Medical School Accreditors Backing Off Diversity Mandates Amid Political Pressure
In a notable shift in the world of medical education, major accrediting bodies are stepping back from their previously strong diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) requirements. This pullback comes after political pressure, including a presidential executive order, has challenged the role of DEI in shaping medical school standards. The change signals a significant transformation in higher education’s approach to race, identity, and admissions policies—especially in the medical field.
What Sparked the Shift?
Back in April, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order that shook up the way medical school accreditors handle DEI. His directive empowered the Department of Education to take a closer look—and act—against accreditors that were promoting DEI policies seen as controversial or unfair. According to a new report from the watchdog group Do No Harm (which was obtained by National Review), this executive order led at least eight major accrediting organizations to modify or even ditch their DEI requirements.
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, expressed enthusiasm about these developments, stating, “We are pleased that many of the accreditors responsible for injecting identity politics into medical education are backing off their DEI requirements.” However, he also cautioned that while this is a promising start, “there is still much work to be done to rid our institutions entirely of the rot of racial politics.”
The Role of Accreditation in Medical Education
If you’re wondering why this matters, here’s the deal: accrediting bodies wield tremendous influence over medical schools. They set the standards schools must meet to maintain their accreditation—without which medical schools can’t operate or receive federal funding. That means they can effectively shape admissions policies, curriculum design, and institutional priorities.
For years, DEI has become a central part of accreditation standards. Medical schools were often encouraged or even required to increase racial diversity in their student bodies, sometimes giving preference to candidates based on race or ethnicity to meet diversity goals. But this approach, while aiming for fairness, has come under scrutiny for sidelining merit and individual achievement.
Who’s Changing Their Tune?
According to Do No Harm, seven of the ten medical and healthcare accreditors they previously flagged have now softened or removed their DEI-related rules. These include:
-
Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)
-
Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE)
-
American Osteopathic Association’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation (COCA)
-
Council on Podiatric Medical Education (CPME)
-
Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE)
-
American Psychological Association’s Commission on Accreditation (APA)
-
American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Education (AVMA COE)
Some have outright eliminated DEI requirements, others have proposed ending them, and several have promised not to enforce existing DEI mandates. The report from Do No Harm provides detailed insights into each organization’s policy changes.
One high-profile example is the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which suspended its DEI requirements shortly after Trump’s executive order. The order specifically called out ACGME because of its key role in accrediting residency and fellowship programs—the final steps before doctors hit the workforce.
Political Pressure and Legal Actions
Trump’s executive order didn’t stop at mere oversight. He instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi and Education Secretary Linda McMahon to investigate whether certain DEI standards violated laws and to take action against accreditors that maintained discriminatory practices.
This aggressive stance reflects a broader political movement that sees DEI mandates as a form of “identity politics” that can undermine fairness. Indeed, several states have passed laws or issued executive actions aiming to roll back or restrict DEI programs in public institutions, including medical schools.
While some accreditation bodies have moved in response, others like the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE), the American Dental Association’s Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA), and the Accreditation Council on Optometric Education (ACOE) have yet to adjust their DEI policies.
Why Does This Matter?
It’s more than just bureaucratic reshuffling. Critics argue that the emphasis on DEI in medical education places an unhealthy focus on race, gender, and group identity at the expense of academic merit, individual character, and qualifications. They warn this could jeopardize the quality of medical training and, ultimately, patient care.
Federal civil rights laws explicitly prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, and other protected characteristics. Still, groups like Do No Harm claim that some DEI programs cross the line by preferring candidates based on identity traits, which can lead to lawsuits. In fact, Do No Harm has filed multiple lawsuits challenging medical school programs they say engage in racial discrimination masked as DEI.
The Bigger Picture: DEI Under Fire Nationwide
The scrutiny of DEI in medical education fits into a larger national debate. In recent years, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives have spread through corporate America, federal agencies, and universities. While many praise these programs for fostering inclusion, others see them as divisive or even discriminatory.
President Trump’s executive order on accreditors was just one of several steps aimed at curbing DEI’s influence. State governments have passed legislation limiting DEI in public institutions, and federal agencies have rolled back diversity requirements.
What’s Next for Medical Education?
The takeaway here is that medical schools and their accrediting bodies are navigating a new landscape—one where DEI policies are no longer a given but are under intense scrutiny. Reform advocates argue that removing DEI from accreditation standards is just the start. They want schools to fully embrace merit-based admissions and training, free from racial politics.
At the same time, others caution that diversity remains critical for addressing long-standing inequities in healthcare access and outcomes. The challenge will be finding a balance that ensures fairness, quality, and inclusivity without compromising standards.
Key Points to Remember
-
Accreditors control medical school standards and can influence admissions and policies.
-
Eight major medical accreditors have revised or dropped DEI requirements after political pressure.
-
Trump’s 2021 executive order empowered investigations into DEI mandates, targeting discriminatory practices.
-
Some accreditors have not yet changed their DEI policies.
-
Critics say DEI policies risk prioritizing identity over merit, potentially undermining medical education quality.
-
Legal actions have been launched challenging DEI-focused programs as violating civil rights laws.
-
The debate over DEI in medicine reflects broader national tensions about race, fairness, and identity politics.
Login