Lawsuit claims fellowship for minorities is illegal for banning White applicants: ‘Blatant discrimination’

EXCLUSIVE — Nonprofit organization Do No Harm filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against Health Affairs and Project Hope, claiming a fellowship for minorities is illegal because of “blatant discrimination” against White applicants. 

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Health Affairs, a prominent health policy journal and its parent company Project Hope are “running a race-segregated health journal fellowship” called Health Equity Fellowship for Trainees. 

Do No Harm chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb said his organization is “opposed to discrimination in all of its manifestations,” including a fellowship program solely for non-White applicants.

“To propose a fellowship program whose key requirement is skin color is blatant discrimination. If the goal is to promote students with less opportunity, then promote such students without racial stipulations. We have civil rights laws in this nation to prevent this sort of racialism and this lawsuit helps promote those laws,” Dr. Goldfarb told Fox News Digital. 

Read more on Fox News.

Experts SLAM leading medical schools in the US for valuing ‘wokeism’ over actually making students into good doctors

, , , , , , ,

Leading United States medical schools are beginning to value ‘wokeism’ instead of teaching and preparing the next generation of doctors, experts warn.

Dr Stanley Goldfarb, a nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania and often-critic of woke values in the medical field, penned an op-ed for the New York Post warning that many of the nation’s leading medical schools are screening prospective students for progressive beliefs before they do for actual medical talent.

He highlights top programs at Harvard Medical School, Columbia University, Duke University, the University of Pittsburgh and others asking applicants to answer questions about their understanding of racism, social and political issues – and how they will contribute towards progressivism in their studies.

Read more on Daily Mail.

Top med school putting wokeism ahead of giving America good doctors

, , ,

Elite medical schools are deliberately recruiting woke activists, jeopardizing their mission of training physicians.

That’s what our organization found in a review of the application process for America’s top 50 medical schools. Nearly three-quarters of these institutions — and 80% of the top 10 — ask applicants about their views on diversity, equity, inclusion, anti-racism and other politicized concepts. The clear goal is to find the students who will best advance divisive ideology, not provide the best care to patients.

We based our review on the 2023 “Best Medical Schools” rankings by US News and World Report. We then looked at the secondary essay questions each school asks applicants, using a database compiled by Prospective Doctor. (Despite the name, secondary questions play a primary role in each institution’s selection process.)

Many schools explicitly ask applicants if they agree with statements about racial politics. Others gauge applicants’ views on or experience with woke concepts.

Harvard Medical School, the top-ranked institution, takes the latter approach. It asks applicants to share their “significant challenges in access to education, unusual socioeconomic factors, identification with a minority culture, religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.” It then encourages applicants to “explain how such factors have influenced your motivation for a career in medicine.” Translation: Tell us how you want to solve social and political problems.

The same holds true for Columbia University’s Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is tied for third. It states its commitment to “diversity,” then asks applicants to prove how their “background and experiences” will “contribute to this important focus of our institution.”

Other medical schools are more direct. Duke University School of Medicine, tied for sixth place, asks applicants to describe their “understanding of race and its relationship to inequities in health and health care.” Before doing so, they’re told about “Duke’s collective stand against systemic racism and injustice.”

Duke further states that it expects students to go beyond “passive moments of reflection and becom[e] more active as we build to make lasting change.”

The University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, ranked 14th, is even more blunt. It tells applicants: “We are interested in combating all forms of systemic barriers, and would like to hear your thoughts on opposing specifically: systemic racism, anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, and misogyny.” It then doubles down with the ask: “How will you contribute?”

Similarly, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School (#25) wants applicants to demonstrate “how you have committed yourself to understanding and aiding in the pursuit of equity and inclusion in your academic, professional or personal life.” How such activism relates to medicine is never stated.

Ditto at #43-ranked University of Miami Miller College of Medicine, where applicants must answer: “What have you done to help identify, address and correct an issue of systemic discrimination?” The answer can come from any facet of life, not just medicine.

Across these medical schools, there is now a default assumption that applicants understand and accept the tenets of woke ideology. That’s why the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA (ranked 19th) can ask applicants to describe how “inequity has impacted you or your community and how educational disparity, health disparity and/or marginalization has impacted you and your community.”

The University of Minnesota Medical School (#43) states with confidence that “our country is reckoning with its history, racism, racial injustice, and especially anti-black racism.” Applicants must “share your reflections on, experiences with, and greatest lessons learned about systemic racism,” which assumes such racism is an inarguable fact of life.

Naturally, this worrisome trend extends far beyond elite medical schools. We found a larger number of lower-ranked institutions asking applicants to demonstrate their woke bona fides as well — everything from SUNY Downstate Medical Center to Loyola University’s Stritch School of Medicine. It appears the majority of American medical schools now actively screen for ideologically aligned students.

And it’s not just students. Many schools are also moving to require that professors be woke, as well. For instance, the Indiana University School of Medicine recently approved new standards for faculty promotion and tenure. They are now “required to show effort toward advancing DEI.”

Medical schools are rushing down a dangerous road. These institutions have long lowered application and educational standards in the name of diversity; now they are enacting an ideological litmus test for future physicians.

Recruiting woke activists instead of the most qualified candidates will both undermine trust in health care and lead to worse health outcomes for patients. That’s the last thing medical schools should do.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb is chairman of Do No Harm, where Laura L. Morgan, a registered nurse, is program manager.

72% of America’s Top Medical Schools Use Racial Politics to Eliminate Applicants

Seventy-two percent of America’s top medical schools use racial politics to weed out applicants, according to a review conducted by medical advocacy group Do No Harm.

According to the review, 72 percent of the nation’s top 50 schools and 80 percent of the top ten ask “probing questions to elicit responses from the applicant about his or her views on diversity, equity, and inclusion topics.”

Read more on Breitbart.

Biden Pushes Racial Equity, Not Equality

Unless you’re a member of a minority protected class of persons, brace yourself to be treated unfairly by the Biden administration.

President Biden is pushing racial equity – that’s actually very different from equal treatment regardless of race. Racial equity means government can treat people unequally, to equalize outcomes. For the Biden administration, it means closing the wealth gap.

By whatever means.

Read more on Newsmax.

Top Med Schools Weed Out Applicants Who Don’t Support DEI, New Report Says

The best medical schools in the country are weeding out applicants who are insufficiently devoted to the leftist creed of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), according to a new report released by the non-profit Do No Harm.

Do No Harm, a nonprofit dedicated to “protect[ing] healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology,” conducted an analysis of medical school application processes which found that these selective institutions are raising an additional barrier to entry on top of the strenuous testing and grade requirements.

“A review of the admissions process at 50 of the top-ranked medical schools found that 36 asked applicants their views on, or experience in, DEI efforts,” reads the Do No Harm report. “Many were overt in asking applicants if they agreed with certain statements about racial politics and the causes of disparate health outcomes.”

Read more on National Review.

The Disastrous Push to Resegregate Health Care

Racial segregation is returning to health care, driven by a new generation of woke activists. The seminal study advocating this backward policy was released in June 2018 and revised three years ago this month. Titled “Does Diversity Matter For Health: Experimental Evidence from Oakland” and published in the American Economic Review, it argued that matching black patients with black physicians would save lives. The medical establishment immediately took up the banner of “racial concordance” between physicians and patients.

But the Oakland study is fatally flawed. In a new analysis, we show the shortcuts and un-scientific methods its authors used. No sound evidence supports resegregating health care, and taking this dangerous road will surely lead to worse health outcomes.

It’s important to realize how the Oakland study is reshaping health care, starting with the push for diversity in medical education and training. There aren’t enough minority physicians to make racial concordance a reality—so to get more nonwhite physicians, medical schools are ditching the MCAT for some minority students, while trainee assessments are being changed to minimize the documented differences in performance between white and so-called underrepresented minorities. These policies require lower standards, a direct threat to patient health.

Medical providers are also moving toward racial concordance. A February 2021 leak showed that UnitedHealth Group, the largest health-insurance company in America, supports matching patients with physicians based on their race. Activists are pushing hospitals and policymakers to follow suit. Yet these measures inherently undermine trust—a key part of health care—between patients and physicians with different skin colors.

The Oakland study does not justify this campaign. The authors conclude that racial concordance would lead to better health screening, leading to “a 19 percent reduction in the black-white male cardiovascular mortality gap and an 8 percent decline in the black-white male life expectancy gap.” The authors admit, however, that these are “back of the envelope calculations.” They should have designed a better study.

The first problem is that the Oakland study contains no meaningful control group. The authors recruited more than 1,300 black men from local barbershops and flea markets. The patients were randomly paired with a black or nonblack physician who attempted to persuade them to take preventative checkups. The patients generally agreed to more services with the black physicians, leading to the study’s conclusions.

Yet without a substantial control group of non-black patients, there was no way to test for many possible variables, such as the effectiveness or persuasiveness of these particular physicians unrelated to their race. The researchers belatedly tried to create a quasi-control group of 12 nonblack patients who were accidentally recruited. But this sample almost certainly differs in both observable and unobservable characteristics from the sample group, which means the two aren’t comparable.

The second problem is an abundance of unproven logical leaps. The authors believe that five one-time interventions—such as blood pressure measurement and diabetes testing—will transform individual health. Yet preventative screening is effective only if used in a patient with a high likelihood of being at risk for a particular clinical condition, something the study made no attempt to discern. These procedures also generally need to be combined with lifestyle changes and medication adherence. The researchers accounted for none of this, discounting the study’s astounding findings.

The third problem is that both the patients and physicians were unrepresentative. The patients who came to the checkups were, on average, more likely to be unemployed, less likely to have a high school diploma, and older than the general black male population. As for the physicians, only 14 were used—eight nonblack, six black. The authors use percentages to imply a far larger sample, noting in one case that 67 percent of black physicians in the study specialized in internal medicine, but that simply means four out of six. Such a small and non-random sample of physicians is not generalizable to the medical profession.

Why has such a poorly designed study seen no sustained pushback? Simple: medical journals are overrun by the same ideology that surely motivated the Oakland study itself. Academics are tacitly encouraged to submit papers that support this agenda, while those who raise questions are ignored or denied publication. The Oakland study has been uncritically referenced or relied upon by hundreds of subsequent studies and papers. Only one academic paper has raised concerns; it was subsequently retracted and its author disciplined by his medical school. The author maintains that his punishment constitutes retribution for opposing affirmative-action programs in cardiology.

On the basis of faulty research, and with no meaningful debate, health care is at risk of being resegregated. Yet more credible assessments, including a prominent 2011 study of a database of 22,000 patients, show that racial concordance between physicians and patients doesn’t produce meaningful improvements in health outcomes. Of course, patients should be free to choose their own physicians, including those who look like them. But they shouldn’t be pushed to take this path; nor should medical educators, providers, and policymakers deliberately undermine trust and lower the standards of physicians and medicals care. Segregation was horrible in the American past; it will do terrible harm now, too.

Stanley Goldfarb, a physician and former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, is chairman of Do No Harm, where Alexander Raikin is a research fellow.

Medical colleges group’s new curriculum addresses ‘racism, hate, and bias in health care’

‘We believe this topic deserves just as much attention from learners and educators at every stage of their careers as the latest scientific breakthroughs’

The Association of American Medical Colleges recently released Diversity, Equity and Inclusion competencies for medical educators as it works to address what it calls “factors that drive racism, hate, and bias in health care.”

The DEI competencies are meant to be used to help scholars and students progress on their “DEI journeys,” the association states. But some critics contend the new curriculum advances progressive ideologies.

“The AAMC is injecting political ideology into medical education and this can only detract from the real purpose of educating physicians to care for ill patients,” Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, told The College Fix in an email August 1.

Read more on The College Fix.

Corruption of healthcare comes to Colorado Springs

, ,

The same divisive ideology that’s corrupting K-12 schools and threatening funding for public safety is rapidly taking over healthcare. It goes by many names: “Critical Race Theory,” “anti-racism,” “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and more. But whatever you call it, it destroys patient trust in healthcare and leads to racial discrimination that hurts patient health. Look no further than a major conference taking place in Colorado Springs this week.

From July 30 to August 2, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation is gathering in this city. ABIM, as the board is called, certifies tens of thousands of physicians who provide life-saving care to tens of millions of Americans. Yet like virtually every healthcare institution these days, this group is putting identity politics ahead of caring for individual patients.

The two of us come at this issue from different angles. We are, respectively, a white Jewish physician who’s devoted his career to teaching medical students, and a black South African immigrant and patient advocate who came to America after living through the racial discrimination of apartheid. We’ll say at the outset that ABIM is surely well-intentioned. But its actions are a direct threat to physicians and patients alike.

To start, the board is pushing dangerous concepts like “structural racism” and “implicit bias.” It’s essentially saying that healthcare is harmful to minority patients, and worse, that physicians themselves are inherently prejudiced against people who don’t look like them. Yet ABIM provides no credible evidence to prove this brazen assertion. And by accusing physicians of being biased or racist, the board is ruining the trust on which healthcare depends.

Think about it. If you’re a black patient and someone tells you that healthcare is racist and your physician is biased, would you seek out medical care? Repeating this claim will drive people away from healthcare and hurt their health. That’s the last thing a medical institution like ABIM should want. Incredibly, promoting trust in healthcare and countering misinformation is one of the major themes of this week’s conference, yet distrust and misinformation are exactly what it’s spreading.

What’s more, the board has promised to be “actively anti-racist.” While that sounds nice in principle, in practice, it means endorsing racial discrimination. The founder of anti-racism has explicitly said so. In the context of healthcare, anti-racism means forcing physicians to provide different levels of access to people of different colors. What’s worse, it means providing different standards of care.

This is truly terrifying. Physicians have a duty to treat every patient fairly, providing them with the best care possible. And patients’ lives literally depend on it.

Sadly, the board is spreading these dangerous ideas far and wide. It’s spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to indoctrinate medical professionals, while naively claiming it will build “a more trustworthy health system.” Finally, by pushing physicians to spend more time on identity politics, the board is inherently giving them less time to focus on concepts and practices that actually matter to medicine. The board is lowering the standard of medical care, while claiming to be raising the bar.

Sadly, what’s happening at the American Board of Internal Medicine is the same thing that’s happening across virtually the entire medical field. Hospitals are experimenting with preferential race-based care. Medical schools are lowering standards (and endangering patient) in the name of diversity. And policymakers are pushing providers to fixate on race and gender above anything else.

What’s happening at the conference this week in Colorado Springs should worry everyone. As a white physician and black patient advocate, we urge people to take notice – and take action to drive these divisive and discriminatory ideas out of healthcare.

We must fight back against health care’s terrifying conquest by the radically woke

,

All Americans should be terrified of what’s about to happen in health care. The same radical woke activists who’ve corrupted K-12 education and public safety are about to force every medical student to learn and practice divisive, discriminatory and downright dangerous things. What happens in medical school will ultimately corrupt all of health care, and as a longtime medical educator, I’m calling on policymakers to fight back.

The looming threat comes courtesy of the Association of American Medical Colleges. The AAMC, which administers the Medical College Admission Test, represents 171 US and Canadian medical schools along with more than 400 teaching hospitals and health systems. One of its key roles is developing standards for the topics and concepts medical students must learn. And what, you ask, are the latest requirements? You guessed it: diversity, equity and inclusion.

Rolled out in mid-July, these new standards are overtly ideological. They will train medical students for political activism as much as medical care. Don’t take my word for it: When announcing the standards, the AAMC’s president and chair of its council of deans declared that woke identity politics “deserves just as much attention from learners and educators at every stage of their careers as the latest scientific breakthroughs.”

These standards have radical expectations for what medical-school graduates, residency graduates and faculty physician teachers must know and do. For instance, med-school grads must be fully versed in so-called “intersectionality.” This includes “demonstrat[ing] evidence of self-reflection and how one’s personal identities, biases, and lived experience” influence clinical practice, as well as identifying a “patient’s multiple identities and how each may result in varied and multiple forms of oppression.”

Oppression is a consistent theme. Graduates must describe “the impact of various systems of oppression on health and healthcare,” including “colonialism, White Supremacy, acculturation, [and] assimilation.” They must also identify “systems of power, privilege and oppression,” including “white privilege, racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, [and] religious oppression.” Once graduates identify the oppressed, they are expected to practice “allyship,” which is defined as “recogniz[ing] their privilege” and “work[ing] in solidarity with oppressed groups in the struggle for justice.”

Elsewhere, the standards declare that graduates must “articulate race as a social construct that is a cause of health and health care inequities.” And they must look beyond health care itself to “identify and address social risk factors,” like “food security, housing, utilities, [and] transportation.” Translation: Medical students will be expected to advocate political causes that have nothing to do with treating patients.

The expectations for residency graduates and training physicians expand on these divisive themes. The former must translate concepts like “anti-racism” into clinical practice, which means discriminating on the basis of race, either by providing different levels of access to or levels of care. The latter must be “role models” for med students, showing them how to “engage with systems to disrupt oppressive practices.” At every level of medical education, there will be no escape from the brainwashing.

I cannot overstate the danger. (And I can also attest, sadly, that medical schools are already teaching many of these dangerous concepts.) As I know firsthand, it’s a struggle to help medical students learn everything they need to succeed as physicians in the care of increasingly complex and sick patients. The courses that schools will design under these standards will eat up the valuable time that students should spend on actual science and hands-on practice. And the real-world harm will be severe.

Imagine future physicians lecturing patients about their privilege, failing to adequately manage immediate medical needs due to distraction with social issues like housing and employment and delaying (or even denying) care for patients of certain skin colors in the name of “equity.” The standards will create physicians who are less prepared for clinical practice and more likely to discriminate in their daily work, ultimately leading to worse care for all patients and less public trust in this essential and lifesaving field.

The woke conquest of health care is nearly complete. Once these principles are implemented, through accreditation standards or postgraduate testing, they will be nearly impossible to roll back. But that’s the point: The activist crowd has worked hard to capture the commanding heights of medical education because it determines the future of health care.

The only recourse I see is for state leaders to prevent the standards’ implementation or medical schools’ teaching of the underlying concepts. Boards of regents should intervene, lawmakers should limit funding or outright prohibit such indoctrination, and governors and attorneys general should take steps to protect students. The medical establishment itself is driving health care’s politicized decline, so someone else will have to save it.

Association of American Medical Colleges slammed for pushing critical race theory on students

The group that sets the standards for medical education recently released standards that force students to study and apply ideology typically pushed by the far-left while integrating diversity, equity, and inclusion into formal curricula. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) published the New and Emerging Areas in Medicine series to help students benefit from “advancements in medical education over the past 20 years,” and the third report from the collection “focuses on competencies for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).”

The report notes that recent medical school graduates must demonstrate “knowledge about the role of explicit and implicit bias in delivering high-quality healthy care,” “describe past and current examples of racism and oppression,” identify “systems of power, privilege and oppression and their impacts on health outcomes” including “White privilege, racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, religious oppression” and “articulate race as a social construct that is a cause of health and health care inequities.”

Read more on Fox News.

Medical Education Goes Woke

The woke dom­i­na­tion of Amer­i­can higher ed­u­ca­tion can seem trag­i­cally comic when it’s con­fined to the Eng­lish de­part­ment. But when it in­fil­trates the hard sciences, far more is at stake. Read and wince at how woke pol­i­tics is about to infect med­ical ed­u­ca­tion.

New diversity standards for medical schools fuel ‘woke health care’ debate

A leading medical school association’s new diversity curriculum has sparked claims of discrimination against straight, White male doctors among conservative medical groups.

The Association of American Medical Colleges’ “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Competencies Across the Learning Continuum,” published this month, advises faculty and administrators on how to make students consider their “identity, power and privilege” when treating patients.

Students training under the new standards will be required to master the concepts of oppression, White privilege, social risk factors, “race as a social construct,” colonialism and intersectionality — “how one’s personal identities, biases, and lived experience” influence clinical practice.

Read more on the Washington Times.

Race Medicine: New Medical School Standards Require ‘Competencies’ in ‘White Privilege,’ ‘Anti-Colonialism’

The Association of American Medical Colleges released new standards for teaching medicine that require students to achieve “competencies” in “white privilege,” “anti-colonialism,” and “race as a social construct,” among other race-essentialist ideas.

“Since the founding of the United States, there have been systemic health and health care inequities grounded in racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and other forms of discrimination that still permeate our current health system,” the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Competencies Across the Learning Continuum,” which the AAMC released this month, states.

Read more on Breitbart.

Medical schools risk accreditation for not teaching antiracism ‘competencies,’ med group warns

Under new curriculum standards, or “competencies,” from the influential Association of American Medical Colleges, medical schools could be required to teach students to identify “systems of power, privilege, and oppression” — systems like white privilege, “heterosexism” and ableism — “and their impacts on health outcomes.”

If implemented, the standards could require students to practice “anti-racism and critical consciousness in health care” and describe how “colonization, White supremacy, acculturation, [and] assimilation” affect health.

Read more on Just The News.

New policy to force Indiana University med school faculty to push diversity, equity and inclusion

Boost tenure chances by giving classes on LGBT awareness to high schoolers

Indiana University’s medical school will require professors to prove a commitment to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” as part of their evaluations.

The Faculty Steering Committee at the IU School of Medicine voted in favor of legislation “requiring faculty to report activities in diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The new requirement will be “phased in over the next three years,” according to an announcement from the university.

The College Fix reached out twice via email in the past week to the med school’s executive director of faculty affairs, Neelam Chand, and the media relations team, but neither responded to requests for comment. The Fix asked for an update and what the next steps are for this initiative.

Read more on The College Fix.

The Diversity Delusion Comes To Health Care | Opinion

,

Follow the evidence. It’s a foundational tenet of health care, as it is of all scientific inquiry. Yet today’s medical establishment is unwilling to confront the consequences of its attempts to maximize diversity. After years of lowering standards for applicants, medical schools are more diverse than ever before. Yet new studies show that many students are struggling, putting their future patients and careers at risk. Rather than revisit the means by which they are pursuing diversity, however, the medical elite want to double down on their failing course.

The campaign for diversity is long running and has some value, yet the ideological extremism of the past two years has led medical schools to adopt dangerous strategies. To fight supposed “systemic racism,” at least 40 institutions have dropped the requirement that all applicants take the MCAT, the gold-standard test that measures students’ grasp of this life-saving profession. The University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, where I used to work, now waives the MCAT for a number of applicants each year, primarily from Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

It’s also getting harder to gauge whether graduates are well prepared. The U.S. Medical Licensing Exam, which residencies rely on when picking trainees, recently abandoned objective grading for a pass/fail system, largely on diversity grounds. And calls are growing for post-graduate resident evaluations to be weakened as well. That would let potentially unqualified individuals enter medical practice and endanger patient well being.

Sadly, increasingly vocal student and faculty activists have made clear to the medical establishment that raising concerns about these trends is verboten. Enter three new studies, which show that putting diversity ahead of quality has consequences.

The first study, published in May in the well-respected journal Academic Medicine, found that MCAT scores generally predict student outcomes. Those with lower scores fare worse over their four years in the classroom, and the strong correlation between MCAT scores and student success holds across racial, ethnic, and socio-economic lines. Left unspoken was the criticism of the putsch against the MCAT.

The second study came courtesy of another May issue of Academic Medicine. It looked at minority medical students’ readiness for the profession, as judged by clinical evaluations during their post-graduate residencies, when they begin to work directly with patients. On average, they scored lower on measures of medical knowledge, medical practice, professionalism, and several other essential indicators.

To be clear, many minority students surely excelled, while others brought the average down. The authors attributed their findings to biased evaluators, racist tests, or worse training, but if you put ideology aside, the more likely conclusion is that lower standards for students leads to worse performance by residents.

The final study was published by the news site Stat. In a thorough investigation of post-graduate residencies, it found that black residents “either leave or are terminated from training programs at far higher rates than white residents.” Stat assumes that racism accounts for this disparity, but the other studies point to a simpler and more credible explanation: after struggling in medical school and falling short in key professional indicators, some residents simply lose their positions due to poor performance. As a longtime medical educator, I can attest that no training program would make this difficult and disruptive decision for any reason other than competence and concern for patients.

Such findings should spark a diversity rethink among medical school administrators. They should be deeply concerned that they’re accepting and graduating a growing number of students who may not be ready for the rigors of the profession. They should also be concerned that more qualified students are likely being passed over, leaving patients with a less talented crop of doctors over the long run.

But a rethink is not what medical schools want. That would require questioning the ideological assumption that patients need to see physicians of the same race and gender, an idea contradicted by robust clinical studies. More to the point, it would call into question the entire diversity-industrial complex.

When I recently highlighted the troubling nature of the second study, academic medicine largely rallied to attack me. The chair of the Medicine Department at Penn’s Perelman School of Medicine sent a note to all faculty, trainees, and staff decrying my “racist statements” and recommitting the school to diversity. This ideology runs so deep that I doubt medical schools will put student quality ahead of diversity unless policymakers require it, either by mandating the MCAT for all students or withholding funding from institutions that put skin color ahead of medical excellence.

People of every race and background are fully capable of becoming world-class physicians. Medical schools should seek out the best candidates who are most likely to provide the best care for patients, regardless of what they look like or where they come from. Anything less jeopardizes the very purpose of these institutions. The medical elite may not want to admit it, but their current approach to achieving diversity has a steep cost, and it’s wrong to ask patients to pay it.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, is chairman of Do No Harm.

‘Dismantling Racism’: Top Med School Uses CRT To Train Medical Professionals 

The University of California San Diego’s medical school is using critical race theory as a part of its curriculum to educate its students, a report shows.

“The Woke Invasion of Racial Politics into UCSD Medical Education,” a report, by Do No Harm, a group of medical professionals working to “protect healthcare from radical, divisive and discriminatory ideology,” says the medical school has a goal of “dismantling racism” through its curriculum. Aspects of the curriculum include lectures, protests and resources created “primarily in the wake of George Floyd,” according to the report.

Read more on The Daily Caller.