Kerby Anderson
The acronym DEI is found in business and the academy. It is now also being used in medical schools. DEI stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion. A new report of the top medical schools’ documents that DEI is being used to weed out applicants who aren’t firmly within the latest woke metric.
The nonprofit, Do No Harm, conducted an analysis of medical school application processes and concluded that these schools were raising an additional entry barrier on top of the grade requirements and testing. The report argues that these medical schools are asking these questions to “turn ideological support for health equity and social justice initiatives into a credential that increases an applicant’s chance of acceptance.”
As you might expect, the questions on the applications ranged widely. One application asked prospective students “how you have committed yourself to understanding and aiding in the pursuit of equity and inclusion in your academic, professional or personal life.” Another was more direct. The school asks applicants to share their “thoughts on opposing systemic racism, anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, and misogyny.” The application then asks: “How will you contribute?”
This latest medical school trend parallels what has been happening on university campuses for years. Heather MacDonald documents how these woke ideas have spread from the university to the workplace in her book, The Diversity Delusion.
Medical schools certainly have a right to ask questions of prospective students that help faculty determine whether they will make good doctors. You can simply ask an open-ended question like “Why do you want to become a physician?” But these applications are using DEI to weed out certain applicants.

Kerby Anderson
According to an increasing number of politicians, the First Amendment doesn’t protect misinformation. Ironically, most of what many of them are saying is misinformation.
Former Senator John Kerry told the audience at the World Economic Forum that the First Amendment is a roadblock to progress because it allows people to spread misinformation. He lamented that “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer it out of existence.”
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has criticized social media sites because they “act as a megaphone for misinformation.” And two years ago, he proclaimed, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation.”
But let’s focus on his more recent statement in the debate he had with Senator J.D. Vance, who challenged him on his prior statement that the First Amendment does not cover misinformation. His response was the classic: “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test.”
It is not. The quote comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. In a 1919 case of Schenck v. United States, he argued, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.” In the context, it had nothing to do with the case involving two members of the Socialist Party of America.
It is not law and is not the Supreme Court test. In fact, it comes from one of the darkest chapters of U.S. history when the government passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.
I believe the cure for bad speech is more speech. The cure for misinformation is not censorship but making more accurate information available.