Top Med Schools Weed Out DEI-Skeptical Applicants, New Report Finds By Isaac Schorr
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, which was obtained by National Review. “Many were overt in asking applicants if they agreed with certain statements about racial politics and the causes of disparate health outcomes.”
According to the report, medical schools are asking these questions in order to “turn ideological support for health equity and social justice initiatives into a credential that increases an applicant’s chance of acceptance,” “screen out dissenters,” and “signal to all applicants that they are expected to support this new cause.”
“Top medical schools have woven their commitment to woke politics into their application process, asking future doctors to prove their commitment to divisive ideologies or risk being rejected from medical school.” concludes the report.
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb founded Do No Harm after serving as associate dean at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. In his view, the use of ideologically slanted application questions will stunt the development of those applicants who do make it through the gauntlet to enter a top medical school.
“The questions posed in the secondary applications require a specific mindset and a well-defined political ideology for an applicant to succeed in their quest to enter medical school. This rigidity in thinking prevents real freedom of thought,” Goldfarb told National Review.
The questions identified in the report vary in their implicit assumptions and the extent to which they probe applicants. Some ask about the unique experiences and challenges that applicants may have faced, or name-check diversity and ask in very general terms about its importance.
Others are more direct. The University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine, for example, professes to be interested in combating all forms of systemic barriers” and entreats applicants to share their “thoughts on opposing… systemic racism, anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, and misogyny.”
“How will you contribute?” the application asks.
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical School asks prospective attendees to “describe an interaction or experience that has made you more sensitive or appreciative of cultural differences, and/ or how you have committed yourself to understanding and aiding in the pursuit of equity and inclusion in your academic, professional or personal life.”
At the University of Minnesota, applicants are first told that “our country is reckoning with its history, racism, racial injustice, and especially anti-black racism.” Then they’re asked to share their “reflections on, experiences with, and greatest lessons learned about systemic racism.”
And at the University of Miami, applicants are bluntly queried about what they have “done to help identify, address and correct an issue of systemic discrimination?” None of the aforementioned schools responded to a request for comment.
Goldfarb dismissed the idea that these questions are merely being used to deduce whether applicants have a baseline level of respect for people coming from various backgrounds, or greater purpose for pursuing a career in medicine.
“The classic question, ‘Why do you want to become a physician?’ could get at motivation without invoking race. There should not be a litmus test for students to show their progressive bona fides in order to qualify for medical school,” he said.
Goldfarb himself can tell his own story about political dogma in the medical field. Earlier this year, he was denounced by his former colleagues at UPenn after he sent a tweet questioning whether the underperformance of minority medical students is entirely attributable to discrimination.
For this crime, Goldfarb’s punishment was having his tweet called “racist” by the chair of the Medicine Department, who pledged in an email sent to the entire Perelman community to “continue to fight the biases and injustices that erode the health of our nation.”
A Change.org petition was started and circulated by Project Diversify Medicine, a kind of anti-Do No Harm, seeking to have his affiliation with the university as a professor emeritus severed.
Because he’s reached the end of his academic career, Goldfarb has explained the vitriol directed toward him as being driven by the fact that his detractors “know they can’t hurt” him. But for students trying to get into or thrive on medical school campuses, there’s much more to lose.
Comments are closed.
