Temple University’s medical school sent an email this month to faculty and staff announcing that its DEI office, the Office of Health Equity, Diversity & Inclusion, will become the more vaguely named “Office of Strategic Partnership in Healthcare Education and Resources,” or “SPHERE.” The medical school made clear that this is just a rebrand for an office that will continue its equity-focused mission. Here’s the issue: The medical school made clear that this is just a rebrand for an office that will continue its equity-focused mission. “[T]he team’s core work” will not change, the medical school said in the email, which was obtained by the Center Square. “The education and training, community partnerships, student and trainee support, faculty development, and data-informed equity initiatives … [will] continue without interruption.” (RELATED: The Spectator P.M. Ep. 141: Illinois Medical School Caught Using Affirmative Action) Temple, which is located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, added that neither “people” nor “partnerships” would be changing, and that “the same colleagues … will keep supporting you and your programs.” In fact, the email said that the new name actually reflected an “expanded” commitment to “advancing equity.” The office’s new name, the medical school said, “underscores our shared belief that equity is not a single office or initiative; it’s the environment we create together.” (RELATED: What on Earth Is Going on at the University of Wisconsin’s Medical School?) Temple University’s medical school represents just one example of how medical schools are continuing full-steam ahead with the DEI agenda, even as they make subtle tweaks to render their efforts less obvious. These schools are on alert because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that affirmative action is illegal racial discrimination and because of President Donald Trump’s executive order that prohibits private universities that receive federal funding from pursuing DEI programs and policies. However, legal intervention against all schools that seek to continue their ideological commitment to “racial equity” is practically impossible, allowing them to carry on their efforts with only minor acts of subterfuge. (RELATED: Can an Executive Order Kill DEI?) Temple ranks among the medical schools most dedicated to racial equity. A flyer from its formerly named Office of Health Equity, Diversity & Inclusion read, “Our dedication to diversity has always been an essential part of our identity, mission and legacy. That’s why we’ve been ranked for many years as one of the top 10 U.S. medical schools for enrolling and graduating physicians from groups underrepresented in medicine.” It proudly advertised that “Approximately 20 percent of the total enrollment consists of students from groups underrepresented in medicine” — read: students who aren’t Asian or white. Temple has already been forced to downplay its ideological commitments. Last year, the medical school hosted a talk that was advertised as only open to staff members who identify as “Black, Indigenous, and people of color.” The school opened the talk to all staff members after Mark J. Perry, a senior fellow at Do No Harm, filed a federal civil rights complaint, but the talk, and its focus on “BIPOC” people, went on. Do No Harm is an organization that is “focused on keeping identity politics out of medical education, research, and clinical practice.” Earlier this year, Do No Harm published a report chronicling how medical schools have continued to practice affirmative action post-SFFA v. Harvard. The organization obtained demographic admissions data at 23 different medical schools pre- and post-SFFA. It found that, at 22 of the schools, admitted black applicants had lower average MCAT scores than admitted white and Asian applicants. In fact, at 13 of the schools, the average MCAT score of rejected white or Asian candidates was actually higher than the average score for accepted black candidates. While almost all medical schools in Do No Harm’s study demonstrated racially conscious policies, some schools were worse than others. One of the worst offenders was the University of Wisconsin’s medical school, at which black applicants are six times more likely to be admitted than Asian applicants. If you home in on those applicants who occupy the upper-middle range of MCAT scores, black applicants were 20 times more likely to be admitted than their Asian counterparts. (READ MORE: What on Earth Is Going on at the University of Wisconsin’s Medical School?) Just as Tulane’s DEI office is now ambiguously called “SPHERE,” so-called “holistic” admissions policies are often used to mask race-based decision-making. Ian Kingsbury, Do No Harm’s director of research, explained that much of the work of increasing racial diversity in medical schools operates under this moniker of “holistic admissions.” This usually encompasses downplaying GPAs and MCAT scores to take into account things like personality. Holistic admissions, Kingsbury therefore explained, “often represent a rebranding or workaround of affirmative action.” He pointed out that the University of California, Davis, medical school has been explicit about the fact that its “holistic” admissions policies are used to get around California’s ban on affirmative action. Temple University’s medical school says on the admissions page of its website that it “conducts an individualized holistic review of each complete application to decide whom to interview.” The medical school considers, it explains, “personal attributes of applicants,” “extracurricular activities,” and “community service activities” alongside things like grades and MCAT scores. Temple’s medical school also retains a long “diversity statement” on its website in which it says, in part, “We recognize that an environment enriched with persons from varied backgrounds working to address health disparity enhances scholarly work and the development of a culturally aware and responsive healthcare workforce.” Last month, a paper published on JAMA Network Open bemoaned falling enrollments of black and Hispanic students at medical schools post-SFFA and demanded “alternative strategies” to preserve racial diversity. The lead author on the paper is Dr. Natalie Florescu, who goes by “they.” She graduated this year from Temple University’s medical school. One of her co-authors is likewise affiliated with Temple. The declines in medical school diversity, she wrote, “threaten[] progress toward health care equity” and “highlight[] the need for alternative strategies to promote representation.” She presented only minimal evidence for how small declines in racial diversity in medical school enrollments supposedly threaten “health care equity.” She simply argued, “A diverse physician workforce is crucial for advancing health care equity and improving patient outcomes.” The possibility that better doctors might actually be more important for improving health care outcomes was left unexplored. She pointed to a few studies that have found better outcomes in patients who shared “gender identities” and “racial concordance” with their doctors. Florescu and co. were vague on their proposed strategies, but they did point to holistic admissions. Other strategies floated included considering “socioeconomic factors” and “geographic diversity” in admissions. The bureaucracies of many medical schools appear deeply committed to favoring their preferred racial groups in admissions decisions. Getting them to stop doing this, especially when they obscure their aims through tactics like renaming DEI offices and “holistic” admissions, will be a tall task. READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: Woman Who Gave Birth at 62 Via IVF Accused of Committing Fraud to Get More Children Gavin Newsom’s Very Good Year* Arrest of Newsom’s Ex-Chief of Staff Prompts Allegations of Misconduct Within the Governor’s Office