Connect with us

North Carolina

Why three NC medical students think an anti-DEI bill would be a disaster for medicine • NC Newsline

Published

on

Why three NC medical students think an anti-DEI bill would be a disaster for medicine • NC Newsline


Washington, Hyde, Gates, and Yancey are four of the North Carolina counties without a single pediatrician, OB-GYN, or psychiatrist. This is not uncommon — 20 of our state’s counties lack a pediatrician, 26 lack an OB-GYN, and 32 lack a psychiatrist.

These provider shortages disproportionately impact rural and low-income communities and would likely worsen under a new proposal introduced by eastern North Carolina Congressman Greg Murphy.

Misleadingly entitled the “Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act,” the bill would block U.S. medical schools from receiving federal funding if they support Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)-related policies or programs.

At present, DEI offices support medical education pipeline programs that train low-income and rural students, who are more likely to return home to practice medicine. 

Advertisement

Also on the chopping block: medical education programs for underrepresented students, patient advocacy initiatives and health equity certifications, needs-based scholarships, and LGBTQ+ affirming care training. 

North Carolina is a diverse state with diverse needs. Beyond enhancing our medical education, DEI initiatives improve the quality of care for our patients. As medical students enrolled in three of our state’s medical schools, we believe the EDUCATE Act would harm our patient communities and should not win approval. 

When our medical workforce is diverse, our patients thrive. Research shows that patient satisfaction and key clinical outcomes such as cholesterol screening rates and medication adherence improve when healthcare providers share the same racial or ethnic background as their patients.

Over the last decade, North Carolina has become significantly more racially and ethnically diverse, particularly with the growth of our Hispanic and Asian populations. Following the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action, DEI programs at medical schools are even more important to ensure that the state develops qualified medical students who are representative of our population. 

In addition to improving medical education, DEI offices offer many programs that improve the health of communities. DEI outreach and pipeline programs connect students who are underrepresented minorities in medicine, of low socioeconomic status, and from rural areas to academic enrichment resources that support them in becoming qualified medical school applicants and future doctors. Such programs are critical to addressing primary care shortage areas, as physicians from underserved communities are more likely to work in these communities.

Advertisement

Health providers can also partner with DEI offices to educate their colleagues about the specific needs of individual communities and to advocate for increased patient access to high-quality care. DEI programs support collaboration between medical student groups, hospital leadership, and patient communities in organizing training sessions that enhance care for marginalized patient groups. Such sessions foster the growth of high-quality patient-physician partnerships and are associated with improved patient satisfaction. DEI offices also catalyze health professional involvement in initiatives that seek to improve the health of all patients and students, regardless of their demographic characteristics.

Critics of DEI initiatives claim that they could lead to harmful consequences for patients under the false assumption that DEI casts aside merit and “admits students based on their race, gender, or religion.” What these critics fail to acknowledge, however, is that all medical students undergo an extremely rigorous admission selection process and are required to meet the same academic and clinical standards to become licensed physicians.

Other critics argue that DEI places an undue burden on physicians to fix larger social issues. Yet, omitting education about the social factors affecting health would be a disservice to patients whose social needs may influence their most optimal treatment plans. We support a medical curriculum that is evidence-based, comprehensive, and factual. 

From fostering the growth of qualified medical school applicants to advocating for the health needs of marginalized patient populations, DEI initiatives benefit the health workforce and patients alike. The Association of American Medical Colleges, American College of Physicians, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently released statements in opposition to the EDUCATE Act. As concerned future physicians who recognize the need for DEI programs in North Carolina and nationwide, we urge members of the United States Congress to oppose the EDUCATE Act. 

This essay reflects the individual views of the authors and does not represent the views of their medical institutions.

Advertisement



Source link

North Carolina

Statewide tornado drill has NC schools and workplaces practicing safety

Published

on

Statewide tornado drill has NC schools and workplaces practicing safety


Wednesday, March 4, 2026 6:41PM

NC schools and businesses encouraged to practice tornado safety

RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) — North Carolina schools and businesses took part in a statewide tornado drill Wednesday morning as part of Severe Weather Awareness Week.

The National Weather Service led the drill at 9:30 a.m., broadcasting it on NOAA Weather Radio and the Emergency Alert System. Schools, workplaces and households across the state were encouraged to join in.

The National Weather Service didn’t issue a follow up alert to mark the end of the drill. Instead, each school or business wrapped up once they felt they had practiced the procedures thoroughly.

Wednesday’s drill also replaced the regular weekly NOAA Weather Radio test.

Advertisement

SEE | New warning for parents amid new ‘fire-breathing’ social media trend

Make sure to download the ABC 11 Mobile App ABC11 North Carolina Apps for Connected TV, Mobile News, Echo

Copyright © 2026 WTVD-TV. All Rights Reserved.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

North Carolina

North Carolina Rep. Valerie Foushee holds narrow lead over challenger Nida Allam

Published

on

North Carolina Rep. Valerie Foushee holds narrow lead over challenger Nida Allam


Nida Allam in 2022; Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) in 2025.

Jonathan Drake/Reuters; Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Jonathan Drake/Reuters; Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Incumbent Rep. Valerie Foushee holds a narrow lead over challenger Nida Allam in the Democratic primary for North Carolina’s 4th Congressional district as ballots continue to be counted.

In a race seen as an early test of whether Democratic voters desire generational change within the party, Foushee holds a lead of just over 1,000 votes with 99% of results in so far, according to the Associated Press.

Advertisement

Under state law, provisional votes will be counted in the coming days in a district that includes Durham and Chapel Hill. If the election results end up within a 1% margin, Allam could request a recount.

Successfully ousting an incumbent lawmaker is often extremely difficult and rare. However, there have been recent upsets in races as some voters are calling for new leaders and several sitting members of Congress face primary challengers this cycle.

Allam, a 32-year-old Durham County Commissioner, is running to the left of Foushee, 69, framing her candidacy as part of a broader rejection of longtime Democratic norms.

On the campaign trail, Allam ran on an anti-establishment message, pledging to be a stronger fighter than Foushee in Congress, both in standing up against President Trump’s agenda and when pushing for more ambitious policy.

Advertisement

“North Carolina is a purple state that often gets labeled red, but we’re not a red state,” she told NPR in an interview last month, emphasizing the need to address affordability concerns. “We are a state of working-class folks who just want their elected officials to champion the issues that are impacting them.”

She drew a contrast with the congresswoman on immigration, voicing support for abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Foushee has declined to go that far, advocating instead for ICE to be defunded and for broader reforms to the federal immigration system.

Allam also clashed with Foushee over U.S. policy towards Israel. As a vocal opponent of Israel’s war in Gaza, Allam swore off campaign donations from pro-Israel lobbying groups, such as AIPAC, and repeatedly criticized Foushee for previously accepting such funds.

Though Foushee announced last year that she would not accept AIPAC donations this cycle, she and Allam continued to spar over the broader role of outside spending in the race.

Their matchup comes four years after the candidates first squared off in 2022, when Allam lost to Foushee in what became the most expensive primary in the state’s history, with outside groups spending more than $3.8 million.

Advertisement

However, this year is poised to break that record. Outside groups have reported spending more than $4.4 million on the primary matchup, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

WUNC’s Colin Campbell contributed to this report.



Source link

Continue Reading

North Carolina

Building for tomorrow’s storms: North Carolina updates flood strategy

Published

on

Building for tomorrow’s storms: North Carolina updates flood strategy


North Carolina is beginning to plan for floods that have not happened yet.

State officials this year advanced the next phase of the state’s Flood Resiliency Blueprint, incorporating updated modeling that factors in heavier rainfall, future development and sea-level rise — a shift away from relying solely on historic data and FEMA’s regulatory maps.

“We can make decisions and plan for that future, not just the exposure to flooding that we see now,” said Stuart Brown, who manages the Flood Resiliency Blueprint for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.

For a state that has endured record-breaking rainfall from Hurricane Helene in the mountains to Tropical Storm Chantal in the Triangle, the move reflects a growing recognition: past standards no longer capture present risk.

Advertisement

Beyond outdated flood lines

Multiple North Carolina studies have found that between 43% and 60% of flood damage occurs outside FEMA’s regulatory flood zones. Those maps shape insurance requirements and local zoning decisions, yet they are largely based on historical rainfall data.

“A lot of the regulatory floodplains really haven’t kept up with what we know is happening,” said Elizabeth Losos, executive in residence at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability.

Climate data show rainfall intensity in the Triangle has increased by about 21% since 1970. Warmer air holds more moisture, fueling heavier downpours that overwhelm drainage systems designed for a different climate.

“Fixing what we know is flooding right now is good,” Losos said. “It’s better than nothing, but it’s definitely not enough.”

Brown said the blueprint incorporates projections for future precipitation and development — a critical factor in one of the fastest-growing states in the country.

Advertisement

“Development can be an issue for flooding in two categories,” Brown said. “One is when that development is occurring in areas that are flood prone. The other is when that development is done in ways that don’t account for the additional stormwater that will be produced.”

Thousands of projects, limited dollars

Unlike states that rely on massive levee systems, North Carolina’s flood risk is scattered across river basins, coastal plains and rapidly developing suburbs. Brown said resilience here will require thousands of localized projects.

“We were asked by the General Assembly to provide specific, actionable projects,” Brown said. “We want to know what specific geography and what specific action is proposed.”

That planning push comes as federal support for flood research and mitigation is shrinking.

The Trump administration has proposed a roughly 30% cut to NOAA’s 2026 budget, targeting climate research and ocean services that provide the rainfall and coastal data states use to model flood risk. At FEMA, the administration has cut staff by more than 6%, reduced funding for local hazard mitigation projects and added new approval layers for grants.

Advertisement

For North Carolina, that means fewer dollars for buyouts, drainage upgrades and flood control projects — and less federal data to guide long-term planning — just as the state is trying to build a more forward-looking flood strategy.

Brown said North Carolina is trying to “leverage the limited dollars that we have in the state with any federal sources that are available” and embed resilience into routine investments in transportation, water treatment and conservation.

“Funding is always going to be an issue,” Brown said.

The policy gap

Researchers have long argued that resilience investments save money. Studies show every $1 spent on mitigation can yield $4 to $13 in avoided losses.

“The problem is that the policies don’t align the people who pay the cost with the people who get the benefit,” Losos said.

Advertisement

A developer may not directly benefit from downstream flood reduction. A town may shoulder upfront infrastructure costs while insurers, neighboring communities or future taxpayers capture part of the savings.

Without policy changes that align costs and benefits, resilience can remain politically and financially difficult.

“In the most severe cases, there are some communities that will have to eventually abandon if they don’t begin to think about how they can adapt to these conditions,” Losos said.

North Carolina now has updated tools to better measure future flood risk. Whether the state can secure stable federal support — and align its own policies with the risks ahead — will determine how effectively communities prepare for the next storm rather than recover from the last one.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending