I want to extend my personal support and respect for your principled stance in the face of professional ostracism. Your account reflects a troubling trend in American institutions, where legitimate concerns and dissenting views are often met not with dialogue but with punitive silence. This not only undermines collegial discourse but also erodes the foundational values that make our civil society strong—chief among them, freedom of speech and equal protection under the law.
Federal guidance is clear: under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any organization receiving federal funds must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and the Department of Justice have both clarified that racially discriminatory practices—even if intended to achieve “equity” or “social justice”—are still unlawful if they result in adverse treatment based on race.
Moreover, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has affirmed that applying different standards to individuals based on their identity group—whether to disadvantage or favor—is inconsistent with federal civil rights protections.
Your exclusion from professional platforms and communications, particularly in an organization funded by taxpayer dollars and committed to medical excellence, raises serious concerns. If your identity as a “white, heteronormative male” was cited as justification for disciplinary action, this may constitute a prima facie violation of Title VI and the ACS’s own ethical obligations.
What you are enduring is not merely a personal affront—it is a case study in how the erosion of constitutional norms and lawful protections can infiltrate even the most respected institutions.
You are not alone in this fight. Many Americans—physicians, veterans, scholars, and citizens—recognize the danger of compelled ideological conformity and the suppression of open debate. Your courage invites others to reclaim truth, fairness, and professional integrity.
Semper Fidelis,
Hank
Henry R Salmans III
USMC (Retired)
Duvall v. Novant Health (North Carolina, 2021–2024)
David Duvall, a white male senior executive, alleged he was terminated to meet diversity targets, replaced by a white woman and a Black woman. A federal jury awarded him $10 million in punitive damages. Although this was later reduced due to statutory caps, he received over $4 million in back pay, front pay, and other damages.
Bonenberger v. St. Louis Police Department
Sergeant David Bonenberger, a white male, was told not to apply for a promotion because the department aimed to hire a Black woman for diversity reasons. A federal jury awarded him $620,000 for race discrimination.
Herrera v. New York City Department of Education (2024)
Three white female executives claimed they were demoted and replaced by less qualified individuals of color as part of DEI initiatives. The City settled the case for $2.1 million.
Standards for admission to surgical training programs, metrics for evaluation of surgical performance, and criteria for board certification have been objectively established and consistently implemented over decades. The process for development and evolution of these standards has included careful consideration, analysis, and experience based determinations of many wise, pioneering, brilliant, visionary, compassionate, and accomplished surgeons. The sudden, arbitrary, and unilateral adoption of DEI as an additional standard for admission, promotion, and/or certification without scientific basis is contrary to foundational surgical principles. The ACS has completely abandoned its charter by censoring and censuring a Fellow's voice expressing well supported and broadly shared views, even if controversial. Debate, discourse, and transparent survey of all data and opinions are important before such major policy changes.
The ACS by its actions has acknowledged that surgical skill and knowledge are unessential to the practice of surgery, and merely hurling titles and epithets to terrorize the public into accepting a surgeon's diagnosis and chosen means of treatment, are the only purpose served by membership in the self-appointed "college". The officials who have made this confession, whether true or false, have shown themselves unfit to practice medicine and must be stripped of their licenses to practice, as:
1) If what they assert is true, that titles are randomly granted on no evidence of merit, then they have been operating a fraudulent scheme to deceive the public into believing that a particular individual is more qualified than most are, to perform medically necessary surgery, and
2) if what they assert is untrue, they threaten to bring vast harm to the public, by granting titles and credentials corruptly, also grounds for termination of license.
DEI is a racist movement. It is designed to damage and seek revenge against white people. Thanks for your courage in standing up against racism.
Dr. Bosshardt,
I want to extend my personal support and respect for your principled stance in the face of professional ostracism. Your account reflects a troubling trend in American institutions, where legitimate concerns and dissenting views are often met not with dialogue but with punitive silence. This not only undermines collegial discourse but also erodes the foundational values that make our civil society strong—chief among them, freedom of speech and equal protection under the law.
Federal guidance is clear: under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any organization receiving federal funds must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and the Department of Justice have both clarified that racially discriminatory practices—even if intended to achieve “equity” or “social justice”—are still unlawful if they result in adverse treatment based on race.
Moreover, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has affirmed that applying different standards to individuals based on their identity group—whether to disadvantage or favor—is inconsistent with federal civil rights protections.
Your exclusion from professional platforms and communications, particularly in an organization funded by taxpayer dollars and committed to medical excellence, raises serious concerns. If your identity as a “white, heteronormative male” was cited as justification for disciplinary action, this may constitute a prima facie violation of Title VI and the ACS’s own ethical obligations.
What you are enduring is not merely a personal affront—it is a case study in how the erosion of constitutional norms and lawful protections can infiltrate even the most respected institutions.
You are not alone in this fight. Many Americans—physicians, veterans, scholars, and citizens—recognize the danger of compelled ideological conformity and the suppression of open debate. Your courage invites others to reclaim truth, fairness, and professional integrity.
Semper Fidelis,
Hank
Henry R Salmans III
USMC (Retired)
Duvall v. Novant Health (North Carolina, 2021–2024)
David Duvall, a white male senior executive, alleged he was terminated to meet diversity targets, replaced by a white woman and a Black woman. A federal jury awarded him $10 million in punitive damages. Although this was later reduced due to statutory caps, he received over $4 million in back pay, front pay, and other damages.
Bonenberger v. St. Louis Police Department
Sergeant David Bonenberger, a white male, was told not to apply for a promotion because the department aimed to hire a Black woman for diversity reasons. A federal jury awarded him $620,000 for race discrimination.
Herrera v. New York City Department of Education (2024)
Three white female executives claimed they were demoted and replaced by less qualified individuals of color as part of DEI initiatives. The City settled the case for $2.1 million.
Standards for admission to surgical training programs, metrics for evaluation of surgical performance, and criteria for board certification have been objectively established and consistently implemented over decades. The process for development and evolution of these standards has included careful consideration, analysis, and experience based determinations of many wise, pioneering, brilliant, visionary, compassionate, and accomplished surgeons. The sudden, arbitrary, and unilateral adoption of DEI as an additional standard for admission, promotion, and/or certification without scientific basis is contrary to foundational surgical principles. The ACS has completely abandoned its charter by censoring and censuring a Fellow's voice expressing well supported and broadly shared views, even if controversial. Debate, discourse, and transparent survey of all data and opinions are important before such major policy changes.
The ACS by its actions has acknowledged that surgical skill and knowledge are unessential to the practice of surgery, and merely hurling titles and epithets to terrorize the public into accepting a surgeon's diagnosis and chosen means of treatment, are the only purpose served by membership in the self-appointed "college". The officials who have made this confession, whether true or false, have shown themselves unfit to practice medicine and must be stripped of their licenses to practice, as:
1) If what they assert is true, that titles are randomly granted on no evidence of merit, then they have been operating a fraudulent scheme to deceive the public into believing that a particular individual is more qualified than most are, to perform medically necessary surgery, and
2) if what they assert is untrue, they threaten to bring vast harm to the public, by granting titles and credentials corruptly, also grounds for termination of license.