
Seattle Children’s Hospital is at the center of a growing controversy following the leak of training materials that show employees were segregated by race during mandatory diversity training sessions. The training, conducted in August 2022, divided staff in the gastroenterology department into three racial categories: White, Black, and “non-Black people of color (POC).”
According to the leaked materials, the segregation was intended to “minimize harm” to Black participants and to facilitate discussions about racial identity development. White participants were asked to engage in activities designed to help them “divest” from their “Whiteness” and to reflect on their racial histories. Meanwhile, Black participants were prompted to consider how they resist internalized anti-Black sentiments, and non-Black POC were informed that Black individuals are more susceptible to structural racism.
The training was led by Roberto Montenegro, a child psychiatrist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, along with external diversity trainers like April Baker-Bell. Montenegro’s approach, which he describes as using a “social justice lens,” has drawn criticism from those who see such training as ideologically driven rather than evidence-based.
Stanley Goldfarb, a vocal critic of such initiatives and founder of Do No Harm, expressed concern that this type of training could lead to greater division within the healthcare system. “These training sessions are simply ideological indoctrination sessions,” Goldfarb said, arguing that they may undermine the trust patients have in their healthcare providers.
The leak has fueled ongoing debates about the role of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in various sectors, particularly in healthcare. Critics argue that such programs could threaten the neutrality and integrity of the medical profession, potentially leading to racially biased treatment of patients.
Seattle Children’s Hospital has not yet commented on the leaked materials, but the controversy has sparked widespread discussion about the appropriate boundaries of DEI initiatives in professional settings.