The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has found itself in hot water after an investigative report by Do No Harm highlighted its deep commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. Instead of defending its positions, the AAMC opted for a more clandestine approach: quietly scrubbing information from its website and restricting access to certain databases. The organization, which plays a pivotal role in overseeing medical education in the U.S. and administering the MCAT, has long touted its influence in shaping future healthcare professionals. However, this sudden act of concealment raises eyebrows, particularly for an entity that claims to value fairness and equity.
Do No Harm’s report didn’t just ruffle feathers—it appears to have struck a nerve. The AAMC removed information about federal and private grants it had received and restricted access to a database tracking the race and gender of medical personnel. For an organization so vocal about its DEI initiatives, this move feels like a contradiction. If DEI is truly their guiding principle, why hide the details? It’s hard not to wonder whether the AAMC is more concerned about avoiding public scrutiny than promoting its professed values. Transparency, it seems, is only valued when it’s convenient.
Laura Morgan, the Senior Director of Programs at Do No Harm and author of the report, wasted no time pointing out the hypocrisy. She noted the irony of the AAMC, an organization that proudly champions DEI, suddenly making key information vanish from public view. Morgan’s report had already archived much of the removed data, which revealed millions of dollars in funding from agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). If the AAMC truly believes in its mission, why not let the public see where the money is going?
One particularly notable grant from the CDC allocated more than $4.5 million to build confidence in COVID-19 vaccines among healthcare personnel and communities “disproportionately impacted” by the pandemic. While improving vaccine confidence is a legitimate goal, critics argue that tying such efforts to DEI policies prioritizes ideology over practical healthcare solutions. The AAMC’s close relationship with federal funding underscores how deeply DEI is woven into its operations. Yet, rather than stand by its agenda, the organization seems intent on quietly sweeping these connections under the rug.
The AAMC’s actions are emblematic of a larger trend: institutions pushing divisive social agendas under the banner of public service, only to backpedal when faced with criticism. For an organization that prides itself on fostering trust and equity, deleting information when questions arise does little to bolster confidence. Instead, it fuels skepticism. As the public begins to take a closer look at where taxpayer dollars are going and how medical education is being shaped, the AAMC may find that retreating into the shadows only amplifies the scrutiny. After all, actions speak louder than words—or in this case, than deleted web pages.
