Are America's future doctors being taught to 'heal racism' rather than heal?

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) last week published an academic paper suggesting that medical education at its core is racist. It added that medical schools must make racism a focus for medical students, which includes segregating them by race.

The article’s seven authors, including four doctors, began with the premise that racism is “the root cause for all racially disparate health outcomes” and that medical education itself is racist.

“Since traditional approaches to medical education are themselves founded in inequitable systems, new approaches are essential,” wrote the authors. “Founded on legacies of colonialism and racism, medical education has historically centered White learners and continues to perpetuate structural racism,” they added.

The answer, say the authors, is “racial affinity group caucuses (RAGCs)”. This is described as classes in which participants are “grouped according to self-identified racial or ethnic identity to support integration of antiracism curricula into clinical practice.”

RAGCs are intended to protect students of color from dealing with day-to-day experiences and safeguard their fragility, providing them only with the experience they want to have in medical school.

“This environment buffers participants from (often daily) experiences of micro- and macro-aggressions, structural inequities, and isolating siloes in predominantly White institutions.” 

Students of color will also be able to “rage” against their White colleagues by discussing how they have experienced racism at the hands of White people “without the burden of educating or taking care of non-Black colleagues, and without facing the otherwise-common denial.”

As for White students, RAGCs will help them understand why they are guilty of racism and be “held accountable without burdening or retraumatizing BIPOC [black, Indigenous and people of color] colleagues who are affected by racism.” White students will also learn how to fix “their own internalized racism and sense of superiority that can obstruct antiracist commitment and action.”

Medical schools should also address the “general antiracism curricula that is integrated into medical training” and how “anti-Black racism is endemic to the culture of medicine”, according to the article.

The paper’s authors all come from the University of California, San Francisco, which is heavily funded by the federal government. UCSF boasts that for 16 years running it has received more funding from the National Institutes of Health annually than any other school. UCSF Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing and Pharmacy, as well as the Graduate Division, collectively received nearly $1 billion in grants last fiscal year alone.

The NEJM paper is part of a growing and concerning “diversity” trend that may be dramatically impacting US medical education.

Nearly 30 medical schools across the US no longer require applicants to take the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), according to a list published last month by Inspira Advantage. The exams have been dropped as a requirement due to “diversity” based on the premise that non-White applicants are simply unable to perform as well as their White counterparts.

The MCAT exam is a standardized test developed and administered by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which itself grades medical schools based on their commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), an ideology which views humans according to skin color and genitalia. The AAMC takes a “holistic” approach to admissions which takes factors such as skin color into account rather than just scholastic or medical aptitude.

“Race and ethnicity may be considered as factors when making admission-related decisions only when aligned with mission-related educational interests and goals associated with student diversity; and when considered as a broader mix of factors, which may include personal attributes, experiential factors, demographics, or other considerations,” says the AAMC’s website.

The AAMC defended its focus on “diversity” in a statement to the Daily Caller earlier this year. Much like the NEJM article’s authors, the AAMC believes that America’s health systems and education are racist.

“The AAMC and our member medical schools and teaching hospitals have an obligation to address the factors that drive racism and bias in health care and prepare physicians who are culturally responsive,” said AAMC Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer David A. Acosta, MD. “There is strong evidence that historically marginalized people and people who live in poverty disproportionately experience poor health and inadequate access to quality care. These inequities are often rooted in systemic discrimination, including racism, within the nation’s health systems that contributes to lower quality care.”

The AAMC enforces DEI at medical colleges through its accreditation arm, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), which makes DEI a requirement for accreditation. 

Many medical colleges now demand applicants pledge their commitment to DEI during the application process by asking pointed secondary (school-specific) questions.

Stanford Medical School, for example, makes it clear in one of its application questions that applicants must present proof of victimization to be considered:

The Committee on Admissions regards the diversity (broadly defined) of an entering class as an important factor in serving the educational mission of the school. You are strongly encouraged to share unique attributes of your personal identity, and/ or personally important or challenging factors in your background. Such discussions may include the quality of your early education, gender identity, sexual orientation, any physical challenges, or any other life or work experiences.

University of California, Irvine School of Medicine asks applicants a similar question:

Do you identify as being part of a marginalized group socioeconomically or in terms of access to quality education or healthcare? If so, please describe how this inequity has impacted you and your community.

Western University’s Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry asks applicants to explain DEI and “why they are important” while George Washington University’s School of Medicine and Health Sciences assumes that all applicants are motivated by DEI:

Describe how current issues regarding advocacy and social justice have impacted your motivation for medical school?

As one of its secondary questions, New York Medical College warns students to first comb through their social media accounts for any “dishonorable” content, whether past or present:

Is there anything in your social media presence (past, or present) that would bring discredit or dishonor on you, the institution, the program or profession (if applicable) or that could be considered derogatory, hateful, or threatening? (Yes/ No).

Accepted, an application consultation firm, cautions New York Medical College applicants to make sure their social media accounts do not reflect political arguments “other than reflecting values for diversity, equity and inclusion in genuine and meaningful ways, since these are values that medical schools wholly endorse.”

Tulane University School of Medicine openly asks its applicants for proof of victimization:

Tulane University School of Medicine values the diversity of its patients, faculty, staff, and students. Do you identify with a particular group that you believe is underrepresented among medical professionals? These include groups oriented around, but not limited to: ethnicity, race, sexuality, religion, disability, and economic background.

Stony Brook School of Medicine forces applicants to view the medical profession in the context of racism by asking, “What, in your opinion, is the role of a physician in addressing systemic racism and societal injustices?”

The University of California–Davis School of Medicine has developed a mandatory “anti-racism” course for students. Faculty at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport School of Medicine must take “annual unconscious bias training” and “cultural sensitivity, diversity, and bias training”.

There are many other examples of the DEI ideology seeping through medical schools across the country, taking firm hold in the minds of America’s future doctors.

In August, medical students at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Medical School recited a DEI oath at their white coat ceremony:

With gratitude, we, the students of the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Medical School Class of 2026, stand here today among our friends, families, peers, mentors and communities, who have supported us in reaching this milestone. Our institution is located on Dakota Land. Today, many indigenous people throughout the state including Dakota and Ojibwe, call the Twin Cities home; we also recognize this acknowledgement is not enough.

Some parts of the pledge mentioned issues like “health care violence.”

We commit to uprooting the legacy and perpetuation of structural violence deeply embedded within the health care system.

We recognize inequities built by past and present traumas rooted in white supremacy, colonialism, the gender binary, ableism, and all forms of oppression.

As we enter this profession with an opportunity for growth, we commit to promoting a culture of anti-racism, listening, and amplifying voices for positive change.

We pledge to honor all indigenous ways of healing that have been historically marginalized by Western medicine, knowing that health is intimately connected to our environment, we commit to healing our planet and communities.

We vow to embrace our role as community members and strive to embody cultural humility. We promise to continue restoring trust in the medical system and fulfilling our responsibilities as educators and advocates. We commit to collaborating with social, political, and additional systems to advance health equity.