Do No Harm Files Civil Rights Complaint Against JPS Health Network for Discriminatory Vendor Selection

RICHMOND, VA; October 21, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm filed a federal civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights against Texas’ JPS Health Network for using racially discriminatory criteria in its vendor selection.

JPS solicits proposals from vendors offering consulting services; however, to satisfy JPS’s criteria, vendors must be a minority, woman, or veteran-owned business enterprise (MWVBE) or demonstrate “efforts” to subcontract with such businesses. Once selected, JPS continues to assess the vendor’s minority participation and may exclude the vendor from future contract opportunities if it fails to meet the criteria at any point.

“JPS Health System’s conduct is unjust and unacceptable,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman at Do No Harm. “By racially and sexually discriminating against potential vendors, the health system is rejecting excellence and merit and embracing divisive identity politics. JPS should prioritize consultants who enhance the network’s ability to provide high-quality care for patients, rather than vendors that merely fit an ideological checklist. We are confident HHS will take immediate action to hold JPS accountable.”

Details

  • JPS Health Network, also known as Tarrant County Hospital District, oversees 582 acute care hospitals and 25 community health centers.
  • JPS’s MWVBE requirement is part of its Request for Proposals for Healthcare Strategy Consulting Services. The contract is lucrative and involves an initial term of six months, which JPS can extend.
  • Because JPS Health System is federally funded, its vendor criteria violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibit racial discrimination by healthcare providers receiving federal funds. The criteria also violate 42 U.S.C § 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in making contracts.

Click here to view the complaint.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With over 40,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

Medical Journal Operates Discriminatory ‘Mentorship’ Program for ‘Underrepresented’ Minorities

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI): In Practice is operating a mentorship program that is only open to members of certain racial groups.

The program, titled “JACI: In Practice Underrepresented in Medicine (UIM) Reviewer Mentorship Program,” is expressly intended to increase the number of ethnic minorities in editorial positions at the journal.

“The purpose of the program is to increase the diversity and expertise of the JACI: In Practice reviewer pool and Editorial Boards,” the program description states.

The program offers selected scholars considerable opportunities to develop their careers.

These include “high level didactic training regarding how to provide optimal journal article reviews” as well as the chance to “work with four Editorial Board members on four Original Article reviews during the year.”

Moreover, “special efforts will be made to allow mentees to have the opportunity for continued reviews so as to potentially quality (sic) for Editorial Board Membership.”

However, these opportunities are restricted on the basis of race.

The program’s eligibility criteria reads as follows:

“For the purposes of this program, members of the following UIM demographic groups (as defined by the National Science Foundation and the Association of American Medical Colleges) are eligible: American Indian/native Alaskan, Black or African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian/Pacific islander, Underrepresented Southeast Asian populations.”

In other words, white applicants are excluded.

This is blatant racial discrimination that is not only unethical but antithetical to the purpose of medical journals to advance medical science.

It’s difficult to see how the racial composition of a journal’s editorial board will improve the quality of its product; instead, selecting these positions on the basis of race rather than merit risks degrading its quality.

JACI should select the most qualified applicants, not dole out opportunities on the basis of race.

Do No Harm Urges Benevity to Ditch SPLC’s Discredited ‘Hate List’

,

Benevity is a software company that provides a platform to facilitate companies’ charitable giving efforts to nonprofit organizations.

However, Benevity uses a so-called “Hate List” and “Hate Map” developed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to vet the nonprofits deemed eligible for corporate charitable giving and employee matching programs. The SPLC fully supports radical identity politics, branding efforts to fight back against discriminatory DEI practices and gender ideology as somehow hateful.

And at some point, the SPLC designated Do No Harm as a “hate group.”

Do No Harm, along with 11 other similarly-branded organizations, is signing onto a letter urging Benevity to immediately cease relying on this discredited and harmful list. 

“By relying on these partisan designations, Benevity legitimizes a severely biased blacklist that inspires violence, urges discrimination against mainstream organizations, and undermines the spirit of charitable giving,” the letter reads.

The letter then cites examples of groups that have been falsely deemed hateful by the SPLC and subsequently subjected to violence.

“Just one day before the assassination of its founder, Charlie Kirk, the SPLC featured Turning Point USA in its Hatewatch newsletter,” the letter reads.

Do No Harm believes that children should not be subjected to dangerous, life-altering medical procedures in the name of “gender affirmation.” Labeling such ideas as “hateful” is clearly intended to silence the voices of those who stand for evidence-based medicine and the safety of children.

“As organizations that have been unjustly placed on the SPLC’s “Hate List,” we call on Benevity to immediately, publicly end its use of the SPLC’s Hate List and Hate Map, adopt a viewpoint-neutral process for nonprofit eligibility, and restore access to organizations unfairly excluded,” the letter reads.

It’s essential that radical ideologues intent on silencing those of us simply fighting to protect children cannot exert this kind of influence.

As Do No Harm’s Director of Research Ian Kingsbury said: “What’s more malicious: Trying to protect people from bad medicine, or trying to destroy the reputation of groups that don’t toe your ideological line?”

False Parallels: How Misleading Comparisons Downplay the Severity of Widespread Child Sex Change Interventions

A 2024 paper published in JAMA Network Open tries to dismiss concerns over children being subjected to dangerous medical procedures for the purposes of “affirming” their self-professed gender.

But the authors’ arguments don’t add up.

The paper, titled “Prevalence of Gender-Affirming Surgical Procedures Among Minors and Adults in the US” by Dai, et. al, seeks to examine the extent to which children and adults received “gender-affirming” surgical procedures in 2019.

In doing so, it classifies procedures to treat gynecomastia (an abnormal increase in the amount of breast gland tissue) in “cisgender” males as “gender-affirming care,” and then uses this sleight-of-hand to downplay the severity of widespread child sex change interventions.

The authors sum up their argument here:

“[W]hen considering breast reductions among cisgender males and TGD [“transgender and gender diverse”] people—a surgery that can be considered gender-affirming among both populations—most were performed on cisgender males. Thus, these findings suggest that concerns around high rates of gender-affirming surgery use, specifically among TGD minors, may be unwarranted.”

There are a few problems with this reasoning.

First, and most saliently, it is simply inaccurate to conflate breast reductions performed on “cisgender” males for the purposes of addressing gynecomastia with breast reductions performed on healthy females for the purposes of aligning their bodies with the sex traits of men.

This is a category error at best, and outright misleading at worst. The JAMA article’s authors are inappropriately expanding the definition of “gender-affirming care” to encompass the former category. A boy suffering from gynecomastia isn’t receiving treatment to modify his body in accordance with the opposite sex. Conversely, a female who removes her healthy breast tissue to appear more like a male does not have any abnormal physical conditions.

This is comparing apples to oranges.

Second, the argument is a non sequitur. It does not follow that a high number of “cisgender” males undergoing such procedures means that concerns over females undergoing such procedures are somehow unwarranted; the authors concede that the procedures are still taking place!

And there’s a further wrinkle that undercuts the authors’ argument.

The prevalence of gynecomastia among adolescent males during puberty can range as high as 69%. The JAMA paper notes that 653 “cisgender” (507 adults and 146 minors) males received breast reductions in 2019. That’s a relatively small number amidst a massive denominator.

Conversely, the clinical prevalence of gender dysphoria ranges from anywhere between 4.6 and 7.5 per 100,000 individuals, based on reports authored within the last decade by many of those who were instrumental in WPATH’s Standards of Care-8. This is a drastically smaller pool of patients than those males with gynecomastia. 

Yet within this pool of patients with gender dysphoria, the surgical numbers are extraordinarily significant, especially when viewed as a percentage of the clinically-relevant population. The JAMA authors estimate that “the rate of undergoing a gender-affirming surgery with a [gender dysphoria]-related diagnosis was 5.3 per 100,000 total adults compared with 2.1 per 100,000 minors aged 15 to 17 years” – with the overwhelming majority (96.4%) of surgeries in minors being for “chest-related procedures.” 

In other words, gynecomastia is fairly common with a relatively small number of individuals receiving surgical treatment, and gender dysphoria is comparatively less common with a much higher percentage of individuals undergoing surgery. Given the very different sizes of the two groups, comparing the raw number of “cisgender” males receiving breast reductions to gender dysphoric females having similar surgeries is again a comparison of apples to oranges.

And finally, the JAMA authors make a very bizarre choice when deciding what data to use in their comparisons. The authors go on to compare only “breast reductions” for minors suffering from gender dysphoria to “breast reductions” for “cisgender” males.

But a breast reduction is not the only chest-related procedure for the purpose of “gender affirmation.” Indeed, many cosmetic breast alterations for the purposes of “gender affirmation” are not coded as breast reductions but as mastectomies, for example. That’s what we primarily saw in the Stop the Harm database when diving into the numbers; for 2019 approximately 5% of “chest-related procedures” were coded as breast reductions.

This will undoubtedly skew the results.

If anything, the authors should have at least compared the universe of pertinent “chest-related procedures” in individuals suffering from gender dysphoria to the universe of “chest-related procedures” in “cisgender” males, not cherry pick “breast reductions” alone. This would still be wrong as, again, a chest-related procedure for the purpose of treating gynecomastia is categorically different from one to “affirm” an individual’s gender, but it would at least be the accurate application of the authors’ own logic.

On multiple levels, the JAMA authors aren’t making like-to-like comparisons.

They’ve erroneously expanded “gender-affirming care” as a term beyond its use in gender dysphoria. They’ve then inflated a comparison of numbers between a relatively common physiological condition (gynecomastia) in males with the smaller – though still significant – population of those suffering from gender dysphoria. 

And, lastly, even using their own logic, they’ve very narrowly presented data on “breast reduction” instead of looking at the universe of “chest-related procedures.”  
The JAMA study seems to be an obfuscation to say the least.

Do No Harm Honors Annual Award Recipients

,

RICHMOND, VA; October 15, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm announced the recipients of its annual awards. Tennessee Majority Leader Jack Johnson received the Legislator of the Year award. Indiana State Senator Tyler Johnson, M.D., received the award for Outstanding Leadership for Merit in Medicine and Kansas State Senator Beverly Gossage received the award for Outstanding Leadership for Stopping the Harm.

“Majority Leader Johnson, and Senators Gossage and Johnson have shown great courage and clarity in taking on harmful ideologies in healthcare,” said Kristina Rasmussen, Executive Director, Do No Harm. “Majority Leader Johnson worked tirelessly to combat DEI in both state and local government and higher education. He was also instrumental in Tennessee’s law banning the transgender medicalization of children. Senators Gossage and Johnson have both been outstanding advocates and leaders in their legislatures for improving healthcare. We are proud to honor Majority Leader Johnson, and Senators Gossage and Johnson for their important work.”

The Awards:

  • Tennessee Majority Leader Jack Johnson received Legislator of the Year for his work sponsoring state laws that ban DEI in state and local government and higher education, and his work on Tennessee SB1, which banned the transgender medicalization of minors. That law was upheld by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a major victory in the fight to protect children.
  • Indiana State Senator Tyler Johnson received Outstanding Leadership for Merit in Medicine for his work on Indiana’s ban on DEI in state agencies, contracts, grants, education, and licensing boards.
  • Kansas State Senator Beverly Gossage received Outstanding Leadership for Stopping the Harm for her work on Kansas’ ban on transgender procedures for minors.

Do No Harm’s video honoring Legislator of the Year Johnson can be found here.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 40,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.

Half of U.S. medical schools flouting Trump DEI ban; rating report finds revolt of 67

Nearly half of U.S. medical schools continue to operate diversity, equity and inclusion offices in defiance of Trump administration policies, a new report says.

The conservative physician advocacy group Do No Harm flagged 43.5% of the nation’s 154 accredited medical programs, or 67, for maintaining their DEI offices as of last month.

That was down slightly from 79 in February. That month, the Department of Education gave universities receiving federal funds 14 days to end race-based policies, programs and practices.

Read the full story at The Washington Times.

The List of the ‘Best’ Children’s Hospitals is Out. Here’s Who’s Still Providing Child Sex Changes

In the wake of President Trump’s executive order on gender ideology, as well as mounting legal pressure from both federal and state governments, many children’s hospitals have shuttered their pediatric gender clinics this year. 

However, recalcitrant children’s hospitals remain – many of which are among the most prestigious hospitals in the United States.

Today, U.S. News published its “Best Children’s Hospitals 2025-2026 Honor Roll,” a list of the top 10 hospitals in the country according to their rankings across multiple specialties.

Figure 1. A screenshot from U.S. News’s “Best Children’s Hospitals 2025-2026 Honor Roll.”

Several of these hospitals are still clearly providing so-called “gender-affirming care” – such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and/or surgical procedures – to patients under the age of 18.

Children’s Hospital Colorado and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) advertise their pediatric gender clinics on their website. 

For others, meanwhile, the truth is somewhat murky. According to the Voice of San Diego, Rady Children’s Hospital is still providing sex change interventions to children, but has removed much of its content regarding these services from its website.

Boston Children’s Hospital confirmed its belief in “a gender-affirmative model of care, which supports transgender and gender diverse youth” in July, though a lawsuit alleged that the hospital had canceled appointments for “gender-affirming care” earlier this year.

Seattle Children’s Hospital maintains a webpage advertising “gender-affirming care” to minors, but reporting from April indicates that the hospital is not actively providing these procedures to patients.

Conversely, three of the 10 “best” hospitals (Cincinnati Children’s, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, and Texas Children’s Hospital) are in states that have banned child sex change interventions.

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles shuttered its pediatric gender clinic in July; moreover, Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, who previously helmed the center, is no longer employed by the hospital. Last year, The New York Times reported that Olson-Kennedy had initially refused to publish the results of a multi-million dollar, federally-funded study that found that “puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements” in children; Olson-Kennedy’s decision was due to fears that the results could undermine the argument for “gender-affirming care.” 

The results of the study were finally released as a preprint in May, finding that children’s depression symptoms and emotional health “did not change significantly over 24 months” of being on puberty blockers. 

And Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C. is no longer providing so-called “gender-affirming care” to minors.

This list demonstrates that, while many children’s hospitals have done the right thing and ceased providing dangerous, unsupported medical interventions to children, there is still much work to be done.

Christian Counselor Fighting Restrictive Gender Counseling Law Wants SCOTUS To Vindicate Her Free Speech Rights

In its brief, Colorado claims that “every major professional healthcare association in the country further agrees that conversion therapy is not just ineffective and unnecessary, but can be harmful, particularly to minors.” It cites medical organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA) and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which have previously allowed political concerns about child-sex change bans to influence their decisions.

“There is no reliable evidence supporting Colorado’s counseling ban; and all the best evidence on treating gender dysphoria in minors recommends the very psychosocial treatment Colorado forbids,” Do No Harm Medical Director Dr. Kurt Miceli said in a statement.

Scientific advances were not made by respecting “authority,” Judge Harris Hartz, wrote in his dissent from the 10th Circuit’s decision.

Read the full story at The Daily Caller.

EXCLUSIVE: Docs Knew Gender Science Was ‘Shoddy,’ But Pushed Chemical Sex Changes On Kids Anyway

WPATH’s use of the Delphi method was “deeply flawed,” Dr. Kurt Miceli, medical director of Do No Harm, told the DCNF.

“WPATH’s use of the Delphi process to justify its guidelines on gender-affirming care is deeply flawed — not because of the method itself, but because of who was allowed to define ‘expertise,’” Miceli told the DCNF.

“When a consensus is built among ideologically aligned individuals who ignore conflicting evidence, the result isn’t science—it’s dogma dressed up as clinical guidance,” Miceli added.

Read the full article at The Daily Caller.

New Med School Retreats (Slightly) After Going All-In On DEI

Last year, Do No Harm reported that Duquesne University’s (DU) recently-opened College of Osteopathic Medicine had immediately broadcast its commitment to DEI with a pledge to pursue “increasing diversity within medicine.”

This commitment to DEI included the following items:

“Attracting medical school candidates who have a basic understanding of the importance of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and a demonstrated desire to learn more.”

In other words, the school would deliberately recruit students based on their adherence to DEI ideology.

“Ensuring that Medical School faculty and staff positions include individuals who represent the various populations we will train and serve.”

Do No Harm has seen this language before: it’s often invoked by proponents of the notion that racial concordance – in which patients are treated by healthcare professionals of the same race – improves health outcomes. This argument, in turn, is used to justify discriminatory hiring and recruiting policies that pursue racial diversity. However, it has been thoroughly debunked; five out of six systematic reviews of racial concordance in medicine found no improvement in health outcomes, while the sixth is fraught with methodological problems.

“Training that incorporates curriculum with an extensive community engagement project that addresses health care disparities.”

“Launching a racial health disparities speaker series with the University’s Center for Integrative Health, offered to faculty, staff, students and the public.“

But now, it appears DU is retreating from its DEI endeavors – at least superficially. 

Its updated webpage replaces its commitment to “Increasing Diversity in Medicine” with a commitment to “Building a Better Community within Medicine,” yet many of its action items remain exactly the same. 

Other action items under the “Building a Better Community within Medicine” subheading are nearly word-for-word the same as under the previous DEI-branded iteration, but with DEI-oriented words substituted out.

For instance, “Attracting medical school candidates who have a basic understanding of the importance of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and a demonstrated desire to learn more” is now “Attracting medical school candidates who have a basic understanding of the importance of building a better community by reducing health disparities and a demonstrated desire to learn more.”

It’s clear that DU has simply slapped a coat of less-offensive paint over its previous DEI branding.

Other diversity-centered webpages have also been taken down: DU’s webpage titled “Teaching for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion,” which previously touted the merits of “inclusive and equitable” teaching strategies, is no longer live.

The “Employment Diversity and Inclusion” webpage on DU’s website, which previously stated that DU was “dedicated to attracting, retaining and engaging a talented and diverse workforce,” is now titled “Community Building and Workforce.” That page still declares that DU is “dedicated to attracting, retaining and engaging a talented and diverse workforce.”

To be clear, DU’s website still broadcasts its commitment to train physicians that “exhibit less implicit bias.” Implicit bias refers to the notion that individuals hold unconscious prejudices against members of other racial groups, sexes, and various other classes; proponents of this theory often argue for training to remediate these supposed biases. However, there is little evidence that such “bias” actually predicts real-world behavior, much less leads to worse health outcomes for minority groups.

DU shouldn’t just rebrand its DEI programs with more benign terminology like “building a better community,” it should make unequivocally clear that it rejects this divisive, dangerous ideology. 

This is the way to restore trust and communicate to prospective medical students and other members of the public that it will no longer engage in DEI practices.

Do No Harm Chairman Releases New Book Documenting Fight Against Identity Politics in Medicine

,

RICHMOND, VA; September 30, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm is proud to announce the release of Doing Great Harm?: How DEI and Identity Politics Are Infecting American Healthcare―and How We Are Fighting Back, a new book written by board chairman Stanley Goldfarb, MD.

Doing Great Harm? is an insider’s account of the takeover of the medical establishment and medical schools by identity politics. Dr. Goldfarb documents the behind-the-scenes story of the successes and accomplishments of the anti-woke medicine movement since the launch of Do No Harm in 2022. He also explores how DEI and gender ideology have hurt medical care, medical education, and the healthcare system, and what work still needs to be done.

“I experienced firsthand the hold that identity politics had on the medical establishment when I was cancelled for simply questioning the supposed necessity of DEI in healthcare,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman at Do No Harm. “In response, we founded Do No Harm to combat the infectious spread of this divisive ideology. Since our inception, we have achieved numerous wins in the fight to restore integrity to medicine. From securing legal victories and filing civil rights complaints against discriminatory programs to publishing resources that help protect children from gender ideology, we have worked tirelessly to hold medical institutions accountable to the Hippocratic Oath. My book is a primer for anyone who wants the full story of how identity politics infiltrated healthcare, how we have countered its spread, and what remains to be done.”

Dr. Goldfarb’s book covers topics including:

  • Discriminatory DEI programs operated by medical schools;
  • Declining admissions and academic standards as medical schools prioritize molding physicians for social activism at the expense of medical science;
  • Medical journals publishing dishonest scholarship that serves an ideological agenda;
  • The U.S. healthcare system’s wholesale promotion of irreversible sex-change procedures for minors, despite Europe’s rejection of so-called “gender-affirming care”; and
  • Medical societies forcing “implicit bias” training and other racially charged theories on their members.

The book can be purchased here.

Do No Harm was founded after Dr. Goldfarb’s successful first book, Take Two Aspirins and Call Me by My Pronouns: Why Turning Doctors into Social Justice Warriors is Destroying American Medicine. Since its inception just three years ago, Do No Harm has submitted over 550 FOIA requests, filed more than 170 civil rights complaints, won numerous lawsuits, and published influential reports and resources including the Stop the Harm Database.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 35,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.

SIU School of Medicine’s Long, Long History of DEI

,

Over the past few months, Do No Harm has exposed numerous examples of Southern Illinois University (SIU) School of Medicine officials and administrators promoting regressive identity politics.

From unearthed videos exposing administrators’ efforts to resist the Trump administration’s anti-DEI efforts to evidence of discrimination, SIU has long been one of the most prolific proponents of DEI in medical education.

Now, the Daily Wire has reported that Dr. Jerry Kruse, dean and provost of SIU School of Medicine, is stepping down from his position next year. 

This latest development coincides with reporting that SIU is promoting scholarships that are restricted to members of certain racial groups.

Do No Harm is providing a brief overview of the various examples of identity politics at SIU that we’ve helped publicize leading up to Dean Kruse’s announcement:

Discriminatory Recruitment Plans: In April, Do No Harm first reported on several SIU recruitment plans aimed at recruiting students, staff, and faculty deemed to be “underrepresented” in medicine. These plans date back over a decade, indicating SIU’s lengthy commitment to discriminatory recruiting practices.

For instance, the school’s Minority Faculty Recruitment Plan states that: “The School will recruit, retain, and advance a student body, faculty, and staff reflective of the diversity of the region served by the medical school. A diverse faculty includes individuals from traditionally underrepresented in medicine groups (African-Americans, Latinos, Native- American Indians, Alaskans Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders) as well as women.”

“Resist” Trump Administration Policies: In May, Do No Harm obtained footage of Dean Kruse promising to oppose Trump’s executive orders on DEI and gender during a meeting with school staff.

“We will resist obeying in advance. We won’t do any anticipatory obedience,” Kruse said. “The existing laws have not changed, no court directives will require any change in compliance at this time.”

“More importantly, these orders and actions constitute a direct attack on the people we serve, the people to whom we are accountable,” Kruse added.

Admissions Disparities: Also in May, the Daily Wire, citing figures and analysis from Do No Harm, reported that blacks and Hispanics admitted to SIU have on average much lower GPAs and MCAT scores than admitted whites and Asians.

“In 2024, the average MCAT score of accepted Asians and whites (combined) was more than 4 points higher than that of accepted blacks and Hispanics (combined) — equivalent to a gap of about 14 percentile points. On GPA, accepted Asians and whites on average had 0.36 higher scores than accepted Blacks and Hispanics.”

Misleading Claims Supporting Gender Ideology: In July, the Daily Wire reported on the Gender Equity and Transgender Clinic, owned and operated by SIU, which offers sex change interventions to minors.

On its website, the Clinic made the following claim: “Puberty blockers are not permanent. When they are stopped, puberty continues normally.”

As Do No Harm pointed out in a recent comment to the Federal Trade Commission, this claim is misleading at best as “the effect of pubertal suppression on neurodevelopment is wholly unknown.”

“Puberty doesn’t just continue normally,” Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Jared Ross told the Daily Wire. “There are only so many years of pubertal development. And if you interfere with puberty during that time, you don’t get to make it up later. 
Those are lost years of growth and development.”

Discriminatory Scholarships: SIU is still advertising several scholarships for its medical students that are facially discriminatory.

One scholarship, the “Underrepresented Students in Medicine” scholarship operated by the American Medical Women’s Association, provides two $1,000 scholarships for applicants that, according to SIU, are exclusively reserved for applicants who are “African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander and mainland Puerto Rican.”

The scholarship purports to “actively promote a diverse culture” in medicine in order to align with the claim that “patients that we serve are from increasingly diverse ethnic backgrounds and communities.” The program’s description makes clear that it is intended for applicants of certain racial groups, citing the Association of American Medical College’s now-removed definition of “underrepresented in medicine.”

However, in an encouraging sign, the scholarship’s description states that it “will not be open for 2025-2026 cycle.” With any luck, the American Medical Women’s Association will ditch racial discrimination for good.  

In short, these examples reveal a long, sustained pattern of commitment to radical identity politics over excellence and merit.

SIU should think very carefully about its administrative decisions going forward; it’s never too late to ditch this ideological agenda and return its focus to educating the best possible physicians.

University of Washington Med School Ditches DEI-Inspired Admissions Question

The University of Washington School of Medicine (UWSOM) will no longer ask prospective students how they contribute to a “diverse” student body, according to an email obtained by Do No Harm.

The email, sent by Associate Dean of Admissions LeeAnna Muzquiz, MD, to UWSOM admissions committee members, states that the members reviewing students for admission should no longer consider the following question:

“The UWSOM aims to build a diverse class of students to enrich the field of medicine. What perspectives, identities, and/or qualities would you bring?”

This is obviously a positive development, and a win for all prospective medical students considering applying to UWSOM. And for that, UWSOM deserves credit. 

Yet the justification for this decision raises even more questions.

“Upon reconsideration, it was determined that this question may be misinterpreted,” the email reads. “Thus, out of an abundance of caution, and to avoid any misunderstanding, the question and responses have been removed from further consideration by reviewers at this stage in the process.”

By “misinterpreted,” Muzquiz may mean “interpreted as a pretext for ideologically motivated or even racially discriminatory hiring decisions.” 

That’s simply the reasonable interpretation. What the intended interpretation of that question was, we can only wonder.

It wouldn’t be the first time UWSOM has engaged in racial discrimination: Do No Harm successfully sued the school after it restricted access to a physicians’ directory to “black, indigenous and people of color” (BIPOC) students and physicians.

Moreover, the email contained a link to a video in which Muzquiz reminded committee members that the consideration of race and other protected characteristics in the admissions process was not “acceptable.”

In the same breath, Muzquiz also lauded the “holistic review” process, in which prospective students are evaluated less for their academic achievements such as grades and MCAT scores, and more for less tangible factors.

As Do No Harm has frequently noted, holistic review can be an end-around for race-based admissions.

Muzquiz made sure to disclaim this intention, stating clearly that holistic review “cannot be used as a proxy” for racial discrimination.

In sum, this is certainly a positive development. Do No Harm encourages UWSOM (and all schools, for that matter) to ensure that ideology plays no role whatsoever in its admissions, and that it selects students based on merit.

Do No Harm Submits FTC Comment Debunking Myths of Child Transgender Industry

This month, Do No Harm submitted a comment to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) debunking several myths promoted by the child transgender industry.

The FTC had requested comments on how the child transgender industry’s practices harmed Americans, such as through a medical professional making false claims or failing to disclose the risks of sex change interventions. 

The request followed a workshop hosted by the FTC in which multiple experts, including Do No Harm fellows, highlighted the misleading and deceptive practices employed by the child transgender industry.

Do No Harm’s comment takes on several of the most pervasive and pernicious myths employed by gender ideologues.

First, the comment explains how the myth that sex change interventions reduce the risk of suicide is completely unsupported by evidence.

“This emotional blackmail is completely unsupported by the evidence,” the comment states. “As admitted by a researcher for WPATH (one of the organizations that signed on to the previously cited amicus brief): ‘There is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion about the effect of hormone therapy on death by suicide among transgender people.’”

Next, the comment debunks the notion that child sex change interventions are safe and effective, pointing to ample evidence, such as the Cass Review and other comprehensive reports, finding the opposite.

“All systematic reviews performed on this topic have concluded that the evidence underlying medical interventions for gender dysphoria in minors is weak; zero have come out the other way,” the comment notes.

The comment then points out that claims of puberty blockers being “reversible” is likewise a myth as “the effect of pubertal suppression on neurodevelopment is wholly unknown.” Finally, the comment debunks the claim that the rate of “regret” for minors who have undergone pediatric medical transition is low, pointing both to the paucity of evidence on the topic as well as studies that have found the rate to be significant.

Read the full comment here.

DEI Skeptics Need Not Apply?

What does a commitment to “equity” have to do with one’s ability to take an X-Ray?

A sensible person would say “not a thing.”

But Pike’s Peak State College in Colorado clearly values this quality enough to list it in one of the school’s job postings.

The school’s job listing for its Director of Medical Imaging position is replete with references to diversity and DEI more broadly. The Director “ensures program compliance with the national certification bodies, curriculum standards, institutional policies, and workforce needs,” which includes overseeing faculty members.

One of the position’s minimum qualifications is: “Demonstrated skills working in a diverse population.”

Moreover, one of the preferred qualifications is: “Demonstrated success increasing diversity of students/employees and implementing diversity initiatives.”

The job description even includes “Commitment to equity and inclusive practices in health education” under “General Duties, Skills, Knowledge, and Abilities.”

It should be obvious that these traits have nothing to do with one’s ability to run a medical imaging program, or perform any healthcare education function for that matter. Imposing ideological requirements on these positions will at best narrow the pool of candidates and at worst select for candidates who are more concerned with the DEI agenda than with healthcare itself.

Nevertheless, this ideology appears to have made its way into the school’s academics and administration.

The school’s DEI webpage makes clear the school’s goal of “[a]ttracting, hiring, and retaining a dedicated workforce that mirrors and supports the diversity of our student body.”

As another example, one of the courses in the school’s Behavioral Health program, called “Treating Diverse Populations,” teaches “principles related to microaggressions, systemic racial injustice, social justice, and multicultural and social justice counseling.”

Pike’s Peak State College should stick to ensuring it provides the best possible healthcare education, and leave the politics at the classroom door. 

Penn Nursing Promotes Debunked ‘Racial Concordance’ Theory to Justify ‘Diversity’ Hiring

Last month, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing (Penn Nursing) posted an announcement to its site advertising the findings of a new study set to be published in Nursing Research.

The study, “Racial Concordance of Black Nurses and Patients Across Hospitals,” was conducted by the Penn Nursing Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research (CHOPR) and led by Penn Nursing professor and CHOPR Associate Director Eileen T. Lake.

As its name suggests, the study examines the dynamic of racial concordance – in which patients are treated by providers of the race – in the nursing context, and lays out a case for increasing “diversity,” with the implication of doing so by hiring more black nurses.

The study finds that the proportion of black nurses “was notably lower” than the proportion of black patients, characterizing this disparity as a potential danger to patient health.

“Our findings highlight a critical gap in structural competency within healthcare institutions,” said Lake in Penn Nursing’s announcement. “Despite Black patients often receiving care in hospitals with more Black nurses, the existing nursing workforce lacks sufficient diversity, especially in settings where racial concordance could be most beneficial.”

“The study emphasizes the urgent need for healthcare institutions and policymakers to prioritize diversifying the nursing workforce to better reflect patient demographics, which is crucial for addressing health inequities,” the announcement reads.

Yet the study’s premise is hopelessly flawed.

The notion that racial concordance improves health outcomes is utterly without merit.

Although the study cites several articles supporting the premise that it’s beneficial for patients to be treated by providers of the same race, the weight of the evidence suggests that racial concordance has virtually no effect on patient health outcomes.

Do No Harm’s December 2023 report on this issue examined the literature on racial concordance and highlighted the fact that four out of five systematic reviews found no evidence to support the claim that racial concordance produces positive health outcomes.

Another recent review published in the Substance Use & Addiction Journal found inadequate evidence to support the notion that racial concordance improves health outcomes for black patients in addiction treatment.

The review examined 11 articles published between 1971 and 2016 that explored the effects of racial concordance on black patients in addiction treatment.

The Penn Nursing study, meanwhile, relies on older individual studies rather than engaging meaningfully with the weight of this evidence.

Moreover, the study relies on the concept of “structural competency” to backdoor in its endorsement of this racially concordant approach, arguing that racially concordant care is part of healthcare institutions’ “structural competency.”

“Structural competency—defined as the trained ability to recognize and address the effects

of social, political, and economic structures on health—is crucial for health care institutions,” the study states.

“One effective way to demonstrate this competency is by cultivating a structurally fluent workforce that understands how external factors and social determinants contribute to health inequities,” the study continues.

Here, the study again employs a false premise: that of the validity of so-called “social determinants of health,” or social and environmental factors that can be construed as “determining” health outcomes.

Commonly-cited examples of social determinants of health, or SDOH, include income, employment, educational quality, housing quality, transportation, and so on.

However, the theory that SDOH “cause” significant variance in health outcomes lacks evidentiary support.

As Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Chris Pope lays out, “SDOH literature is dominated by sloppily designed observational studies that do not seriously attempt to disentangle causation from correlation or to control for obvious sources of bias.”

In other words, the evidence doesn’t support that social determinants of health “determine” outcomes at all.

Moreover, implicit in the study’s premise is the claim that white nurses can’t provide the same level of care to black patients as black nurses. Not only is this claim utterly without evidence, as demonstrated above, but it is a shameful smear of hardworking healthcare professionals who have dedicated themselves to caring for all patients, no matter their race. These claims are divisive and degrade trust in the healthcare workforce.

In sum, the Penn Nursing study employs these concepts to argue for the diversification of the nursing workforce.

It’s hard to imagine how this could be achieved absent policies that distract from the mission of healthcare and favor “diversity” at the very best, and are discriminatory at worst.

It goes without saying that Penn Nursing should not promote debunked and unsupported theories. And it certainly shouldn’t do so to lobby for unethical hiring practices.

Here Are the Top-Ranked – and Worst-Offending – Medical Schools

Unlike traditional medical school rankings, the Medical School Excellence Index is not concerned with institutional prestige. Rather, it ranks medical schools according to their institutional values and educational priorities. 

Does the school recruit the best and brightest applicants according to standardized metrics of aptitude? Does the school have a clear, deeply-rooted commitment to excellence and transparency in academics? Does the school prioritize merit over identity politics and discriminatory ideology?

The top-ranked schools most closely reflect these principles. As a result, many prestigious medical schools who obviously have produced and will continue to produce qualified physicians will not top the list.

Conversely, the lowest-ranked schools favor ideology over merit. 

They do not prioritize academic excellence in admissions, dedicate administrative resources to divisive, harmful, and regressive DEI practices, and broadcast an institutional commitment to identity politics that is antithetical to a commitment to excellence in clinical practice.

Here are the top-ranked schools:

The University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine

USF Morsani College of Medicine earns the top spot among all medical schools, scoring a perfect 100 points. 

First, the average MCAT scores and GPAs of matriculated students are each in the top quintile of all allopathic medical schools in the United States, meaning that USF accepts the most academically qualified students. Second, the school maintains a tiered grading system throughout each phase of medical school, rather than adopting a pass/fail grading system. The school maintains an Alpha Omega Alpha honor society chapter and does not have a dedicated DEI office. Furthermore, its mission statement does not contain any support for DEI.

NYU Grossman School of Medicine

Coming in at second place is NYU Grossman School of Medicine, which notched 92 points out of 100. 

The average MCAT scores and GPAs of matriculated students at NYU are each in the top quintile of all allopathic medical schools in the United States; in fact, the average MCAT scores are the highest in the country. NYU also has a tiered grading system throughout the clinical phase of medical school. Like USF, NYU maintains an Alpha Omega Alpha honor society chapter and does not have a dedicated DEI office. However, the school’s mission statement is not fully without references to DEI ideology and practices, thus resulting in a small point penalty.

The Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Also tied for second place is the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania at 92 points out of 100. 

At Perelman, the average MCAT scores and GPAs of matriculated students are each in the top quintile of the country’s allopathic medical schools. Like NYU, Perelman has a tiered grading system throughout the clinical phase of medical school. Perelman also maintains an Alpha Omega Alpha honor society chapter and does not have a dedicated DEI office. Yet like NYU, the school’s mission statement is not fully without references to DEI ideology and practices, thus costing Perelman several points.

University of Michigan Medical School

The final institution tied for second is the University of Michigan Medical School, which likewise notched 92 points out of 100. 

Matriculated students at Michigan have average MCAT scores and GPAs that each are in the top quintile of all allopathic medical schools in the country. Moreover, Michigan has a tiered grading system throughout the clinical phase of medical school. The school maintains an Alpha Omega Alpha honor society chapter and does not have a dedicated DEI office, but its mission statement does contain references to DEI ideology and practices.

Here are the lowest-ranked schools:

The University of California, Davis School of Medicine

UC Davis, along with all the other lowest-ranked schools, notched a dismal 18 points out of 100, reflecting a departure from the pursuit of excellence and an embrace of identity politics.

For one, the average MCAT score of matriculated students was in the second-lowest quintile among all allopathic medical schools in the country, whereas the average GPA was in the lowest quintile. The school also lost points for implementing a pass/fail grading system in the preclinical phase of medical education.

But where UC Davis (along with the other schools ranked lowest) failed to notch any points at all was its rejection (or lack thereof) of DEI. The school earned 0 points for its mission statement, meaning the statement reflected the strongest commitment possible to DEI. Likewise, the fact that it still maintains a dedicated DEI office means it failed to earn any points at all.

Of note: UC Davis previously received top marks from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) for its commitment to diversity in admissions and hiring. School administrators also discussed how the institution has implemented “socially accountable admissions” to transform the demographics of its student body.

Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine

Like UC Davis, OHSU also only managed to score 18 points.

The average MCAT score of matriculated students at OHSU was in the second-lowest quintile among all allopathic medical schools in the country, and the average GPA was in the lowest quintile. OHSU also implements a pass/fail grading system in the preclinical phase of medical education. 

Furthermore, OHSU’s mission statement evinces the strongest commitment possible to DEI, and OHSU maintains a dedicated DEI office.

Of note: OHSU previously operated racially-segregated “camaraderie groups” for its employees.

The University of New Mexico School of Medicine

Also coming in at 18 points is the University of New Mexico School of Medicine.

Although the average GPA of matriculated students at New Mexico was in the second-lowest quintile among all allopathic medical schools in the country, the average MCAT score was in the lowest quintile. Like the other lowest-ranked universities, New Mexico implements a pass/fail grading system in the preclinical phase of medical education. 

New Mexico also maintains a dedicated DEI office, and its mission statement is replete with references to DEI ideology and practices.

Of note: New Mexico previously considered racial characteristics when evaluating applicants for clerkship positions.

The Central Michigan University College of Medicine

Rounding out the bottom four medical schools is the Central Michigan University College of Medicine, which also scored 18 points.

At Central Michigan, the average GPA of matriculated students at New Mexico was in the second-lowest quintile among all allopathic medical schools in the country, and the average MCAT score was in the lowest quintile. Central Michigan also implements a pass/fail grading system in the preclinical phase of medical education.

Moreover, Central Michigan’s mission statement contains the strongest possible commitment to DEI, and the school maintains a dedicated DEI office.

Of note: Central Michigan received strong marks from the AAMC for its commitment to diversity, as evidenced by its administrators actively working to promote DEI in public forums outside the university.

Do No Harm Launches Center for Accountability in Medicine and Anti-Woke Medical School Rankings

RICHMOND, VA; September 24, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm proudly launched the Center for Accountability in Medicine. Through a data-driven and research-focused approach, the Center will expose and hold accountable medical institutions that push divisive identity politics. The Center will provide valuable resources to the public on which schools, medical associations, and academic journals are adhering to core principles of excellence and merit instead of political ideology.

The Center’s inaugural publication is the Medical School Excellence Index. This is the first definitive ranking of U.S. medical schools based on their commitment to academic excellence, transparency, and opposition to divisive identity politics. The Index serves as a counter to traditional rankings, which often favor DEI programs or ignore their detrimental effects.

“The Center for Accountability in Medicine and the Medical School Excellence Index are urgently needed to combat the tide of wokeness in healthcare,” said Ian Kingsbury, PhD, Director of the Center for Accountability in Medicine. “To eliminate DEI’s divisive influence in medicine, we must recognize medical schools that focus on excellence and expose those that promote political activism. The Center advances Do No Harm’s mission of ensuring patients, not politics, remain the top priority of the institutions training our future medical professionals. I am excited for our next chapter in leading the fight to restore integrity to medicine.”

“The launch of the Center for Accountability in Medicine marks a major step forward in Do No Harm’s mission of restoring integrity to medicine,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman at Do No Harm. “From exposing medical schools’ racially based admissions practices and accreditors’ DEI mandates to suing major institutions and companies over discriminatory programs, we have achieved unprecedented success in rooting out divisive identity politics from healthcare. The new Center, under Ian Kingsbury’s leadership, will continue and expand this work to ensure our nation’s medical institutions are held accountable and prioritize merit and expertise, not an ideological agenda.”

The Medical School Excellence Index identifies the best medical schools in the country as well as the worst by ranking each institution on three constructs: Academic excellence, transparency, and rejection of DEI.

The top-ranked schools are:

  • USF Health Morsani College of Medicine
  • NYU Grossman School of Medicine
  • University of Michigan Medical School
  • Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

The worst-ranked schools are:

  • University of California, Davis School of Medicine
  • University of New Mexico School of Medicine
  • Central Michigan University College of Medicine
  • Oregon Health & Science University College of Medicine

The full rankings can be found here.

The Center will be led by Ian Kingsbury, PhD, Director of Research at Do No Harm.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has 35,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.