House Hearing Puts Med Schools in DEI Hot Seat

Republicans aren’t letting up on their scrutiny of medical schools as part of their broader crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

At a hearing titled “Training Activists, Not Physicians: The Impact of DEI on Medical Schools” on Tuesday, Republican members of the House Committee on Education and Workforce grilled administrators from the University of California, Los Angeles, and UC San Francisco, as well as the University of Illinois, about whether their medical schools use DEI-focused policies to inform admissions, hiring, curricula and patient care.

“Today’s hearing is about accountability,” said Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the committee, as he laid out his questions for the medical schools: “Why are you prioritizing politics over medical education? Why are you perpetuating antisemitism and discrimination? Why are you turning doctors into activists?”

In response to those and a barrage of other accusations and questions—including several about admissions and treatment of transgender patients—from Republican committee members, all three of the medical school administrators testified that their programs do not discriminate against anyone, in compliance with state and federal laws, and their chief focus is preparing future physicians to care for a diverse patient population.

“We prepare our medical students to deliver high-quality, evidence-based care grounded in science, clinical judgment and professionalism. Effective medical care requires understanding how a patient’s background and circumstances can affect health,” Steven M. Dubinett, dean of the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, told the committee. “Teaching medical students how a patient’s life circumstances can affect health is consistent with accreditation standards and is a necessary part of medical education.”

Meanwhile, Democrats on the committee characterized the hearing as a distraction from new Republican-backed policies—such as the $200,000 cap on federal student loans for medical students—that will make it harder to address the national physician shortage and improve patient health outcomes. “This hearing is a monumental waste of this committee’s time,” said Rep. Adelita Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, who accused Republicans of “playing politics with DEI rhetoric.”

The Association of American Medical Colleges projects that the United States will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036.

“We can’t afford to have fewer physicians. We can’t afford for them not to understand how to treat our most vulnerable communities,” Grijalva said. “Now, instead of helping Americans, Republicans are sitting here targeting medical schools and holding hearings like the one we’re having today to complain about health equity.”

Propaganda or Preparation?

The House committee first began investigating the three medical schools last year in response to allegations of antisemitism on campus, and Walberg said it found that “pervasive antisemitism” was the result of “the activist infrastructure that these medical schools themselves had constructed,” which “puts people into categories based on race and identity, rather than judging people as individuals.”

Walberg also cited as evidence of the alleged harms of DEI a series of now-discontinued DEI-focused courses at UCLA and UCSF’s medical schools, calling them “filled with propaganda” aimed at “indoctrinating” students in “settler colonialist anti-oppression nonsense” that doesn’t “prepare medical students to become qualified, skilled physicians.”

Rep. Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican, asked about the specifics of those courses, asking Dubinett why the Healer, Educator, Advocate, Leader, Scholar (HEALS) program at UCLA included discussion of “racial capitalism” during a class session entitled “Colonialism and the Role of Medicine in Race.”

When Dubinett responded that the course “was stopped long before this committee’s inquiry” after the school “determined that some of the content was not appropriate for a medical school curriculum,” Foxx asked why the course started in the first place and how its content helped students provide “the best health outcomes for their future patients.”

While Dubinett reiterated that the course in question is no longer offered, he doubled down on the medical school’s mission. “Our goal is to have content that is scientifically based, clinically relevant and important for the realities of patient care,” he said. “It is important that students understand the social drivers of health and be able to help their patients, no matter who they are.”

Foxx also asked UCSF Chancellor Sam Hawgood if he agreed with the statement that “health is independent of size and weight,” which she alleged was taught as part of the school’s now-defunct Justice and Advocacy in Medicine (JAM) program. “I would need to understand the context in which that statement was said,” he replied. “The definition of health is a complex issue based on both populations and individuals. So I think teaching our medical students nuance is a very important issue.”

But, as Hawgood explained during his opening remarks to the committee, the medical school discontinued JAM after determining that portions of the curriculum “did not meet our standards for relevance and scholarship.”

Despite those curricular changes, Hawgood said “patient-centered care” remains at the core of the medical school’s curriculum.

“We teach students the fundamentals of medicine through a rigorous, science-based curriculum grounded in biology, he said. “We also teach future doctors that delivering compassionate, high-quality care requires an understanding of how a patient’s background and life circumstances may affect their health outcomes.”

Hawgood faced additional scrutiny from Rep. Mary Miller, an Illinois Republican, about a teaching framework that advises using the term “pregnant people”—instead of “pregnant women”—and using a child’s self-reported gender identity even if it conflicts with a parent’s wishes.

“We take care of transgender people,” Hawgood said. “Our programs are consistent with federal and state law.”

Miller responded that she hopes UCSF is consistent with the law, because “we have the right to withhold funding from any institution in violation,” and she asserted that “it’s clear these medical schools are hiding DEI curriculum under the guise of medical access.”

Not Replacing Science With ‘Radical Doctrine’

Tuesday’s hearing comes amid the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape what medical schools teach and how they admit students. The Justice Department has already found that the medical schools at Yale University and UCLA gave preference to Black and Hispanic applicants—-citing racial disparities in test scores and grades as evidence—over the last three admissions cycles, in violation of a 2023 Supreme Court ruling declaring race-conscious admissions policies unconstitutional. Another 15 medical schools’ admissions practices are also under investigation.

When questions about racial preferences came up at the hearing—including if the medical schools considered race in admissions—all three medical schools said they don’t have any. They also noted that all applicants must meet a minimum GPA and test score threshold, regardless of race, to be considered for admission.

“We are here to train physicians,” Enrico Benedetti, interim dean of the University of Illinois College of Medicine, said. “We cannot allow anything to displace rigorous medical training or interfere with our core educational mission.”

Roger A. Mitchell Jr., president of the National Medical Association, who was also a witness at the hearing, testified that medical schools don’t need to choose between rigor and teaching students about health disparities to strengthen the physician workforce and improve patient outcomes.

“Effective communication is clinical competency, not political ideology. Diversity as a component of medical education benefits every student, regardless of race or gender,” he said. “The goal is not to replace science with radical doctrine. The goal is to make sure biomedical expertise reaches every patient accurately and with equity.”