Over the past few years, Do No Harm has documented the Association of American Medical Colleges’ (AAMC) various initiatives aimed at advancing discriminatory and divisive practices in medical education. These include efforts to inject the consideration of race into the medical school admissions process.
Yet the use of race in admissions is ultimately downstream from the more innocuous – but nonetheless problematic – view that the medical school admissions process should not simply select for the most accomplished and meritorious applicants, but should instead advance particular ideological goals.
An applicant’s character is relevant to their future medical career, and considering such factors isn’t necessarily worrying. Concerns arise, however, when the admissions process is geared toward achieving social goals (distinct from excellence in medicine) and applicants are viewed for their contributions toward those goals, rather than on their own merits as future physicians.
The AAMC is quite explicit about the fact that it does view the admissions process as a means to achieve certain desired social and political goals, as evidenced by its resources on its “holistic review” philosophy.
For instance, it lauds the UC-Davis School of Medicine for using strategies “to increase enrollment of historically underrepresented and excluded students and to achieve institutional community health goals.”
And, although the AAMC has moved to distance itself from its more explicit endorsements of racial discrimination, its 2023 amicus brief in support of race-conscious medical school argued that “diversity in the education of the Nation’s physicians and other healthcare professionals is a medical imperative.”
This admissions philosophy is further reinforced by the actual application materials students submit when applying to medical school, and is reflected in the AAMC’s application workbook, which is designed to prepare students to submit applications through the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS), the AAMC’s centralized medical school application processing service.
The workbook encourages applicants to submit information about themselves that is not relevant to their qualifications as applicants, or for any related administrative purpose.
For instance, applicants have the option to list their “gender identity,” with options including “Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming” and “non-binary” and “agender.”
Applicants can also choose to list their preferred pronouns, with options including “They/Them/Theirs” and “Ze/Hir/Hirs.”
Applicants are further asked a series of questions about their background, including whether they grew up in an area they “believe” was “medically under-served.” There is not an objective metric of “medically under-served” included in the workbook.
The workbook further asks applicants about their family income levels and whether their immediate family ever used federal or state assistance programs.
This interest in applicants’ background extends to questions about “impactful experiences” applicants have undergone, which the AAMC justifies on the basis of promoting “holistic review.”
The ideological flavor to these questions is best crystallized in a question allowing students to submit their experiences engaging in “social justice” advocacy.
Why one’s social justice advocacy is relevant to their ability to practice medicine, or their quality as an applicant, is not explained.
The workbook further reminds applicants to submit their scores on the PREview exam, a test ostensibly aimed at measuring skills and competencies related to professionalism, which is increasingly becoming mandatory at more and more schools.
As Do No Harm previously reported, one of the goals of the PREview exam is to promote “inclusivity” and “level the playing field” for applicants. The exam was also assessed by “experts” in DEI.
“In discussing the exam with our DEI constituents, the sentiment has always been that it would help level the playing field for applicants,” said David Acosta, MD, AAMC chief diversity and inclusion officer, in a 2022 statement.
All these facts together paint a compelling picture: the AMCAS application (and the AAMC more generally) appears less interested in recognizing individual achievement than in engineering outcomes through “holistic review.” By burying schools in layers of subjective social data, the process dilutes focus on what truly matters: intellectual ability, clinical promise, and dedication to patient care.
The comprehensive nature of the application is not neutral; it is a deliberate attempt to elevate social and political factors above merit. Medical education – and ultimately, patient care – will suffer if the next generation of doctors is chosen on the basis of activism rather than excellence.
The NEJM Dips Its Toes Into ‘Antiracist’ Activism
Uncategorized United States DEI Commentary Do No Harm StaffNEJM Catalyst, an academic journal focused on “health care delivery” and a subprint of The New England Journal of Medicine, has dedicated a “special issue” specifically to topics surrounding “structural racism.”
According to the editor’s note accompanying the issue, the goal of the issue is to chart pathways, such as policy reforms, to advance “health equity” and address structural racism.
“Structural racism cannot be resolved by the actions of one individual; power imbalances between health care institutions and the communities they serve must be reset,” the note reads. “The best way to do this is to centrally involve those most harmed by racism in monitoring it and implementing viable solutions.”
These “solutions” often involve policy changes that stray outside the realm of healthcare and into politics. Additionally, the bulk of the articles reflect the view common among proponents of DEI policies and similar initiatives that the American healthcare system is fundamentally racist, and that to ameliorate racial health disparities it should be reformed.
These reforms appear to be heavy-handed attempts to inject DEI into healthcare and healthcare education.
For instance, one of the articles, titled “Lift Every Voice: Driving Antiracist Structure, Policy, and Culture Change in the Health Care Workplace,” catalogued the efforts of the “Lift Every Voice” initiative, which intended to collect data about racism in healthcare workplaces and address it by “creating responsive antiracism policy and culture change.”
The editor’s note describes another article as highlighting efforts “to develop a culturally grounded antiracism educational program that teaches care providers how to address social injustices while caring for members of [the formerly incarcerated] population.”
In other words: training to achieve certain social and ideological goals.
Yet another article, titled “Clinic-Based Community Organizing,” is even more explicit in its calls for political change, and seeks to use the health clinic as a vehicle for such change.
“Through applying a four-step relational organizing model that emphasizes listening to lived experience, convening core teams rooted in trust and love, developing community-organizing skills, and taking collective action, the program has created change in local clinical practice and quality improvement efforts that improve conditions for systemically harmed communities,” the article description reads. “The program’s community core teams — composed of patients and community members with lived experiences of oppression — have also led local and state policy efforts on issues that reflect their health priorities, including housing and language access.”
Regardless of the merits of these proposals, it’s important to draw a distinction; it is not the purview nor the place of physicians to use clinical practice as a vehicle for political advocacy. Rather, the physician has a duty to provide the best possible healthcare for their patients.
This point is all the more true when such political advocacy is thinly-veiled DEI activism, as the editor’s note makes clear.
“While some may feel discouraged by emerging threats to health equity efforts, this special issue affirms work toward addressing structural racism,” the editor’s note accompanying the special issue reads. “The contents offer clarity that may help future efforts to dismantle unjust structures. The investments may benefit impacted communities, health care institutions, and the United States and other nations.”
Taken together, NEJM Catalyst’s “special issue” blurs the line between medicine and politics. By presenting “antiracist” activism as a necessary component of healthcare delivery, the publication elevates ideology over clinical objectivity and shifts the physician’s role from healer to social reformer.
Calls for structural change, community organizing, and DEI-infused education programs go well beyond the responsibility of providing evidence-based care and instead transform medicine into a platform for political advocacy.
Planned Parenthood Is Teaching Teens How to Get Around Gender-Transition Safeguards
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Medical association Media Mention Do No Harm Staff“To say that puberty blockers ‘pause’ puberty implies a simple, harmless process; it’s not,” Dr. Kurt Miceli, medical director at the organization Do No Harm, told National Review.
Miceli further mentioned that puberty blockers may also negatively affect bone health, growth, and neurocognitive development.
Read the full story at National Review.
Therapists are banned from talking to kids about accepting their biological sex
Uncategorized Minnesota, United States Gender Ideology Medical School Op-Ed Kurt Miceli, MDAfter the tragic shooting at Minnesota’s Annunciation Catholic School, families across the country began asking if the shooter could have been stopped.
But Americans should also ask a related question: Why do states ban kids who think they’re transgender from even talking to therapists about accepting their biological sex?
The school shooter in Minnesota identified as transgender. Yet in half the states, including Minnesota, it’s illegal for therapists to help confused kids come to grips with who they really are.
Read the full op-ed at the New York Post.
CDC urged to update medical codes to include detransitioners
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Federal government Media Mention Do No Harm StaffDoctors called on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to update medical codes to include side effects suffered by detransitioners.
Dr. Kurt Miceli, medical director for the advocacy group Do No Harm, presented at the CDC’s twice-yearly conference to update U.S. medical codes to include side effects for detransitioners, or those who no longer identify as transgender.
Miceli and his team at Do No Harm, which stands against gender transition medicine for minors, put together a presentation for the panel that oversees the ICD-10-CM, the official diagnostic coding system that standardizes medical treatment and insurance information in the United States.
Read the full article at The Washington Examiner.
House Appropriations Committee Approves Defunding Discriminatory Nursing Program
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Commentary Do No Harm StaffEarlier this week, the House Appropriations Committee approved the Fiscal Year 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, a spending bill which included appropriations for various health and medicine-related programs.
One program that will not receive funding under the bill, however, is the Nursing Workforce Diversity (NWD) program.
A project of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the NWD program awards funding to nursing education programs that engage in racially discriminatory practices.
In fact, the program was the subject of an extensive report by Do No Harm examining how various nursing programs funded under NWD use the federal dollars to support explicitly discriminatory initiatives.
As outlined in Do No Harm’s report, the program asks recipients to establish methods to increase the enrollment of “racial and ethnic minorities” and other “underrepresented” groups.
Recipient nursing education programs have obliged, prioritizing certain racial groups for educational opportunities or employing admissions strategies designed to increase racial diversity.
The defunding of the NWD program is tremendous news for would-be nurses who happen to be members of racial groups disfavored by the program’s objectives, as well as for patients everywhere.
That’s not all the appropriations bill defunded, however.
The bill also prevents funding from going toward “drugs or surgery that alter bodily sex traits as interventions for gender dysphoria,” per the committee report.
The bill further directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct a long-term study on the effects of interventions, such as drugs and surgery, used for the purposes of child sex changes.
Reclaiming Merit in Medical Education
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical Journal, Medical School Letter Kurt Miceli, MD[Note: The full version of this article originally appeared as a comment to “Medical School Admissions After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Affirmative Action Ruling” by Nguyen, et al and published in JAMA Network Open. You can read Dr. Miceli’s article in its entirety here.]
The study by Nguyen, et al. ignores a fundamental question: What is the true purpose of medical education? Rather than engaging in social engineering, medical schools need to focus on identifying and training the most qualified individuals to become physicians. Patients rightfully expect—and deserve—the highest standard of care. Yet, the study neglects to consider merit-based factors and thus the quality of applicants.
Data from the AAMC reveals persistent differences in academic performance among matriculants even post-Students for Fair Admission (SFFA). In the ‘24-25 academic year, Asian matriculants scored 513.9 on the MCAT, compared to 512.2 for White matriculants, 506.4 for Black matriculants, and 505.9 for Hispanic matriculants—figures nearly unchanged from the year prior and where a single point difference on the MCAT equals ~3 points in percentile rank. [1 2 3] If race-neutral admissions policies had been meaningfully implemented following SFFA, one would expect these gaps to have narrowed. They haven’t.
The organization for which I work, Do No Harm, analyzed admissions data from 23 public allopathic medical schools. In all but one, accepted Asian and white applicants had, on average, higher MCAT scores than accepted black applicants. At 13 schools, the average MCAT score of rejected Asian or white applicants was higher than the average MCAT score of accepted black applicants. And, at Eastern Virginia Medical School, for example, black applicants had up to an 11-fold higher chance of acceptance compared to GPA- and MCAT-matched Asian or white peers. These patterns suggest that, even after SFFA, many medical schools may still be prioritizing racial considerations over academic merit in their admissions decisions.[4]
Read Dr. Miceli’s full comment at JAMA Network Open here.
Do No Harm Submits Comment Backing Repeal of ‘Anti-Racism’ Rule
Uncategorized United States DEI Federal government Commentary Do No Harm StaffThis week, Do No Harm submitted a comment in support of a proposal by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to repeal a rule pressuring doctors to implement “anti-racism” plans.
The rule, passed by the Biden administration in 2021, required clinicians participating in CMS’s Merit-Based Payment System (MIPS) – a program that rewards clinicians for improving the quality of patient care and outcomes – to ensure their policies and clinical guidelines are “aligned with a commitment to anti-racism.”
Moreover, the rule instructed clinicians to apply CMS’s 2021 Disparities Impact Statement, which told clinicians to “[s]tratif[y] measures and health outcomes by race and ethnicity” and to identify the “population(s)” they will “prioritize.”
As Do No Harm’s comment argues, this effectively encourages racial discrimination while endorsing the noxious, harmful ideology of anti-racism, which definitionally supports “present discrimination” to remedy discrimination in the past.
“The Anti-Racism Rule was itself—and further promoted—unlawful racial discrimination,” the comment states. “Race-based classifications are unconstitutional, even if they aim to reduce disparities.”
The proposed repeal is welcome news and a long time coming.
In fact, just a few months after our founding, Do No Harm supported a lawsuit against the Biden administration over the rule.
With Do No Harm’s help, Dr. Amber Colville, a visiting fellow at Do No Harm, sued the Biden administration, arguing the “anti-racism” rule was illegal. This was the first lawsuit Do No Harm supported.
Do No Harm commends the Trump administration for taking action to repeal this harmful rule.
The federal government has no business promoting anti-racist ideology and divisive practices which are incompatible with the promise of racial equality embedded in our Constitution.
The CDC Can Help Those Disfigured by ‘Gender-Affirming Care’
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Federal government, Medical association Op-Ed Kurt Miceli, MDChloe Cole had a difficult adolescence. As a result, she became a victim of unethical medical experiments, which left her with injuries that can’t be healed.
As Ms. Cole, 21, tells it, she was a tomboy as a child. She didn’t like “girly” things, and when she started puberty early—8 or 9, she has testified—she got unwanted attention from boys. Like many kids in the early to mid-2010s, she spent a lot of time on social media and videogames, which led her to online communities that told her she was really a boy.
She came to believe that she was born in the wrong body. When she was 12, “I came out as transgender in a letter I sat on the dining room table. My parents were immediately concerned. They felt like they needed to get outside help from medical professionals, but this proved to be a mistake.” The doctors pushed Chloe and her parents to accept the lie that she could become a boy.
Read the full op-ed at The Wall Street Journal.
Major Medical Education Accreditor Quietly Ditches DEI Requirements After Trump Executive Order
Uncategorized United States DEI The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Medical association Media Mention Do No Harm StaffA leading medical education accreditor is eliminating its diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements after suspending them earlier this year to comply with an executive order from President Trump.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) is closing its DEI department and removing DEI requirements from its accreditation standards, according to an internal email provided to NR by the watchdog group Do No Harm, which works to root out the use of race and gender-based criteria in the medical field.
“Recent federal directives, including executive orders and a proposed rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have prohibited accrediting bodies from requiring or otherwise encouraging a focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Similar directives apply to programs and hospitals receiving Medicare payments for GME,” reads the email from the ACGME communications department.
Read the full story at National Review.
The AMA Doesn’t Represent Doctors Like Me
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Letter Kurt Miceli, MDThe American Medical Association says it puts science above politics, but the record, as Allysia Finley has laid out, speaks for itself (Letters, Aug. 27). One of the biggest explanations for the association’s mission creep is that it represents a narrow and radicalized slice of the medical profession, falsely giving the impression that it speaks for all doctors.
Doctors have been leaving the AMA in droves for decades. Today it represents less than 20% of U.S. physicians. As of 2023, about half of its members were medical students or residents, who have gone to medical schools that are captured by such political fads as DEI.
Read the full letter at The Wall Street Journal.
Lawsuit Alleges Oregon Health Authority Illegally Withheld Data on Child Sex Changes
Uncategorized Oregon Gender Ideology State government Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe Oregon Health Authority is facing a lawsuit for allegedly withholding data on child sex change interventions, in violation of the First Amendment.
The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) maintains a program, the All Payer All Claims (APAC) reporting program, designed to provide the public and policymakers with important healthcare information. Through APAC, the OHA collects healthcare claims and enrollment data, as well as other data related to healthcare costs and utilization.
Oregon law requires the OHA to make APAC data available to healthcare consumers in order to empower them to make informed healthcare decisions.
In February 2025, Paul Terdal, a visiting fellow at Do No Harm, requested APAC data for the purposes of researching “the efficacy and incidence of gender-related medical treatments for children.” Terdal is a volunteer health consumer advocate who has been advocating for access to safe mental and behavioral healthcare for 20 years.
Terdal’s consultancy, Terdal Consulting, had previously requested APAC data from the OHA and had those requests approved.
However, the OHA denied the February request, justifying its decision on the grounds that releasing the data would violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPAA.
This excuse, the lawsuit alleges, doesn’t add up. While HIPAA is intended to protect patients’ personal health information, the lawsuit states that the data in question meets all the statutory de-identification requirements.
Moreover, according to the lawsuit, the OHA had received 25 requests for APAC since 2020, and had fulfilled each and every one – that is, until Terdal’s request, which just so happened to involve the politically fraught issue of child sex change interventions. If the APAC data does not comply with HIPAA, as the OHA claims, then the OHA would have needed to report breaches of protected information for each past release, per federal regulations. Yet the OHA has not reported any such breaches.
Internal OHA emails, obtained through a public records request, show that OHA staff and executives were concerned about Terdal’s past statements to the media and legislators, and about the “risk” that he would do so again. Before declaring their own database to be out of compliance with HIPAA, they debated requiring him to sign a contract restricting publication of his results or redacting the database to prevent him from completing his research.
And there’s another wrinkle; Terdal has long advocated against Oregon health authorities’ endorsement of the discredited WPATH SOC-8 as the state’s official “standard of care” for treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria, arguing that it lacked sufficient evidentiary backing. Terdal’s advocacy culminated in a lengthy exposé by the Lund Report, detailing how the OHA silenced its own experts’ concerns about the clinical evidence and integrity of the research behind WPATH.
In addition, Terdal recently authored an article in National Review, citing OHA data to show evidence of pediatric medical transition, including surgical procedures.
The lawsuit alleges that the denial of Terdal’s request was politically motivated and is evidence of viewpoint discrimination; by denying Terdal the ability to engage in constitutionally protected speech, the OHA violated Terdal’s First Amendment rights.
“Oregon’s officials don’t have to agree with me, but they simply cannot use the power of the state to punish me or to deny me information that will help Oregonians make up their own minds,” Terdal told The Center Square.
Do No Harm agrees. This information should be available to all, so that policymakers and the public alike can take the necessary steps to protect children from the harms of dangerous, experimental medical interventions.
Do No Harm Files Complaint Against UConn School of Medicine for Operating Discriminatory Externship
Uncategorized Connecticut DEI University of Connecticut School of Medicine Medical School Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; August 27, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (DOE-OCR) against the University of Connecticut (UConn) School of Medicine for operating a racially discriminatory externship program.
“By marketing the externship as a ‘pipeline for students of color,’ UConn’s School of Medicine isn’t even trying to hide its racially discriminatory behavior,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “The school has put identity politics above merit, excellence, and skill. The program is a clear violation of federal law and strips qualified candidates of opportunities to progress in the medical field. Knowing the Department of Education takes these sorts of violations very seriously, we hope our complaint leads to an investigation of UConn’s discriminatory practices. Do No Harm remains committed to driving out divisive ideology and restoring integrity to America’s healthcare system.”
Click here to read the complaint.
Background
UConn’s School of Medicine operates the Visiting Externship for Students Underrepresented in Medicine, and describes it as a “pipeline for students of color.” The program allows fourth-year medical students from other schools to enroll as visiting students at UConn, where they complete externships in a range of fields. However, to be eligible, the student must belong to a group UConn deems “underrepresented in medicine.”
On the application, students must explain how their “background as underrepresented in medicine” makes them “competitive” for the externship. Additionally, a student of color can apply without also identifying as LGBTQ, disabled, or low-income, while other applicants must provide additional identity qualifications.
Since UConn is a federally funded university, Do No Harm is asking DOE-OCR to investigate the school for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits federal funds from being spent in “any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial discrimination.”
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 30,000 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.
Children’s Hospital Scrubs All Mention Of Notorious Gender Clinic Director From Website
Uncategorized California Gender Ideology Children's Hospital Los Angeles Hospital System Media Mention Do No Harm StaffMedical watchdog organization Do No Harm listed the CHLA gender clinic as one of the “12 worst-offending children’s hospitals promoting sex change treatments for minors” in its Stop The Harm database which provides information about the services provided at pediatric gender clinics across America.
“I think we’re saving a lot of children from a lot of harm,” Do No Harm Board Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb told the DCNF.
“That’s what this is about. There’s no evidence that these maneuvers improve a child’s psychological well-being and there’s a lot of evidence that they’re harmful,” Goldfarb added.
Read the full story at the Daily Caller.
Treat Medical School Applicants as People, Not Pawns
Uncategorized United States DEI Association of American Medical Colleges Medical association, Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffOver the past few years, Do No Harm has documented the Association of American Medical Colleges’ (AAMC) various initiatives aimed at advancing discriminatory and divisive practices in medical education. These include efforts to inject the consideration of race into the medical school admissions process.
Yet the use of race in admissions is ultimately downstream from the more innocuous – but nonetheless problematic – view that the medical school admissions process should not simply select for the most accomplished and meritorious applicants, but should instead advance particular ideological goals.
An applicant’s character is relevant to their future medical career, and considering such factors isn’t necessarily worrying. Concerns arise, however, when the admissions process is geared toward achieving social goals (distinct from excellence in medicine) and applicants are viewed for their contributions toward those goals, rather than on their own merits as future physicians.
The AAMC is quite explicit about the fact that it does view the admissions process as a means to achieve certain desired social and political goals, as evidenced by its resources on its “holistic review” philosophy.
For instance, it lauds the UC-Davis School of Medicine for using strategies “to increase enrollment of historically underrepresented and excluded students and to achieve institutional community health goals.”
And, although the AAMC has moved to distance itself from its more explicit endorsements of racial discrimination, its 2023 amicus brief in support of race-conscious medical school argued that “diversity in the education of the Nation’s physicians and other healthcare professionals is a medical imperative.”
This admissions philosophy is further reinforced by the actual application materials students submit when applying to medical school, and is reflected in the AAMC’s application workbook, which is designed to prepare students to submit applications through the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS), the AAMC’s centralized medical school application processing service.
The workbook encourages applicants to submit information about themselves that is not relevant to their qualifications as applicants, or for any related administrative purpose.
For instance, applicants have the option to list their “gender identity,” with options including “Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming” and “non-binary” and “agender.”
Applicants can also choose to list their preferred pronouns, with options including “They/Them/Theirs” and “Ze/Hir/Hirs.”
Applicants are further asked a series of questions about their background, including whether they grew up in an area they “believe” was “medically under-served.” There is not an objective metric of “medically under-served” included in the workbook.
The workbook further asks applicants about their family income levels and whether their immediate family ever used federal or state assistance programs.
This interest in applicants’ background extends to questions about “impactful experiences” applicants have undergone, which the AAMC justifies on the basis of promoting “holistic review.”
The ideological flavor to these questions is best crystallized in a question allowing students to submit their experiences engaging in “social justice” advocacy.
Why one’s social justice advocacy is relevant to their ability to practice medicine, or their quality as an applicant, is not explained.
The workbook further reminds applicants to submit their scores on the PREview exam, a test ostensibly aimed at measuring skills and competencies related to professionalism, which is increasingly becoming mandatory at more and more schools.
As Do No Harm previously reported, one of the goals of the PREview exam is to promote “inclusivity” and “level the playing field” for applicants. The exam was also assessed by “experts” in DEI.
“In discussing the exam with our DEI constituents, the sentiment has always been that it would help level the playing field for applicants,” said David Acosta, MD, AAMC chief diversity and inclusion officer, in a 2022 statement.
All these facts together paint a compelling picture: the AMCAS application (and the AAMC more generally) appears less interested in recognizing individual achievement than in engineering outcomes through “holistic review.” By burying schools in layers of subjective social data, the process dilutes focus on what truly matters: intellectual ability, clinical promise, and dedication to patient care.
The comprehensive nature of the application is not neutral; it is a deliberate attempt to elevate social and political factors above merit. Medical education – and ultimately, patient care – will suffer if the next generation of doctors is chosen on the basis of activism rather than excellence.
After Do No Harm’s Lawsuit, ‘Black Doctors Directory’ Will Be Open to All Races
Uncategorized Pennsylvania DEI Hospital System, Medical School Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; August 25, 2025 – Do No Harm is pleased to announce that a Philadelphia-area physician directory, formerly known as the Black Doctors Directory, is now the Community Health and Wellness Directory. Ability to participate in the Community Health and Wellness Directory is not determined on the basis of race.
This after Do No Harm sued Penn Medicine, the Consortium of DEI Health Educators, and WURD Radio alleging that the directory excluded doctors based on race. Do No Harm argued that the directory should be open to all, including doctors of all races who treat black patients and work to improve their health. That litigation will now end.
“We are grateful that the directory is open to physicians of all races,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Do No Harm has long opposed ‘racial concordance,’ a thoroughly debunked theory that only breeds suspicion and prejudice. When medical providers prioritize expertise and high-quality care, patients will see better health outcomes.”
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 30,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.
American Physical Therapy Association Ditches Discriminatory Scholarship Programs
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) appears to have ditched discriminatory eligibility criteria from two of its scholarship programs.
In January, Do No Harm reported on two of the APTA’s discriminatory scholarship programs, financed through the organization’s Minority Scholarship Fund.
These included APTA’s Faculty Development Scholarship Award, which provided a monetary award to “minority faculty pursuing a postprofessional doctoral degree.”
The award’s eligibility criteria stated that applicants had to be “members of one of the following racial/ethnic minority groups: African American or Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic/Latino.”
The APTA also operated the PT Student and PTA Student Awards program, which likewise required applicants to be members of the aforementioned racial groups to receive the award.
These programs now appear to have been scrubbed from the APTA’s website.
While the Minority Scholarship Fund webpage is still up on the APTA website, its information page now links to an awards page titled “Access and Opportunity Scholarship Fund Awards.”
That page contains revised descriptions of both the Faculty Development Scholarship Award and the PT Student and PTA Student Awards, which lists several eligibility criteria, none of which make reference to diversity, minority status, underrepresented groups, or any other factor that would be used to discriminate on the basis of race.
The webpage that previously included the eligibility criteria for the discriminatory awards programs likewise redirects to the “Access and Opportunity Scholarship Fund Awards’ page.
Additionally, the “Honors & Awards Programs” webpage, which previously linked to the discriminatory Faculty Development Scholarship Award and PT Student and PTA Student Awards, no longer mentions either of these programs.
These changes appear to have occurred at some point within the past two months; the webpages for the discriminatory awards programs were live as recently as June.
Do No Harm credits the APTA for eliminating the divisive, discriminatory eligibility criteria from its scholarship programs.
These opportunities should be open to all, not restricted to individuals on the basis of their race.
There’s a DEI Emergency in the Medical Field
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffIn recent years, states across the country, as well as the federal government, have taken action targeting divisive and discriminatory DEI programs in the medical field.
This has likely prompted some institutions, such as the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), to scrub the more overt references to racially discriminatory practices from their public websites. The American College of Surgeons, perhaps seeing which way the winds were blowing, attempted to rebrand itself and downplay its diversity commitments.
These changes appear to be largely cosmetic rather than a collective “Road to Damascus” moment, but they do signify a growing awareness among medical institutions that their radical ideological activism is no longer palatable to the public, policymakers, and healthcare professionals alike.
However, many medical associations still haven’t gotten the memo.
The National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) broadcasts its commitment to DEI loud and proud, maintaining a DEI committee and multiple resources expounding on the virtues of DEI ideology.
In its “Essential Principles to Create an Equitable, Inclusive, and Diverse EMS Workforce and Work Environment” document, the NAEMSP lists multiple principles that appear facially discriminatory.
These include:
Taken together, these principles represent a fairly overt commitment to engage in discriminatory behavior, using the guise of “diversity” and “equity” to inject dangerous and racist influences and quotas into the recruitment and hiring process.
And from the principles’ citations, it’s clear the NAEMSP includes racial minorities in its definition of “URM.”
Moreover, the principles commit the NAEMSP to engage in forms of social justice activism, including a focus on combating “systemic racism.” Examples include:
The NAEMSP has also evangelized these ideals through a number of town halls and webinars.
One event, titled “Cultivating A Culturally Competent Culture: Building Diverse and Inclusive EMS Agencies,” includes an action plan urging attendees to diversify their workplaces.
As recently as June 2025, the NAEMSP’s DEI committee hosted a happy hour and virtual recruiting event.
The NAEMSP’s open endorsement of hiring and recruitment practices that favor certain groups on the basis of race or identity is promoting discrimination, full stop.
This undermines the very foundation of medicine, which should prioritize competence, training, and skill above all else. Patients deserve to be treated by the best doctors and EMS professionals, not by those selected to satisfy ideological and identity-based goals.
North Carolina offers GOP road map for malpractice reform in minor gender transition cases
Uncategorized North Carolina Gender Ideology State legislature Media Mention Do No Harm StaffDr. Jared Ross, a senior fellow at the Do No Harm medical advocacy group, told the Washington Examiner that rushing adolescents into irreversible interventions without a comprehensive mental health evaluation violates basic medical ethics.
“If you ignore trauma, depression, or other psychiatric conditions and move straight to hormones or surgery, you are not practicing evidence-based medicine,” Ross said. “These lawsuits are a predictable result.”
Read the full story at The Washington Examiner.