The scientific foundation of “implicit bias” has been under scrutiny for quite some time. Back in 2009, the Journal of Applied Psychology noted the evidence supporting the Harvard-designed implicit association test as “surprisingly weak” when it came to predicting discriminatory behavior. Even some liberal media outlets like Vox and New York Magazine have acknowledged the test’s inconsistency, and individual test results themselves caution users that they’re “not a definitive assessment of your implicit preference.”
Despite these concerns, implicit bias training remains a requirement in many professional settings. This has sparked a legal battle led by a liberty-minded public interest law firm, which is representing medical professionals in lawsuits against what they view as ideological coercion. For example, Kent Wildern, a dentist from Grand Rapids, recently filed a lawsuit against Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
Wildern’s lawsuit comes in response to Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s executive order from July 2020, which sought to “improve equity in the delivery of healthcare.” This order was a recommendation from her Coronavirus Task Force on Racial Disparities and closely followed the unrest sparked by George Floyd’s death. Implicit bias training requirements were introduced 11 months later, affecting 400,000 healthcare professionals in Michigan, excluding veterinarians.
Wildern argues that “LARA lacks any statutory authority to impose these sweeping, one-size-fits-all mandates.” He claims the rule’s ideological nature has no bearing on LARA’s statutory purposes. According to Wildern’s complaint, as of September 2024, at least 132 investigations were launched against healthcare professionals for refusing this training, with penalties ranging from fines to license revocation.
Wildern, a practicing dentist for four decades, chose not to renew his license after his request for an exemption based on his “bona fide objections to the race-based trainings” was denied. He believes these trainings are “illegal and immoral” and is fighting to reclaim his license. Wildern’s stance is that even if the government had a valid reason for such indoctrination, Michigan could employ “less-restrictive means” to address negative outcomes from implicit bias, such as banning discriminatory actions.
In a parallel legal challenge, the Pacific Legal Foundation is also representing California ophthalmologist Azadeh Khatibi. Khatibi is contesting California’s implicit bias training mandate, a law signed in 2019 requiring all continuing medical education courses to include instruction on implicit bias. Khatibi, alongside the medical advocacy group Do No Harm, argues against including “divisive and discriminatory ideas” like implicit bias in educational content.
Their legal battle took a hit at the district court, which ruled that CME training creators and presenters are engaged in “government speech.” PLF, representing Khatibi, recently argued before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, warning of potential government censorship if these courses are considered government speech. They contend that professionals should not face a Sophie’s Choice between maintaining their medical license and submitting to an alleged racial ideology.
Amid these legal challenges, the outlook for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in medicine is shifting. Some institutions, like Vanderbilt University Medical Center, are eliminating DEI programs following President Trump’s executive orders. Meanwhile, others, such as the Mayo Clinic, have simply rebranded their DEI offices.
Whitmer’s mandate requires healthcare professionals in Michigan to not only participate in implicit bias “assessments” but also to learn about its historical basis and significance. Wildern’s lawsuit argues that this mandate is “imbued with ideological presuppositions” and lacks any flexibility for specialized practices. He challenges the premise that LARA has the statutory authority to enforce such blanket educational requirements.
Wildern also points out that LARA’s rulemaking authority has been granted indefinitely, with no provisions for its repeal. This, he argues, oversteps the Legislature’s role, allowing the agency to impose any condition on healthcare professionals. He sees this as an infringement on freedom of thought and conscience, pressuring medical professionals to accept a “particular viewpoint” without legislative constraints.
The lawsuit further claims there is no evidence showing a connection between the training and improved healthcare outcomes. According to Wildern, such programs are “demonstrably counterproductive,” fueling intergroup hostility and discord rather than fostering understanding.
