FEATURED
Key Takeaways
- Stanford School of Medicine has removed diversity, equity, and inclusion language from its website following a DOJ investigation into its admissions practices, prompting concerns about whether the changes are substantive or merely cosmetic.
- The medical school rebranded its diversity offices but maintained programs aimed at health disparities, leading some experts to criticize these actions as superficial and potentially misleading.
- Federal pressure has shifted the dynamics around DEI in higher education, pushing institutions to reconsider their diversity policies, which previously relied on government mandates for justification.
Stanford School of Medicine quietly removed diversity, equity, and inclusion language from its website after the U.S. Department of Justice launched an investigation into alleged racial discrimination in its admissions process.
But experts are questioning whether the changes represent a meaningful shift or merely superficial rebranding.
The changes include new office names and updated personnel titles, though it is unclear whether the actual roles and responsibilities have shifted, the medical advocacy group Do No Harm reported.
For example, the medical school changed Felipe Perez’s title from assistant dean for diversity in medical student education to assistant dean for community health and engagement.
The former Office of Diversity in Medical Education had committed itself to “developing physician leaders who are committed to eliminating the nation’s health inequities.” It has since been renamed the Office of Community Health and Engagement.
The new office still features a “Leadership in Health Disparities Program” aimed at helping students achieve “equitable health outcomes for all.”
Despite these changes, the university’s Department of Graduate Medical Education, which sits under the same Stanford Medicine umbrella as the newly renamed OCHE, is set to hold its 9th Annual Diversity and Inclusion Forum.
The forum is run in part by educational mentors who have participated in the 2025-2026 Leadership Education in Advancing Diversity Program. The program is offered for residents and fellows, and explicitly aims to cultivate academic medicine leaders dedicated to DEI.
These apparent contradictions have sparked debate about the sincerity of Stanford’s recent changes. Dr. Kurt Miceli, chief medical officer at Do No Harm, described the university’s efforts as superficial.
“They resemble tactics we’ve seen at other institutions. Swapping terminology and titles without altering staff or underlying practices does not demonstrate a genuine shift toward merit and excellence,” he said.
Miceli also said federal pressure “has prompted organizations to cut back on promoting identity-based discrimination.”
“While updating websites is a step forward, much remains to be done. Medical schools and companies should implement meaningful changes instead of just covering their tracks,” he said.
He added that Do No Harm remains “committed to ensuring that health care programs prioritize recruiting and training the most qualified candidates while teaching evidence-based scientific principles and maintaining a learning environment grounded in merit, academic rigor, and professional excellence.”
Similarly, John Sailer, director of higher education at the Manhattan Institute, told The Fix that he believes the school may be continuing its DEI agenda.
“While there’s no way to know what goes on behind closed doors, I don’t find it especially plausible that a staff hired to promote a university’s social justice agenda is changing its practices just because of a title change,” he said.
Sailer also observed that federal pressure has reversed the previous dynamic in higher education.
Only a few years ago, university administrators used government rules and funding agencies as cover to push discriminatory diversity policies. Today, that leverage has flipped. While rebranding efforts may be superficial, he said, they signal that the tide is turning.
“The policy mechanism is simple: enforce civil rights law. If the cost of discriminating is high, it makes no sense for universities to continue employing huge swaths of staff whose implicit job is to find ways to discriminate,” Sailer told The Fix.
Stanford School of Medicine, its Office of Community Health and Engagement, and its administrators whose titles have changed, did not respond to requests for comment.
However, in response to federal scrutiny, The Stanford Daily reported that university spokesperson Luisa Rapport said the school is “committed to meeting its obligation under the federal Civil Rights Act.”
Rapport also told The Daily that the school’s teacher training program for students who are black, Indigenous, or people of color within Stanford’s Graduate School of Education is being phased out.
Watchdog group Defending Education filed a federal civil rights complaint over the program, as it allegedly excludes applicants based on race, The College Fix previously reported.
