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.“
Physician Guest Post: I Didn’t Take A Job – Because of Mandatory Woke Training
Uncategorized North Carolina DEI Hospital System, Medical School CommentaryOne of the things I love about medicine is its collaborative nature. That’s why I applied for hospital privileges as an adjunct clinical faculty member at my local medical school. I wanted to help train the next generation of physicians, using my years of experience in medical practice to guide others in our life-saving work.
But it wasn’t to be. I ended up refusing the position – because I would have been forced to take radical woke training.
After I applied, I was quickly accepted and then directed to the orientation process. The very first training I was told I had to take was, you guessed it, about “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” I looked through the materials, and it was clear that a political agenda was being shoved down my throat. It was obsessed with race and skin color – not medical care and patient well-being.
That’s bad enough, but the fact that it was literally the first training is even worse, to my mind. My local medical school is sending a dangerous message to faculty: You’re here to be a political activist first, and a physician second. I can’t think of anything more inappropriate in the medical field. And that mindset will infect everything medical students learn and ultimately do as physicians. The quality of care will suffer if medical training focuses on anything other than treating patients.
I refuse to be a part of this. Within minutes of receiving the training, I decided to turn down hospital privileges. I emailed the Department Chair about my decision and gave my reasons. Weeks later, I have yet to hear a response.
Health care leaders may be silent and complicit, but I won’t be. And I hope my fellow physicians will speak out, too. The only way to stop the woke takeover of medicine is to stand up and say “not me.” If enough of us fight back, we have a chance to win the war for the heart of health care. Our patients are counting on us to stop this woke onslaught before it’s unstoppable.
Have you been forced to take woke training, or even refused to do so? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.
Woke Medical Schools Hate That US News Has Standards
Uncategorized California, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania DEI Columbia University, Harvard Medical School, Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, Stanford University, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffWhy are so many elite medical schools leaving the famous US News and World Report rankings?
In recent weeks, the medical schools affiliated with Harvard, Pennsylvania, Stanford, Columbia, and many other prestigious institutions have taken this strange path. The reason is as simple as it is concerning: These schools are more committed to woke ideology than medical excellence.
These medical schools are more-or-less honest about what they’re doing. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai said its commitment to “commitment to anti-racism” and “outreach to diverse communities” compel it to leave the rankings. The University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine said the rankings “measure the wrong things.”
Really? US News and World Report rankings are based in large part on MCAT scores and grade point averages of accepted medical school applicants. These measures are the best known indicator of students’ ability to excel in medical school, which is why US News started ranking them in the first place. The whole point is to help medical schools select and train the best possible future physicians.
Yet these institutions are less concerned with training the best physicians because of woke demands for diversity. Penn put it bluntly when announcing its decision. It stated: “The USNWR measures encourage the acceptance of students based upon the highest grades and test scores… The Perelman School of Medicine aims to serve the needs of a changing world, including diverse communities and stakeholders ranging from prospective students to the patients who rely on the physicians, scientists, and leaders we train.”
In other words, merit doesn’t matter. Academic achievement doesn’t matter. Subjective criteria apparently do. Yet that inevitably means that Penn will recruit students who don’t perform as well on academic and testing criteria. Eliminating the rankings allows them to take in less-qualified students.
Penn is not alone. Elite medical schools are now obsessed with skin color, and they want to recruit more lower-performing minority students without having their rankings hurt. Therefore, they left the rankings, so they can pretend to be elite while lowering standards.
This turn of events should worry every patient – which means every American. The nation’s top medical schools are deliberately downplaying merit in recruiting future physicians. Lowering standards is a surefire path to lower the quality of care that patients receive for decades to come. As Penn said, “The USNWR rankings perpetuate a vision for medical education and the future physician and scientist workforce that we do not share.” It should be deeply concerning that elite medical schools don’t share the vision of training the best possible medical professionals.
When Americans look at a medical school that isn’t participating in the US News and World Report rankings, they should think to themselves: This medical school is a threat to my health.
The ACGME Wants Residency Program Directors to Prove Their DEI Credentials
Uncategorized Illinois DEI Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Accreditiing organization, Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in a non-profit organization that “sets and monitors” educational standards in medical residency and fellowship programs. Accreditation is granted by ACGME’s Institutional Review Committee, which evaluates the data provided by the graduate medical education programs it oversees.
One method the ACGME uses for collecting those data points is by sending questionnaires to the program directors of various residencies in the United States. We obtained a copy of the “Diversity in Emergency Medicine Questionnaire,” which aims to “identify the current state of gender, ethnic, and racial distribution” of residency programs across the country. It also wants to know what program directors are doing to “increase racial/ethnic and gender diversity” in their recruitment efforts. Those who received a link to the questionnaire were assured that the study was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board, and 25 participants had the chance to receive a $100 Amazon gift card.
For assistance with their responses, program directors were instructed to refer to their “ERAS data.” ERAS® is the Electronic Residency Application Service® from the Association for American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and is said to “support the transition to residency in a fair and equitable way.”
After determining which region of the country the program is in, the survey asked for “the number of residents in your program who are each gender.” A choice of “non-binary/gender non-conforming” is included.
The next question inquires about the number of residents by race/ethnicity, including “American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African-American; Hispanic/Latinx; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; White; Bi-racial/Multiracial; Other.”
The ACGME seeks to further slice and dice the data by requesting the gender and race/ethnicity totals for the program’s chief residents.
In a series of required responses, the rest of the Diversity in Emergency Medicine Questionnaire focused on recruitment and initiatives to increase diversity. Program directors were asked to rank the importance of several elements of the “process of screening/interview selection of applicants” to the residency program, such as grades, test scores, “Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) Status,” and “gender/gender identity.” Choices of strategies to promote DEI initiatives included:
To complete and submit the questionnaire, the program manager was asked to provide an answer for his or her race/ethnicity and gender.
Why is the ACGME so obsessed with conducting research on the demographic data of the residency programs it accredits? The Program Director Guide to the Common Program Requirements provides some context:
Further, the Guide directs readers to the ACGME Equity Matters™ initiative for “continuous learning and process improvement” in DEI and anti-racism. The resources in this program include “commitments to equity for making meaningful change,” and are intended to demonstrate “historical and current injustices in the medical education system.”
Clearly, the ACGME seeks to impress upon its residency program directors that advancing DEI and anti-racism over merit is of greater importance than providing the best emergency medicine training experience to new doctors.
Are you seeing a greater emphasis on DEI than medical learning in your residency program? Let us know – anonymously and securely.
IUSM Makes The Woke Bureaucracy Even Bigger
Uncategorized Indiana DEI Indiana University School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffMedical school deans are supposed to focus on teaching students to be the best physicians. The Indiana University School of Medicine has a different vision. IUSM just named its first “first executive associate dean for diversity, equity, inclusion and justice,” who will also serve as “Chief Diversity Officer.” The whole point of this job is to embed woke ideology even deeper at IUSM.
The new dean is Chemen M. Neal, who has already spent significant time promoting divisive ideas since her hiring in 2011. Yet now she’ll take this work to an unprecedented level. IUSM has announced that she will “lead an existing team of faculty and staff and have direct responsibility for a variety of areas, including”:
Note the complete lack of focus on medical education. There’s also significant overlap among these tasks, which points to the bureaucratic nature of the work. IUSM is growing a massive bureaucracy that will likely influence everything the medical school does.
What’s more, Neal has made clear that her goals include “establishing metrics to help school leadership gain a greater understanding of key areas like retention and belonging, as well as a focus on the diversification of faculty.” Translation: She wants to hire faculty based on skin color, instead of medical and teaching expertise. Medical students – and the patients they will treat – deserve better.
IUSM is already one of the most woke medical schools in America. We’ve documented how faculty must prove their woke credentials in order to get tenure or promoted. Now, with this new executive associate dean, IUSM is doubling down on the politicized transformation of medical education. Indiana policymakers may want to look into what IUSM is doing – and ask its leadership why such corruption of mission is justified.
The KU School of Medicine and KU Medical Center is Being Investigated for Civil Rights Violations
Uncategorized Kansas DEI University of Kansas School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffIn August 2022, we reported that the University of Kansas School of Medicine and KU Medical Center offered a racially discriminatory program through its Office of Diversity and Inclusion. The eligibility criteria for the Urban Scholars Program for Students Underrepresented in Medicine state, “Applicants must be a member of a population that is underrepresented in medicine (as defined by the Admissions Committee, including Native American, Black or African American, Hispanic/Latinx, Cambodian, Laotian, or Vietnamese).” Placing race-based restrictions on a publicly funded program is a clear violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits such discrimination.
The school announced the Urban Scholars program in a press release that reiterated the eligibility restrictions and “guaranteed admission to KU School of Medicine” for students who successfully complete it.
In response to the complaint filed by Mark Perry, senior fellow at Do No Harm, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened an investigation into this discriminatory program. “The University of Kansas Medical School’s illegal race-based discrimination is representative of the widespread discrimination taking place at almost every US medical school on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin,” Perry said. “By emphasizing racial diversity over merit and academic ability for admission to the racially discriminatory Urban Scholars Program for Students Underrepresented in Medicine, KU School of Medicine is compromising its fundamental academic responsibilities to pursue instead an ideologically driven diversity agenda.”
Have you been excluded from a scholarship or fellowship program due to discriminatory eligibility criteria? Do No Harm wants to hear from you.
Do No Harm Launches Nationwide Campaign to Protect Minors from Gender Ideology
Uncategorized Gender Ideology Press Release Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm has announced its latest initiative “Protecting Minors from Gender Ideology,” an effort to educate policymakers and the public on the disastrous consequences of the unproven and often harmful practice known as “gender-affirming care.”
“Gender-affirming care” is based on the premise that children and adolescents know best whether their feelings of discomfort with their bodies should be grounds for “treatment” with risky and experimental drugs and surgeries.
Do No Harm is committed to ensuring children who are diagnosed with, or believe they have, “gender dysphoria” are treated with the utmost care, caution, and concern.
“The movement to promote ‘gender affirming care’ is profoundly dangerous and driven by ideology rather than evidence,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, MD, chairman of Do No Harm. “At their core, medical professionals who support these efforts are violating the Hippocratic oath directive to ‘do no harm’ by ignoring key consequences of this type of ‘care,’ including the fact that underlying mental health concerns are usually not addressed.”
Dr. Goldfarb notes that so-called “gender-affirming care” ignores the impossibility of informed consent for the child: “The procedures themselves can lead to physical impairment, including a lack of bone strength and brain maturation, and the loss of fertility. ‘Gender transitioning’ prior to maturation can lead to sexual dysfunction, including atrophy and necrosis of genital tissue, chronic pain, incontinence, and the inability to orgasm.”
As part of this launch, Do No Harm is releasing a new white paper, drafted with the help of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, explaining the harms of these life-changing medical procedures and a comprehensive report identifying the different legal requirements for sex change-related treatments and actions between the US and western European countries.
In addition, Do No Harm is providing model legislation, “The JUST FACTs Act” (The JUSTice for Adolescent and Child Transitioners Act) to legislators in multiple states who want help navigating this challenging issue. The model legislation:
Finally, Do No Harm has engaged a number of well-respected senior fellows, including physicians, parents, patients, and detransitioner Chloe Cole, to share their medical expertise and personal experiences dealing with gender ideology through testimony and public presentations.
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
University of Tennessee College of Medicine DICE Inventory Score: 73%
Uncategorized Tennessee DEI University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffJust how woke is Tennessee’s UT College of Medicine? 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 UT College of Medicine (UTCOM). We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Tennessee taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.
Here’s what the UT College of Medicine has self-reported:
All told, the UT College of Medicine has instituted 73% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. This indicates that “moderate DEI efforts have been made.” 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.
Tennessee taxpayers help fund the UT College of Medicine. 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 Tennessee College of Medicine stops, and soon.
North Carolina Physician: My Hospital Is Coercing Us To Say We’re Woke
Uncategorized North Carolina DEI Health system Commentary Do No Harm StaffWe 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
Uncategorized Missouri DEI University of Missouri School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe 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).
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:
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
Uncategorized Gender Ideology CommentaryWe 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
Uncategorized Massachusetts DEI Harvard Medical School Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffForget 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:
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
Uncategorized Michigan DEI Michigan State University College of Human Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe 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.”
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.
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.”
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
Uncategorized North Carolina DEI University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffJust 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:
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.
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
Uncategorized Illinois DEI Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe 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.
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
Uncategorized DEI Podcast Benita Cotton-OrrDr. 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
Uncategorized Florida DEI Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffAt 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:
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
Uncategorized North Carolina University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffBig 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.”
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:
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
Uncategorized New Hampshire University of New Hampshire College of Health and Human Services School of social work Commentary Do No Harm StaffHow 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.