Training Activists, Not Physicians — 14 July 2026

Question

What did the 14 July 2026 House Education and Workforce Committee hearing establish about DEI, antisemitism, and medical-school training at UCLA, UCSF, and the University of Illinois College of Medicine, and what remained contested?

Context

This hearing followed the committee's August 2025 investigations into three medical schools after receiving antisemitism complaints from students and faculty. The hearing focused on the relationship between DEI infrastructure, curriculum content, and campus climate for Jewish students and faculty.

Chairman Walberg convened the hearing titled "Training Activists, Not Physicians: The Impact of DEI on Medical Schools." The hearing examined the three schools' responses to the committee's investigation, discontinued DEI courses, replacement curricula, and institutional changes implemented since the investigation began.

Witnesses

Dr. Steven Dubinett, Dean, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine
Dr. Sam Hawgood, Chancellor, University of California, San Francisco
Dr. Enrico Benedetti, Interim Dean, University of Illinois College of Medicine
Dr. Roger A. Mitchell, Jr., 126th President, National Medical Association

Established — committee investigation scope

Chairman Walberg testified that the Education and Workforce Committee opened investigations into the three medical schools in August 2025. The committee received "repeated complaints of severe antisemitism from students and faculty on these campuses."

Walberg stated the investigation examined whether "pervasive antisemitism" resulted from "the activist infrastructure that these medical schools themselves had constructed." He characterized this infrastructure as putting "people into categories based on race and identity rather than judging people as individuals" and "incit[ing] antisemitism—among other hatreds—by labeling Jews as white and, therefore, privileged and oppressors."

The committee's investigation framing is established. Whether DEI infrastructure caused antisemitism is the contested question the hearing examined.

Established — UCLA Justice Department finding

Chairman Walberg testified: "For example, in May, the Justice Department found that UCLA Medical School intentionally admitted applicants based on race, trading merit for DEI."

This is Walberg's characterization of a Justice Department action. He attributes it to DOJ's May finding. The hearing did not open the DOJ document itself. Whether the DOJ finding establishes intentional race-based admissions as Walberg frames it requires opening the actual DOJ determination, which the hearing did not do.

The desk binds this as Walberg's statement about a DOJ action, not as an independently verified DOJ finding from opened primary sources.

Established — UCLA discontinued course and remedial actions

Chairman Walberg testified that UCLA told the Committee its DEI course is "no longer offered" after a "review of the first-year curriculum." Both schools are "now offering replacement courses."

Dr. Dubinett confirmed UCLA eliminated a course titled "Structural Racism and Health Equity." He testified: "well before this Committee's inquiry, we determined that some of its content was not appropriate for a medical school curriculum."

Dubinett stated UCLA took three concrete actions:

1. "We eliminated the course and replaced it with a new one that emphasizes evidence-based medicine and relies on clinical case studies."
2. "At my direction, only UCLA faculty may lecture in our medical school courses."
3. "We have instituted training on University of California Policy 2301, which limits the use of the classroom to relevant course content."

These actions are established. UCLA discontinued "Structural Racism and Health Equity," replaced it with a course emphasizing clinical case studies, restricted lectures to UCLA faculty, and implemented UC Policy 2301 training.

Whether the discontinued course was "indoctrination" versus legitimate social-determinants-of-health teaching is contested.

Established — UCSF discontinued course and remedial actions

Chairman Walberg testified that UCSF told the Committee its required DEI class "did not meet UCSF standards." Specifically, the course "did not meet 'benchmarks for student reviews' and 'did not align with graduation competencies [or] milestones.'"

Dr. Hawgood confirmed UCSF discontinued the "Justice and Advocacy in Medicine" (JAM) course. He testified that JAM "accounted for roughly two percent of total classroom time." He stated: "Although much of JAM met school expectations, portions did not meet our standards for relevance and scholarship. In the fall of 2025, our standard curriculum review process indicated the need to discontinue the course."

Hawgood stated UCSF implemented three remedial actions:

1. "In early 2026, the decision was made to replace JAM with an entirely new course."
2. "We have implemented required training to reinforce the importance of Regents Policy 2301, which limits the use of the classroom to relevant course content."
3. "All mandatory courses will be taught by university faculty who will be held accountable for meeting our standards."

These actions are established. UCSF discontinued JAM after fall 2025 curriculum review, decided in early 2026 to replace JAM with an entirely new course, implemented Regents Policy 2301 training, and committed that all mandatory courses will be taught by university faculty.

The JAM course structure and time allocation are established: roughly two percent of total classroom time. Whether this constitutes excessive focus on non-medical content versus appropriate social-determinants teaching is contested.

Established — UCSF antisemitism training

Dr. Hawgood testified: "Since 2024, an outside organization has provided professional training about antisemitism to faculty, staff, and students."

This is established. An outside organization has provided antisemitism training to UCSF faculty, staff, and students since 2024. The hearing did not examine the training provider's identity, curriculum content, or effectiveness.

Established — UCLA Jewish community experience

Dr. Dubinett testified: "Some of our Jewish community members have confronted painful moments since October 7, 2023."

He stated: "Our medical school condemns antisemitism and all forms of hatred; we are committed to sustaining an environment where all community members can learn, work, and care for patients with safety and respect."

Dubinett disclosed personal standing on the issue: "Not all of my family made it out of Europe during the Holocaust, and I have personally experienced antisemitism growing up."

These statements are established. Dubinett's characterization that Jewish community members "confronted painful moments" is his assessment, not a survey or documented incident count. His institutional condemnation of antisemitism and personal Holocaust family history are on the record.

Whether UCLA's institutional response adequately addressed antisemitism complaints is contested.

Established — University of Illinois remedial actions

Dr. Benedetti testified that he became Interim Dean in January 2026. He stated: "The College is committed to ensuring that its policies and practices comply with federal law. We are committed to providing a learning environment where all students—including Jewish students—feel safe, respected, and ready to learn."

Benedetti outlined five concrete steps:

1. "We will enforce our professionalism code to hold students accountable for hate speech and other misconduct, including conduct that occurs outside the classroom or clinic."
2. "We discontinued an internal communication channel that had become a forum for inappropriate and offensive commentary."
3. "We have changed our senior leadership structure to ensure clear lines of accountability. The new Vice Dean of Education will now have oversight over student complaints regarding misconduct."
4. "We are updating the curriculum to better ensure that all of our physicians are trained to effectively treat patients from all communities."
5. "I have instituted an open-door policy so students, staff and faculty can bring concerns directly to me."

These five actions are established. Illinois discontinued an internal communications channel, assigned oversight over student complaints to the new Vice Dean of Education, will enforce its professionalism code, committed to curriculum updates, and established a dean's open-door policy.

Established — University of Illinois Jewish student and faculty experience

Dr. Benedetti testified: "I am pleased to report that Jewish students and faculty, in particular, have told me that they feel safe and supported under my leadership."

This is Benedetti's characterization of what Jewish students and faculty told him. It is not a survey, not a formal assessment, and not independent verification. The desk binds this as Benedetti's report of conversations, not as documented institutional climate data.

Whether Illinois's remedial actions resolved the antisemitism complaints that triggered the committee investigation is contested.

Established — NMA diversity and patient outcomes frame

Dr. Roger A. Mitchell, Jr., testified as 126th President of the National Medical Association. He stated: "There is an incredibly destructive narrative being espoused that somehow programs intended to improve the diversity of the physician workforce are harmful. Some have even insisted that just because a physician is Black or a woman, somehow, we are less than—less capable."

Mitchell framed diversity as "a workforce, educational, and patient-care quality strategy" rather than "a claim that race should replace merit, that standards should somehow be lowered, or that patients should receive a different quality of care based upon identity."

This is Mitchell's institutional framing. The NMA position is established: diversity improves patient outcomes and workforce capacity without lowering standards.

Established — NMA patient outcomes evidence claims

Mitchell cited specific research findings:

Oakland study (Alsan et al. 2019): Mitchell testified that "in a randomized experiment in Oakland, researchers assigned Black men to Black or non-Black male physicians." He stated that "Black men assigned to Black physicians were significantly more likely to select preventive services, particularly invasive services such as diabetes screening." He claimed "the authors estimated that these effects could reduce the Black-White male gap in cardiovascular mortality by 19 percent."

Financial performance: Mitchell cited Gomez and Bernet (2019): "Their umbrella review of 16 large studies and meta-analyses found that most reported positive associations between diversity, quality, and financial performance." He stated the reviewed evidence included "companies with above-average management diversity earning 38% more revenue from new products and services."

These are Mitchell's characterizations of published research. The desk did not independently open Alsan et al. 2019 or Gomez and Bernet 2019. These figures should be attributed to Mitchell citing those papers, not treated as desk-verified trial results.

Whether these studies support DEI policies in medical school admissions and curriculum is contested. Mitchell frames them as supporting evidence; the hearing's majority framing treats DEI as activist indoctrination.

Established — physician shortage projections

Mitchell testified: "The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) projects a national shortfall of 13,500 to 86,000 physicians by 2036, including an estimated primary care shortage of 20,200 to 40,400 and a specialty shortage of 10,100 to 35,700."

He stated: "The current annual medical school output - roughly 28,000 to 29,000 MD and DO graduates - is only modestly above the estimated annual physician losses from retirement, burnout, and career attrition."

These are Mitchell's characterizations of AAMC projections. The hearing did not open AAMC's actual projections. The desk binds these as Mitchell's testimony about workforce projections, not as independently verified AAMC data.

Contested — whether DEI infrastructure causes antisemitism

Chairman Walberg framed the investigation's finding: "It soon became clear that the pervasive antisemitism we were investigating was the result of a deeper problem. It was a result of the activist infrastructure that these medical schools themselves had constructed."

He characterized this infrastructure as "put[ting] people into categories based on race and identity rather than judging people as individuals" and "incit[ing] antisemitism—among other hatreds—by labeling Jews as white and, therefore, privileged and oppressors."

The three medical school leaders did not directly contest this framing in their written testimonies. Dubinett and Hawgood condemned antisemitism without addressing whether DEI frameworks caused it. Benedetti's testimony focused on remedial actions without defending prior DEI programs.

Mitchell's testimony offered an alternative frame: DEI is "a workforce, educational, and patient-care quality strategy" that does not categorize by race but rather recognizes "the social realities that shape health." He stated: "Diversity does not dilute merit; it strengthens merit by insisting that the physician of the future be judged not only by scores but by competence, judgment, service, leadership, integrity, and the ability to translate knowledge into the healing of people."

The causal claim that DEI infrastructure produces antisemitism is contested. Walberg's framing treats DEI and antisemitism as causally linked through oppressor-oppressed categorization. Mitchell's framing treats DEI as patient-safety infrastructure that does not categorize by race in the manner Walberg describes.

Contested — whether discontinued courses were indoctrination or social-determinants teaching

Chairman Walberg characterized the discontinued courses: "UCLA Medical School and the University [of California] San Francisco School of Medicine require students to take classes indoctrinating them in settler colonialist, anti-oppression nonsense. These classes are filled with propaganda. They do not prepare medical students to become qualified, skilled physicians."

Dubinett and Hawgood did not defend the discontinued courses. Both emphasized that the courses failed to meet institutional standards and were replaced with courses emphasizing evidence-based medicine and clinical case studies.

Dubinett stated the intent of the discontinued course: "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. That was the intent of a now-discontinued course, Structural Racism and Health Equity."

Hawgood stated: "In compliance with national accreditation standards, 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. The Justice and Advocacy in Medicine course, or JAM, was designed to address these social drivers of health."

Dubinett and Hawgood framed the discontinued courses as attempts to teach social determinants of health required by accreditation standards. Both acknowledged the courses failed in execution and were replaced.

Mitchell's testimony supported social-determinants teaching: "The goal is to ensure that biomedical expertise is applied accurately and humanely to patients whose presentations and outcomes are shaped by their culture, language, geography, disability, income, trauma, insurance status, neighborhood context, discrimination, and prior experiences with the health system."

The contested question: were the discontinued courses legitimate social-determinants teaching that failed in execution, or were they ideological indoctrination disguised as medical education? The hearing established that both schools discontinued the courses and acknowledged shortcomings. It did not resolve whether the courses' fundamental approach was appropriate for medical education.

Contested — whether diversity in admissions is merit-based or race-based

Chairman Walberg's framing: "In May, the Justice Department found that UCLA Medical School intentionally admitted applicants based on race, trading merit for DEI."

He stated: "On now-removed webpages, UCSF touted its increasing numbers for residents who they claim are 'underrepresented in medicine.' Similarly, departments across the University of Illinois College of Medicine have pledged year after year to increase their proportion of certain medical students, residents, and faculty."

Mitchell's framing: "Inclusion in medical school admissions does not require the elimination of high standards; it improves them." He stated: "Let's be clear: we do not require abandoning merit; in fact, we suggest that diversity elevates what it means to have merit."

Mitchell stated: "A merit-based admissions framework should ask whether applicants can master biomedical science, communicate across differences, work in teams, serve patients with humility and without bias, meet the needs of communities with limited access to care."

He cited evidence that "applicants in the middle third of the MCAT score scale can truly succeed and are more likely to include first-generation college graduates, applicants from rural or medically underserved areas, and applicants from groups underrepresented in medicine."

The contested question: do admissions policies that increase underrepresented-in-medicine populations constitute race-based admissions that violate merit standards, or do they constitute expanded merit frameworks that recognize competencies beyond test scores?

Walberg stated that UCSF "touted its increasing numbers" on "now-removed webpages" and Illinois departments "have pledged year after year to increase their proportion" of underrepresented populations. Walberg stated UCLA is subject to a DOJ finding he characterizes as race-based admissions. The hearing did not resolve whether these policies are race-based discrimination or legitimate holistic admissions.

Contested — whether DEI courses belong in medical education

Chairman Walberg's position: medical schools are "prioritizing politics over medical education" and "turning doctors into activists" through DEI curriculum. He asked: "Why are you prioritizing politics over medical education? Why are you perpetuating antisemitism and discrimination? Why are you turning doctors into activists?"

Dubinett and Hawgood's position: social determinants of health are "consistent with accreditation standards and [are] a necessary part of medical education" (Dubinett). "National accreditation standards" require teaching "how a patient's background and life circumstances may affect their health outcomes" (Hawgood).

Mitchell's position: "The goal is not to replace anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, diagnostic reasoning, or procedural skill. The goal is to ensure that biomedical expertise is applied accurately and humanely to patients whose presentations and outcomes are shaped by their culture, language, geography, disability, income, trauma, insurance status, neighborhood context, discrimination, and prior experiences with the health system."

The contested question: does teaching social determinants of health constitute necessary medical education required by accreditation, or does it constitute political indoctrination displacing scientific training?

Both sides agree that discontinued courses at UCLA and UCSF failed institutional standards. The hearing did not resolve whether social-determinants teaching belongs in medical education, or only whether these particular courses were appropriate.

Contested — whether replacement courses are "more of the same"

Chairman Walberg expressed concern: "Both schools are now offering replacement courses, which I worry will just be more of the same."

Dubinett and Hawgood emphasized that replacement courses differ from discontinued courses. Dubinett stated the replacement course "emphasizes evidence-based medicine and relies on clinical case studies" and is taught "only [by] UCLA faculty." Hawgood stated the replacement course is "entirely new" and "all mandatory courses will be taught by university faculty who will be held accountable for meeting our standards."

The hearing established that both schools replaced discontinued courses and instituted faculty-only teaching policies and Regents Policy 2301 training. It did not examine the replacement courses' actual content or syllabi.

Whether the replacement courses represent genuine curriculum reform or cosmetic changes preserving the same ideological content is contested. The hearing did not resolve this question.

Contested — whether diversity improves or harms patient outcomes

Mitchell testified that workforce diversity "improves communication, trust, care uptake, and patient choice" and cited evidence that "a diverse, culturally prepared workforce positively affects trust and the uptake of preventive care by willing patients."

He cited the Oakland study (Alsan et al. 2019) showing "Black men assigned to Black physicians were significantly more likely to select preventive services" with potential to "reduce the Black-White male gap in cardiovascular mortality by 19 percent."

The hearing's majority framing did not directly contest patient-outcomes evidence. The chairman's framing emphasized that DEI policies "do not prepare medical students to become qualified, skilled physicians" and constitute "training activists, not physicians."

The contested question: does physician workforce diversity improve patient outcomes as Mitchell claims, or does prioritizing diversity over traditional merit harm physician quality and patient care as the hearing title suggests?

The hearing established Mitchell's evidence claims and the majority's concerns about activist training. It did not resolve whether these positions are compatible or mutually exclusive.

Contested — whether antisemitism complaints justify federal intervention

The hearing established that the committee opened investigations in August 2025 following antisemitism complaints. It established that all three schools implemented remedial actions before or in response to the committee's investigation.

The hearing did not examine:

• The number or severity of antisemitism complaints that triggered the investigation
• Whether antisemitism incidents at these schools exceeded baseline rates at peer institutions
• Whether the schools' remedial actions resolved the complaints
• Whether federal investigation was necessary to prompt institutional response

Whether the committee's investigation represents appropriate federal oversight or represents federal overreach into academic affairs is contested. The hearing did not resolve this question.

Contested — institutional mission versus political framing

Mitchell testified: "The United States needs a physician workforce that is both scientifically excellent and prepared to care for an increasingly diverse population. Diversity and inclusion in medicine should be understood as a workforce, educational, and patient-care quality strategy."

Chairman Walberg's framing: "Why are you prioritizing politics over medical education? Why are you perpetuating antisemitism and discrimination? Why are you turning doctors into activists?"

Both sides claim to prioritize patient care and physician excellence. The contested question is whether diversity policies serve that mission or undermine it.

The hearing established that both sides defend their positions as serving patient welfare and physician quality. It did not resolve which framing better describes what these medical schools actually implemented or what institutional mission requires.