DNH_MediaHit_WashingtonFreeBeacon

Pfizer Hit With Lawsuit Over Fellowship That Excludes Whites and Asians

Pfizer is being sued for excluding whites and Asians from its prestigious “Breakthrough Fellowship,” a nine-year program that includes a fully funded master’s degree and guaranteed employment with the pharmaceutical giant.

The lawsuit, filed on Thursday by the medical advocacy group Do No Harm, says that the program’s exclusionary criteria violate five different civil rights laws: the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which bans racial discrimination in contracting; New York City and New York State’s human rights laws, which ban race discrimination in internships, training programs, and employment; Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans race discrimination in federally funded entities; and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which bans race discrimination in federally funded health care programs.

Read more on the Washington Free Beacon.

DNH_MediaHit_BostonGlobe

Antiracism effort in health care could itself lead to bias

,

Everyone involved in health care can agree on two truths: First, many minority populations have unequal access to care. Second, as a result, they often have disparate health outcomes.

Yet acknowledging these truths does not lead to LaShyra Nolen’s conclusion that health care must be “antiracist” (“Woke medicine doesn’t mean worse medicine,” Ideas, Sept. 11). In practice, what Nolen calls for could lead to health care that deliberately discriminates on the basis of race — a false cure.

To see what antiracism means, consider the antiracist pilot program that two Harvard Medical School professors announced last year at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. They pledged to provide a “preferential admission option” for certain minority patients, requiring overt discrimination by skin color. Writ large, antiracism would embed this divisive and dangerous practice across all of health care. Patients could be denied or delayed treatment, not because of their medical needs, but because of their race.

By all means, let’s break down barriers that prevent many minorities from accessing care. But let’s not push the life-saving institution of health care toward racial discrimination of any kind and the resulting damage it could entail.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb
Bryn Mawr, Pa.

The writer is chairman of the advocacy group Do No Harm and former associate dean of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

DNH_MediaHit_WashingtonExaminer

Lawsuit claims Pfizer fellowship discriminates against whites and Asians

A national association of medical professionals has filed a lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Pfizer , alleging that the company runs a fellowship that illegally excludes white and Asian American applicants.

Do No Harm claimed that Pfizer’s Breakthrough Fellowship Program violates several state and federal laws as it is racially discriminatory and requires that applicants meet its stated aim of “increasing the pipeline for Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic and Native Americans.”

Read more on the Washington Examiner.

DNH_MediaHitGold_NationalReview

Pfizer Sued for Discriminating against White, Asian Fellowship Applicants

Do No Harm, a nonprofit whose mission is to “protect health care from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology,” recently sued Pfizer, arguing that the pharmaceutical giant’s “Breakthrough Fellowship Program” illegally discriminates by race.

Pfizer describes the fellowship on its website as “a nine-year commitment to increase minority representation at Pfizer, designed to enhance our pipeline of diverse leaders.” The program “works to advance students and early career colleagues of Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic and Native American descent with a goal of developing 100 fellows by 2025.”

Read more on National Review.

DNH_MediaHitGold_WSJ

Critical Race Theory Is Bad Medicine

,

The American College of Surgeons promotes the latest political quackery.

My membership in the American College of Surgeons goes back almost 30 years. The 84,000-member professional society’s sole focus should be improving the standard of surgical care, but in recent years the college has made a priority of promoting critical race theory and so-called antiracism. Like many radicalized organizations, the college has taken to punishing members who raise concerns over its new agenda.

The college’s elevation of ideology—and demotion of surgery—was swift. I saw the first signs in 2019, when the college invited Joan Y. Reede to deliver its prestigious annual lecture. Dr. Reede is dean for diversity and community partnership at Harvard Medical School. The topic of her speech was “a path toward diversity, inclusion, and excellence.”

Read more at the Wall Street Journal.

Richard Bosshardt, M.D. is a visiting fellow at Do No Harm.

DNH_MediaHit_WashTimes_v3

Health care journal sued for excluding White candidates from fellowship

A health care advocacy group has filed a federal lawsuit against the journal Health Affairs, alleging it violated the Civil Rights Act by excluding White candidates from a racial equity fellowship.

Do No Harm filed the lawsuit last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It alleges that the monthly journal’s Health Equity Fellowship for Trainees defies the law’s color-blind definition of racial discrimination under Title VI because publisher Project HOPE accepts government funding.

Read more on the Washington Times.

DNH_MediaHit_DailyCaller

‘The Bible Of Health Policy’ Offers A Race-Based Fellowship Program

A prestigious health journal offers a fellowship that appears to bar white applicants from joining, according to a complaint against the program filed in a U.S. District Court and obtained by the Daily Caller.

Health Affairs is currently accepting applications for its “Health Equity Fellowship,” which requires that applicants identify as “American Indian/Alaskan Native, African American/Black, Asian American, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino.” Applicants must also be researching topics that advance “racial health equity among historically marginalized populations.”

The program is designed to “advance racial equity in health policy and health services scholarly publishing.”

Read more on the Daily Caller.

DNH_MediaHitGold_Fox

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.

DNH_MediaHit_DailyMail

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.

DNH_MediaHit_NewYorkPost

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.

DNH_MediaHitGold_Brietbart

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.

DNH_MediaHit_Newsmax

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.

DNH_MediaHitGold_NationalReview

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.

DNH_MediaHit_CityJournal

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.

DNH_MediaHit_TheCollegeFix

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.

DNH_MediaHit_TheGazette

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.

DNH_MediaHit_NewYorkPost

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.

DNH_MediaHitGold_Fox

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.