Over 70 medical schools maintain DEI offices, despite order from Education Department

More than 70 U.S. medical schools continue to staff offices promoting “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) in their recruitment and admission of students, despite a directive from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE).

The DOE’s order instructs universities receiving federal funding to cease using race preferences and stereotypes as factors in admissions, scholarships, hiring and other areas. 

In its latest research, medical advocacy and watchdog group Do No Harm found that scores of medical schools continue to maintain DEI offices, many as a cover for racially discriminatory practices. 

In February the DOE notified universities receiving federal tax dollars they must cease using race preferences and stereotypes “as a factor in their admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, scholarships” and other areas. Schools that fail to comply are subject to investigation and loss of federal funding. 

“For decades, schools have been operating on the pretext that selecting students for ‘diversity’ or similar euphemisms is not selecting them based on race,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor in announcing the action. “No longer. Students should be assessed according to merit, accomplishment, and character – not prejudged by the color of their skin. The Office for Civil Rights will enforce that commitment.” 

In a press release the DOE noted the DEI agenda at higher education institutions “has been accompanied by widespread censorship to establish a repressive viewpoint monoculture on our campuses and in our schools.” Actions have taken various forms, “including de-platforming speakers who articulate a competing view, using DEI offices and ‘bias response teams’ to investigate those who object to a school’s racial ideology, and compelling speech in the form of ’diversity statements’ and other loyalty tests. Ending the use of race preferences and race stereotyping in our schools is therefore also an important first step toward restoring norms of free inquiry and truth-seeking.” 

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that the use by Harvard and the University of North Carolina of racial considerations in admissions, which the schools justified on the grounds of “diversity,” served to discriminate against white and Asian applicants and to racially stereotype all applicants. 

The Court ruled the universities had wrongly concluded “the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin.” Central to the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, noted the Court, is that “an individual’s race may never be used against him in the admissions process” and “may not operate as a stereotype” in evaluating candidates for admission. 

Among the medical schools cited by Do No Harm are such prestigious institutions as Harvard, Yale, Rutgers, Boston University, Duke, and Georgetown University School of Medicine, to name a handful. 

Harvard’s DEI office, called the Office of Recruitment & Multicultural Affairs (ORMA), noted that it “focuses on the recruitment and support of medical students who are from groups historically underrepresented in medicine … and those who identify as LGBTQIA+.” 

Boston University’s Diversity + Inclusion Advisory Council said that it is “responsible for providing strategic direction towards building and sustaining a thriving, equitable, and inclusive culture that values racial equity, diversity, and inclusion at all levels of leadership. …” 

The goal of the Yale medical school’s DEI office is to “strengthen the pipeline of diverse individuals for healthcare and biomedical careers” and “to identify and recruit talented individuals from diverse backgrounds.” 

And the mission of the DEI office at Georgetown University School of Medicine is to provide “anti-performative, anti-oppressive DEI training, consulting, and project work. We aim to transform DEI … training to be both engaging, fun, and actionable, leading to sustained culture change.”