Golden,Gate,,San,Francisco,,California,,Usa.

Yet Another UCSF Civil Rights Investigation is Underway

The University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine is the latest medical program in the UC system to be investigated by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for illegal race-based discrimination. The investigation was opened in response to a federal civil rights complaint filed by Mark Perry, senior fellow for Do No Harm.

OCR is responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race by academic programs that receive federal funding. UCSF School of Medicine is violating Title VI with its Racial Affinity Caucusing Groups (RACG; archived page here), which advertises its purpose on the School of Medicine’s website (bold added):

RAGC (sic) recognizes that the work that Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) are doing to process, heal, and dismantle racism is different from the work thaft (sic) white people need to do. This article explains the importance of having protected spaces for people to process.

Racial Affinity Caucusing Groups at the UCSF School of Medicine.

UCSF School of Medicine is using these “protected” (i.e., segregated) spaces to engage in “anti-racism work.” Ibram X. Kendi, the main proponent of anti-racism, says, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” What types of discriminatory activities are the UCSF Racial Affinity Caucusing Groups conducting in these “protected spaces?” But the better question is the one the UCSF School of Medicine actually asks itself: Why have affinity groups based on race? The taxpayers of California deserve an answer.

Flag,State,Of,California,On,A,Flagpole

The Office for Civil Rights is Investigating the USC Keck School of Medicine

In response to a federal civil rights complaint filed in August by Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened an investigation into illegal race-based discrimination by the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine.

The Diversity in Medicine Visiting Clerkship Award supports fourth-year medical student groups who are “traditionally underrepresented in medicine (URiM).” The USC Keck School of Medicine defines URiM as “black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.”

Diversity in Medicine Visiting Clerkship Award, USC Keck School of Medicine.

Discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Further evidence that the clerkship is restricted to specific racial/ethnic groups is seen in the scholarship application link.

Diversity in Medicine Visiting Clerkship Award application.

Recipients of the Diversity in Medicine Visiting Clerkship Award in the Department of Emergency Medicine will receive a stipend of up to $2,000 to cover travel and housing.

Are you aware of a scholarship or fellowship at your medical or nursing school that contains discriminatory inclusion criteria? Do No Harm wants to hear from you, and you may remain anonymous if you wish.

Detroit,,Michigan,,Usa,Downtown,Skyline,From,Above,At,Dusk.

We Found Out How Woke Wayne State University School of Medicine Really Is

Just how woke is Michigan’s Wayne State University School of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.

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 Wayne State University School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Michigan taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the WSU 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. 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. 
  • 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.  

All told, WSUSOM has instituted 87.0% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

Wayne State University School of Medicine DICE Inventory score.

Interestingly, WSUSOM reported on its DICE Inventory that it does not provide scholarships for students from diverse backgrounds. However, the Department of Emergency Medicine sponsors the Detroit-Regional Elective Scholarship for Underrepresented Students, which has eligibility criteria that include self-identification as “Traditionally underrepresented racial/ethnic minority group (Black, Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander)” and/or “Gender/sexual orientation minority group (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender).”

WSUSOM Emergency Medicine D-RESUS eligibility criteria.

These eligibility criteria violate Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits such discrimination. Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry has filed a federal civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights for this discriminatory scholarship, which provides a $2,000 stipend to awardees. The application requires the submission of gender and race/ethnicity information, which is reviewed by emergency medicine residents and medical faculty on the Diversity & Inclusion Committee.

WSUSOM Emergency Medicine D-RESUS program application.

 

Michigan taxpayers help fund WSUSOM. 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 Wayne State University School of Medicine stops, and soon.

pete-alexopoulos-JFfDRKlI3hY-unsplash

We Found Out How Woke Texas A&M University School of Medicine Really Is

Just how woke is Texas’s TAMU School of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.

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 Texas A&M University School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Texas taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the TAMU 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. 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. 
  • 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.

All told, Texas A&M University School of Medicine has instituted 86.5% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

Texas A&M University School of Medicine DICE Inventory score.

Texas taxpayers help fund the TAMU School 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 Texas A&M University School of Medicine stops, and soon.

Houston,,Texas,,Usa,Downtown,City,Skyline,And,Highway.

We Found Out How Woke the University of Houston College of Medicine Really Is

Just how woke is Texas’s University of Houston College of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.

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 UHCOM. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Texas taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the University of Houston College of Medicine has self-reported:

  • 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. 
  • 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.
  • 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.  

All told, UHCOM has instituted 85.1% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

University of Houston College of Medicine DICE Inventory score.

Texas taxpayers help fund UHCOM. 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 Houston College of Medicine stops, and soon.

A,Welcome,Sign,At,The,South,Carolina,State,Line.

We Found Out How Woke the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Really Is

Just how woke is South Carolina’s USC School of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.

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 South Carolina School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that South Carolina taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the USC 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. 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.
  • 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.  

All told, the USC School of Medicine has instituted 85.2% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

University of South Carolina School of Medicine DICE Inventory score.

South Carolina taxpayers help fund the USC School 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 South Carolina School of Medicine stops, and soon.

Supreme,Court,Of,The,United,States,Of,America

NADOHE is Coaching Institutions to Prepare Their Responses to an Upcoming SCOTUS Decision

The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) recently held a two-part webinar series that described potential outcome of the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and University of North Carolina cases currently before the Supreme Court.

Do No Harm obtained the recording of Part 2, titled Challenges to Race in Higher Education Admissions: Understanding the Issues and Getting Ready for the Supreme Court’s Decisions in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC. The session, presented by Art Coleman, managing partner of EducationCounsel, advises academic diversity officers on how to prepare for and respond to the upcoming decision, which is considering race-based admissions in the context of “a full array of policy and practice.” He urges participants to keep two core questions in mind: “What are the interests these institutions are trying to advance, and then how are they advancing them through certain race-conscious policies and practices?”

From Challenges to Race in Higher Education Admissions: Understanding the Issues and Getting Ready for the Supreme Court’s Decisions in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC.

Coleman doesn’t stop with providing advice on what an institution must do and how much it must “sacrifice in its design to achieve diversity and not violate the law.” Nothing in the law, he says, requires an institution to sacrifice its mission and essential character to pursue diversity. However, how does “mission and essential character” align with Coleman’s recommendations for maintaining the status quo of race-based admissions?

As a member of its leadership, Coleman urges participants to refer to the College Board Access & Diversity Collaborative as an important digital resource to use in the months leading up to the Court’s decision. A check of the website reveals that the organization is a champion for “comprehensive, evidence-based, and legally sound” policies on access and diversity to support “historically underrepresented populations.” Its Access & Diversity Toolkit contains the section labeled “Making Connections: A Holistic Review of Key Strategies,” which provides recommendations taken from the Association of American Colleges (AAMC) regarding recruitment, admission, and retention of students whose selection is targeted based on holistic review.

From Access & Diversity Toolkit (College Board/EducationCounsel).

 Over the course of the 90-minute presentation, Coleman explains how the Court’s decision could result in a “potential tsunami” (precedent is significantly limited, but the consideration of race within the individual’s lived experience is still permitted) and “Armageddon for us” (SFFA wins outright, and the Court overturns the order in its entirety). As an example of “Armageddon,” he commented that future students will “be forced to tell incomplete stories about who they are” on their college applications if the Court decides in favor of SFFA.

From Challenges to Race in Higher Education Admissions: Understanding the Issues and Getting Ready for the Supreme Court’s Decisions in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC.

While Coleman doesn’t want the DEI champions and public affairs officials at the academic institutions to be caught “flat-footed on the day of decision without much to say,” he has an even more intriguing recommendation. “A good catch-all exercise,” he says, “is engaging in the scrub of website language.” This involves avoiding descriptions of the institution’s policies or programs in a way that may communicate more legal risk or vulnerability than exists. This would be, as he put it, an “unforced error.” Coleman also instructs webinar participants to make it clear during on-campus conversations that this is not affirmative action or “a social justice remedial lane.” The primary message Coleman delivers is to “maintain our policies with minimal disruption” by developing a “set of enhancing policies.” He said that the Court’s decision is unlikely to have an effect on pathway programs and recruitment or outreach programs “as long as they are sort of open to all.” Is this an example of how he recommends institutions to “scrub” their website language in advance of the ruling?

Coleman closed the session with an impassioned response to the question, “Is there a proxy for race in admissions?” He replied that this question implies that the individual is “looking for a quick substitute that I don’t really care about, but I’ll do something just to get by with it.” Coleman referred to case law that that demonstrates the importance of being “grounded in authentic, mission-driven institutional interests,” and suggests that “looking for low-income students” or “students who have a specific affinity toward social justice” is a position that will generate more diversity than a neutral strategy.

NADOHE has long been a steadfast advocate of discriminatory DEI initiatives on college campuses and is dedicated to the promotion of practices that consider race in admission decisions. Providing a forum for Art Coleman to promote his brand of gamesmanship in this area is another in-kind contribution by NADOHE to the support of race-based discrimination in higher education institutions.

Picture8

PBS Promotes Faulty Racial Politics Over Sound Medical Judgment

One December 17, PBS News Weekend ran a spot titled “How racial biases in medical algorithms lead to inequities in care.” In an interview with Dr. Jayne Morgan, president-elect of the Georgia-based biotech company Southeast Life Sciences, she was asked about “racial biases” in medical diagnostic algorithms. This included a reference to the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a blood test used to evaluate kidney function.

Dr. Morgan completely misunderstands the nature of the eGFR. She states that the use of the correction factor for black patients represents an example of racial bias. In fact, the 15% correction factor for black patients was derived empirically, and is necessary in the original equation in order to get an accurate value. This empirical observation was confirmed in several separate studies which always found the need for this calculation. Its abandonment was based on political ideology rather than a need to improve medical care. There is no evidence that patients were denied any life-saving therapies because of small differences in this calculation. It is well known by nephrologists that there is a great variance in any single determination of eGFR and a 10% to 15% difference would not have a clinical impact.

This is yet another example of misunderstanding and misinterpreting clinical information for the sake of affirming a nonexistent racial bias.

Female,Elderly,Professor,Answering,Student’s,Questions,In,Amphitheater

IUSM Hits A New Woke Low

We’ve written about how the Indiana University School of Medicine is forcing faculty to prove their woke beliefs to get promoted or tenure. Yet even we didn’t know how bad things really are. IUSM just released a document laying out exactly what it wants to see – and it goes beyond compelled speech to compelled behavior.

The “Example Faculty Activities Toward Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” document is a thoroughly politicized and ideological creation, betraying IUSM’s complete commitment to race-based medicine. It conveys a clear expectation that faculty hold that same commitment and prove it through their actions.

In order to get tenure or promoted, faculty must engage in one or more of the following politicized activities:

  • Engage in “Curriculum development and/or revision related to DEI topics.”
  • “Leading/delivering DEI professional development programming.”
  • “Creating and/or leading programs related to DEI, on campus and/or beyond (e.g., efforts that create spaces/programs that facilitate greater sense of belonging and a welcoming environment for marginalized students, faculty, and/or staff).”
  • “Activities and consulting work (paid or unpaid) related to DEI community activities and organizations.”
  • “Providing peer review for journals and conferences that disseminate scholarship related to DEI, as well as granting agencies that fund DEI-related activities.”
  • Engaging in “Policy development, quality improvement efforts, and other service to the profession that has significant impact on DEI-related outcomes.”
  • Receive “National, international, local (campus), and/or community-based awards and/or recognitions for DEI research.”
  • Engage in “Recruitment and/or retention of diverse research teams/personnel.”
  • Demonstrate “Inclusive teaching practices (e.g., pedagogy, DEI content, multicultural courses, global perspectives).”

The list goes on. In each case, IUSM is indicating that current and prospective faculty need to hold not just specific political views, but translate those views into concrete action.

This is a violation of medical educators’ rights. Here’s hoping a faculty member sues IUSM – or the Indiana state government intervenes. IUSM shouldn’t be allowed to force faculty to engage in political activities.

Hands,Of,A,Female,Doctor,Holding,A,Medical,Journal,In

Dr. Goldfarb Defends High Standards – And Fights Cancellation

The activists pushing race-based medicine on America don’t just want to lower standards. They want to cancel and silence anyone who disagrees with their demands.

Do No Harm chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb knows this all too well, having been fired from the leading medical resource UpToDate after speaking out about the dangers of race-based medicine. Now, in the pages of the journal Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, he’s calling out the woke mob for trying to cancel a leading figure in the history of medicine: Abraham Flexner.

Flexner is being targeted for authoring a famous report in 1910 in which he argued for reforming medical schools to uphold the highest standards. Thanks to him, dozens of poor-quality institutions closed, including many that had a majority of minority students. Yet the results were beneficial for American health care: Medical education churned out better physicians who provided better care and conducted better research, leading to a new era of medical progress.

This fact hasn’t stopped woke activists from attacking Flexner and trying to get him written out of the history books – naturally on the grounds that he was racist. Yet as Dr. Goldfarb writes, all such accusations have been proven untrue:

The argument that he should have kept Black medical schools open simply because they trained Black students but were substandard is absurd and is an insult to the schools like Meharry and Howard, which remained open and produced accomplished physicians.

If we want medical education to have high standards, then we need to do the hard work of eliminating programs and even schools that fail to achieve that standard. Flexner understood that change of that sort was hard and demanded discipline and courage. We must speak the truth and reject mediocrity in medical training. Flexner showed the way.

Dr. Goldfarb is right. Not only should we refuse to lower standards in medicine, like the woke mob demands, but we should defend those who have advocated higher standards. That’s exactly what we’re doing at Do No Harm.

Have you seen someone in the medical profession get canceled by activists? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

taylor-brandon-5T2Lz9bYRCU-unsplash

Why Is the University of Utah School of Medicine So Woke?

Few people think of Utah as a bastion of divisive and discriminatory identity politics – but the University of Utah, home to the only MD-granting school of medicine in the entire state, proves otherwise. The school recently responded to a freedom of information request for DEI-related training materials used during 2021-2022, and we found three items that should deeply worry policymakers in the Beehive State.

To start, the university is pushing so-called “implicit bias training” in the UHealth presentation titled Understanding and Overcoming Unconscious Bias, given by Jose’ Rodriguez, M.D., AVP Health Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion. Yet the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which the presentation includes a link for participants to take, has been widely discredited by the psychology community. Why is the medical school insulting its faculty and staff by promoting this inaccurate and potentially harmful concept?

Figure 1: Understanding and Overcoming Unconscious Bias cover slide.

Second, the school is especially focused on supposed unconscious bias in recruiting. In a 26-slide PowerPoint presentation titled Understanding Bias in the Admissions Process, it accuses the School of Medicine admissions committee members of being “biased from the beginning,” with a specific reference to individuals’ “White Preference.” The inference is that admissions committee members need re-education to overcome their bias, and this course takes another opportunity to promote the IAT.

Figure 2. Understanding Bias in the Admissions Process.

But the presentation goes even further. While discussing implicit associations, the course materials warn about disadvantages to African American applicants if School of Medicine admissions committee members demonstrate “implicit White Preference,” which it claims is “present and measurable.” To ensure the point regarding “what implicit bias looks like” is made, the presenter notes state, “People with this bias unwittingly associate a white face with positive words or feelings and a black face with negative words or feelings – and they may act on those associations.”

Figure 3. Understanding Bias in the Admissions Process.
Figure 4. Understanding Bias in the Admissions Process.

Third, the focus on re-education extends to faculty searches and could even take the form of overt discrimination. We obtained a training video which search committee members are required to complete prior to screening applicants for open faculty positions. In Online Training for Search Committees, participants are directed to practice affirmative action – as in, make choices for new faculty members based in part on gender and skin color. Throughout the course, committee members are again lectured on their implicit biases and are predictably referred to the IAT. But here’s the key language, under the heading of “affirmative action responsibilities”: The school should “have a plan to increase the likelihood that it will get more qualified women and minorities in the applicant pool.”

Figure 5. Online Training for Search Committees course video cover slide.
Figure 6. Online Training for Search Committees course video.

The University of Utah School of Medicine says that it “trains the majority of Utah physicians.” That makes it even more important that it stop practicing divisive ideology and outright discrimination. If administrators won’t act, then policymakers should.

Is your medical school throwing money at DEI, anti-racism, and the like? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

Lubbok,On,Usa,Travel,Map

We Found Out How Woke the Texas Tech University School of Medicine Really Is

Just how woke is Texas’s TTU Health Sciences Center School of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.

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 Texas Tech University School of Medicine at the TTU Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC). We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Texas taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the TTUHSC 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. 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.  
  • 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.  

All told, the TTUHSC School of Medicine has instituted 86.4% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine DICE Inventory score.

Texas taxpayers help fund the TTUHSC School 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 Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine stops, and soon.

Welcome,Sign,To,North,Carolina

The University of North Carolina Continues Its Discriminatory Ways

A federal civil rights complaint has been filed against the University of North Carolina for illegal race-based discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Do No Harm senior fellow Mark Perry filed the complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights for promoting and offering the Fellowship for Exploring Research in Nutrition (FERN), which “aims to increase the diversity of students” in the field of nutrition. Eligibility criteria for the FERN program is limited to students who are from “Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) populations,” which illegally excludes and discriminates against non-BIPOC students on the basis of their race, color, and/or national origin, which is prohibited by Title VI.

FERN program eligibility criteria.

UNC’s participation in this program is in stark contrast to its policy of non-discrimination, which states, “No person, on the basis of protected status [including race, color or national origin], shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation under any University program or activity, including with respect to employment terms and conditions.”

FERN is a paid research fellowship hosted by the Global Food Research Program, which is located within the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. UNC began accepting applications earlier this month.

In November, Do No Harm reported that the UNC School of Medicine devotes significant resources toward indoctrinating its medical students in identity politics and ideologies such as anti-racism and the integration of social justice into the curriculum. With the implementation of the FERN program, it is clear that UNC Chapel Hill is committed to continuing these divisive and discriminatory practices.

Media_Mention_

Washington U lecturer warns medical students not to ‘debate’ her on ‘systemic oppression’: ‘shut that’ down

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, the board director of Do No Harm a group of medical professional that work to “protect healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology,” slammed Washington University’s lecture as one that is “undermining” the legacy of the school.

“Washington University of St. Louis is one of the outstanding research institutions in the country. Yet it is undermining that legacy with a racist approach to medical education,” Goldfarb told Fox News Digital.

Read the full article at Fox News.

Duck,In,Lexington,,Kentucky.,Taken,With,Tobacco,Filter.

We Found Out How Woke the University of Kentucky College of Medicine Really Is

Just how woke is Kentucky’s UK College of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.

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 UKCOM. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Kentucky taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the University of Kentucky College 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. This means there’s a permanent woke bureaucracy pushing ideology on faculty and students. 
  • 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.

All told, UKCOM has instituted 86.5% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

University of Kentucky College of Medicine DICE Inventory score.

Kentucky taxpayers help fund UKCOM. 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 Kentucky College of Medicine stops, and soon.

Michigan,Signpost,Along,A,Rural,Road

We Found Out How Woke Michigan State University College of Human Medicine Really Is

Just how woke is Michigan’s MSU College of Human Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.

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 Michigan State University College of Human Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Michigan taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the MSU College of Human 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. 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. 
  • 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.

All told, the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine has instituted 81.2% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

Michigan State University College of Human Medicine DICE Inventory score.

Michigan taxpayers help fund the MSU College of Human 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 MSU College of Human Medicine stops, and soon.

Old,Gas,Station,Signs,In,Nebraska

We Found Out How Woke the University of Nebraska College of Medicine Really Is

Just how woke is Nebraska’s UN College of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.

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 UN College of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Nebraska taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the University of Nebraska College 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. 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. 
  • 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.

All told, the UN College of Medicine has instituted 86.4% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

University of Nebraska College of Medicine DICE Inventory score.

Nebraska taxpayers help fund the University of Nebraska 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 UN College of Medicine stops, and soon.

Denver,Pinned,On,A,Map,Of,Usa

We Found Out How Woke the University of Colorado School of Medicine Really Is

Just how woke is the University of Colorado School of Medicine? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.

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 UC School of Medicine. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Colorado taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the UC 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. 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.
  • 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.

All told, the UC School of Medicine has instituted 83.9% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

University of Colorado School of Medicine DICE Inventory score.

Colorado taxpayers help fund the UC School 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 Colorado School of Medicine stops, and soon.