhibit Its Woke Initiatives

The University of Florida College of Medicine is taking its wokeness to a new level, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm. We recently reported on UFCOM’s dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and commitment to infusing anti-racism into the medical education curriculum. However, UFCOM has more virtue signaling to do, as seen with its responses to the AAMC’s Diversity, Inclusion, Culture, and Equity (DICE) Inventory.

Here’s the background. In October 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 University of Florida College of Medicine (UFCOM) and UFCOM-Jacksonville (UFCOM-JAX) campuses. We asked for a copy of the system’s survey responses, so that Florida taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the UFCOM system has self-reported:

  • It has adopted racially discriminatory admissions practices under the guise of “affirmative action.” UFCOM uses the “holistic” admission principles the AAMC endorses. UFCOM-JAX says that it will apply the same admission policy as that campus “becomes a regional medical school.” This means it’s potentially lowering standards in the name of diversity, thereby threatening patient health.  
Figure 1. UFCOM-Jacksonville Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, & Access (IDEA) office home page.
Figure 2. IDEA infographic (submitted with the UFCOM-JAX DICE Inventory).
  • UFCOM-JAX lobbies for woke policies at the federal, state, and/or local levels. This means it’s wading into toxic public debates instead of fully focusing on educating future physicians. UFCOM claims it does not engage in advocacy for DEI initiatives with policymakers.
  • Its administrators are active within local, regional, and national forums to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. Both campuses are wasting resources that would be better spent on real medical education.  
Figure 3. UFCOM DICE Inventory score.

All told, the University of Florida College of Medicine has instituted 70.5% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC, and UFCOM-Jacksonville scored 74.1%. By scoring in the yellow zone, 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.

Figure 4. UFCOM-JAX DICE Inventory score.

Figure 4. UFCOM-JAX DICE Inventory score.

Florida taxpayers help fund the University of Florida College of Medicine campuses. 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 UFCOM and UFCOM-JAX discontinues these policies and initiatives.

East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine DICE Inventory Score: 70.6%

Just how woke is North Carolina’s ECU Brody School of Medicine? Their score on the AAMC’s Diversity, Inclusion, Culture, and Equity (DICE) Inventory speaks for itself.

Here’s the background. In October 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 East Carolina University. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that North Carolina taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the ECU Brody School of Medicine has self-reported:

  • It has adopted racially discriminatory admissions practices under the guise of “affirmative action.” This means it’s potentially lowering standards in the name of diversity, thereby threatening patient health.  
  • It has a “dedicated office, staff, or resources” dedicated to DEI. In fact, it reports two such offices: The Office of Diversity Affairs and Office of Faculty Affairs and Leadership Development. This means there’s a permanent woke bureaucracy pushing ideology on faculty and students. 
  • It lobbies for woke policies at the federal, state, and/or local levels. This means it’s wading into toxic public debates instead of fully focusing on educating future physicians. 
  • It offers tenure and promotion to faculty who prove their commitment to extreme identity politics and woke priorities. This is a litmus test that requires faculty to toe the party line instead of teaching medicine at the highest level. ECU reported that new promotion and tenure policies are under development.
  • Its administrators are active within local, regional, and national forums to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. This means it’s wasting resources that would be better spent on real medical education.  

In response to question 83 on the DICE Inventory (Does the institution/school provide scholarships for students from diverse backgrounds?), ECU responded “no” and added the comment “Prohibited for targeting diverse candidates over others.” However, the Office of Diversity Affairs clearly promotes Scholarships for Underrepresented Minorities in Medicine (URMM) Students.

East Carolina University Scholarships for Underrepresented Minorities in Medicine page.

All told, ECU Brody School of Medicine has instituted 70.6% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. With a score in AAMC’s yellow zone, 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.

ECU Brody School of Medicine DICE Inventory score.

North Carolina taxpayers help fund East Carolina University. 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 the ECU Brody School of Medicine stops, and soon.

UPenn School of Medicine Responds to Federal Civil Rights Complaint By Scrubbing Its Website

,

In August 2022, we reported that a federal civil rights complaint was filed against the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine for its discriminatory Visiting Clerkship for Underrepresented Minority Students in Medicine (URiM) Program. The eligibility criteria for the program stated that applicants must be “Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, or Native American (American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Alaskan Native, mainland Puerto Rican).” This is a very specific and definite race-based requirement that illegally excluded applicants who were white, Asian, and Middle Eastern in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin.

Figure 1. UPenn Perelman School of Medicine Visiting Clerkship for URiM Students Program on August 25, 2022 (archived site).

After receiving a courtesy copy of the complaint filed with OCR last August, the UPenn School of Medicine quickly scrubbed the race-based requirement above and added this new text at the revised website:

 Applicants for the funded clerkship must come from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. Under-represented in Medicine (URM) refers to individuals from a background that is traditionally underrepresented in medicine, including but not limited to racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, identify as LGBTQ+, have disabilities, are first generation in the United States or first in their immediate family to attend college, or who otherwise would increase the diversity and inclusivity of our student and resident/fellow populations.

Figure 2. UPenn Perelman School of Medicine Visiting Clerkship for URiM Students Program on January 12, 2023.

The revision also included this statement:

Penn Medicine is an equal opportunity employer and adheres to a policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis of ancestry, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, creed, national or ethnic origin, citizenship status, age, disability, veteran status, or any other legally protected class.

As a result of the changes made by Penn Medicine to quickly correct its Title VI violation following being notified of our complaint, the Region III U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, located in Philadelphia, dismissed the complaint.

Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry, who filed the original complaint, said:

At the time I filed my complaint the University was in violation of Title VI and in fact the changes the University made to its website since August 2022 confirm that (a) the University was engaged in illegal race-based discrimination in violation of Title VI as recently as August 2022 when I filed my complaint and (b) the changes made by the University is an admission and acknowledgment of guilt by the University that it had been engaged in illegal race-based discrimination in violation of Title VI as of August 2022.

We acknowledge the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine’s update of the eligibility criteria of the Visiting Clerkship for URiM Students in Medicine program after being notified of our federal civil rights complaint. 

If you are aware of a discriminatory scholarship or policy at your medical or nursing school, or if you didn’t apply because you thought a discriminatory policy worked against you, please let us know.

A Response To JAMA’s Defense of Racial Discrimination

The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published an outright defense of racially discriminatory admissions practices at medical schools, under the guise of “affirmative action.” Our chairman, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, wrote the following response to this disturbing article.

My former colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine have written a defense of race-based medical school admissions that fails on many levels. (Hamilton RH, Rose S, DeLisser HM. Defending Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Undergraduate and Medical School Admission Policies. JAMA. 2023 Jan 10;329(2):119-120. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.23124. PMID: 36477254.) They argue that racial diversity of a medical school class leads to more students entering primary care training positions and more working in medically underserved areas. They also point out that studies show that minority patients are more likely to have “positive experiences with race concordant physicians,” meaning physicians who share the patient’s skin color. These claims are not supported by the evidence.

In a study of career choices of medical students cited by the authors, 55% of black medical students chose primary care fields (Pediatrics, Internal Medicine, and Family Medicine) for residency compared to 43% of white students. Of those, 57% of black students did not initially opt for further training in a medical specialty, but we know that many such residents work in a primary care position for a short time and pursue specialty training later. Some 47% of white students remained in a primary care specialty over the same period. That means, at most, that 31% of black graduates enter into primary care positions. Currently, 7.7% of medical students in the US are black. Under the scenario of equal representation compared to population, 13% of students would be black. Thus, if the cohort of black students was raised to 13% of all medical students, a nearly 100% increase, the percentage of black students entering the primary care fields would at most increase from 2% of the graduating medical students cohort to 4%. Given that some 22,000 students graduate from medical school each year, this would increase the number of black primary care physicians to approximately 800 per year.

Despite efforts to recruit more black students into medical school, the number has only reached 7.7% of all medical students even in the face of a commitment to increase qualified applicants to medical school. Thus, by the data cited above, currently only 400 black students initially enter primary care fields. On the other hand, currently, some 3,700 white and Asian medical students enter primary care fields each year without initially opting for specialty training. If this number were raised by only 9%, for example through incentive programs like student debt forgiveness, the same 400 person increase in the primary care cohort could be achieved without compromising the academic standards for admitting students to medical school now envisioned by advocates of race-based admissions.

Does this trade-off help black patients? Hamilton et al point to studies showing black doctors tend to choose to practice in “medically underserved areas (MUA’s)”. This is true, but do the authors realize that West Philadelphia where the august University of Pennsylvania Medical Center and its over 2000 physicians practice is a “medically underserved area” according to the US government? This is because the population characteristics including areas of poverty and high prevalence of elderly citizens count as much as any health care availability to the MUA designation. Therefore, we really have no idea about the practice characteristics of the cohort of black doctors who focus on serving black patients since the designation “medically underserved area” is more a political concept than related to health care availability. Moreover, studies from California show that the vast majority of physicians currently practicing in “medically underserved areas” are white.

The next question the authors address is whether black patients have better medical outcomes if cared for by black physicians – a phenomenon known as “race concordance.” Do No Harm has proven there is no valid evidence that clinical outcomes will improve if black patients have black doctors. In fact, the largest study of the question shows that not to be the case.

The authors nonetheless argue that black patients feel more “comfortable” with black doctors, but do we really want a country where skin color affects physician choice? For instance, would it be acceptable if white patients demanded white doctors? The criterion for entry into a field in which lives are at stake should only be based on the potential for providing the highest level of care. That capacity is independent of skin color.

Gaining entry into medical school is a privilege and not a right. If we begin to redress years of lack of opportunity with years of unearned benefits, we will have a health care system that may be more colorful yet may not fulfill its true mission of providing the American people with the best trained and most capable health care workforce. The job of medical education’s leaders is not to make sure that anyone who wants to be a doctor gets to achieve that goal. Rather, they should put patient well-being as the central output of medical education. If 25% or 50% of the medical students in the US were black or from some other minority group and were the most qualified individuals, that would be a successful physician workforce. It is not a function of skin color.

Contorting the admission process to medical school to improve health outcomes for black patients is a social experiment, not an evidence-based approach to reducing health care disparities. Why not work to improve access to our health care system through providing more community entry points rather than a wholesale re-engineering of the health care system? A successful outcome of the pending Supreme Court case in which Asian American students are seeking to end affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina could be the restoration of merit as the determining factor for entry into medical school. Patients deserve nothing less.