So sorry and angered to hear about your profession and organization. Remember, in my "professional organization" of Marriage and Family Therapists in California, they censored my letter to the editor in my journal, then doubled down and completely removed the Letter to the Editor section altogether for a very similar non-explanation. I hope more stand up and fight to reestablish the integrity of our once esteemed professions.
I write not as a Fellow of the ACS but as a retired Marine Major who spent over two decades in uniform and later served on senior executive staffs in support of the Department of Defense and Federal Government. From that vantage point—where organizational clarity, disciplined governance, and unfiltered internal communication are matters of national security—the abrupt shutdown of the ACS Communities forum is deeply concerning.
This is not merely the loss of a digital bulletin board. It reflects a pattern of institutional drift that I have seen weaken organizations far larger and more complex than the ACS. When a legacy institution abruptly disables its primary mechanism for member-to-member engagement—especially after a decade of celebrating its vitality—several red flags appear immediately.
1. Transparency and Data Integrity
The rapid shift from praising “robust engagement” to claiming a “steep decline” is the type of contradictory messaging that, in the national-security world, would trigger immediate scrutiny. When explanations lack data, or when reasoning appears to change to suit a desired outcome, it typically signals internal pressure—political, ideological, or compliance-driven.
In member-funded organizations, transparency is not optional; it is a fiduciary duty.
2. Governance and Bylaws Compliance
In the DoD, bypassing established processes—especially without notice, adjudication, or reference to regulatory authority—would be recognized as procedural overreach. The ACS decision mirrors the same pattern:
unilateral authority exercised without consultation,
elimination of a critical communication channel,
and disciplinary actions taken without due process.
That is not a communications issue; it is a governance integrity issue.
3. Chilling Effects on Professional Autonomy
Throughout my career, whether in combat environments or in policy rooms at the Pentagon, the ability to speak candidly—to challenge assumptions, critique leadership decisions, and raise uncomfortable truths—was non-negotiable. Military readiness depends on it.
Surgical readiness is no different.
Shutting down the ACS Communities deprives surgeons of the only large-scale, professionally moderated space where candid discussion could occur outside of public scrutiny. Forcing conversations onto generic or less secure platforms fragments professional cohesion and increases risk to the very mission the ACS was created to support: patient safety and surgical excellence.
When an institution suppresses internal discourse, its members simply move their conversations elsewhere. The only casualty is trust.
4. A Prescient Warning Sign for the ACS
The pattern emerging here is familiar across government agencies, academic bodies, medical boards, and NGOs that have stumbled into ideological rigidity:
decreasing tolerance for dissent,
tightening control over communication,
strategic decisions made without member visibility,
and a shift from representing members to managing them.
Once this cycle begins, the effects are predictable:
declining engagement, parallel organizations forming, dues erosion, and ultimately—loss of institutional authority.
For the ACS, this is not administrative housekeeping; it is a strategic misstep with long-term consequences.
5. Why This Moment Matters Nationally
The Departments of Defense and State—and the Office of the DNI—have spent the past several years confronting the erosion of trust in American institutions, both domestically and globally. They are fighting against a climate where decision-making is perceived as opaque, ideologically filtered, or unaccountable.
When a pillar of American medicine, entrusted with setting standards for surgical excellence, adopts practices that look indistinguishable from the behaviors undermining other institutions, it contributes—however unintentionally—to the broader crisis of public confidence in expert bodies.
This is not just an ACS matter.
It is a matter of national professional culture.
When internal dissent is stifled and transparent dialogue is replaced by controlled messaging, institutions lose not only credibility but their core mission.
The Fellows are the College.
If such a consequential decision was made without member consultation, the responsibility for corrective action lies with the membership—whether through demanded transparency, governance review, or structural reform.
From the outside looking in, this appears far less like routine platform management and far more like a watershed moment exposing deeper tensions that must be addressed before they compromise the long-term integrity of the ACS.
Respectfully offered by a retired Marine officer who has seen the cost—nationally and organizationally—of allowing governance drift and communication suppression to go unchallenged.
Semper Fidelis, Major Henry R. Salmans, III (USMC, Retired)
Nice post, really miss acs forum. Being @India, I enjoyed discussions and opinions about my clinical posts .Try to revise the forum in any way ,are with you wholeheartedly. Best of luck.
Although you and i frequently butted heads on the threads and i suspect you wouldn't have granted me ACS membership had you been in charge, i fully agree with you in this article and always felt it was unfair to ban you. i enjoy seeing your passion expressed.
Lildoc3, Why in the world would you suspect that I would have denied you ACS membership, assuming of course, that you met the standard requirement for all candidates? My entire message related to surgery and ACS is that we must focus on excellence over lesser priorities and everyone should be welcome and their opinions allowed to be expressed without censorship. I was raised to consider all members of the human race to be equal in the eyes of our creator with no one above anyone else. I am strongly against discrimintion based on immutable characteristics like race, ethnicity, gender, etc. I am strongly for discrimination based on merit, excellence, and hard work. Cheers, Rick
Goldilox, That would probably get their attention if enough surgeons dropped and gave the ACS policies as the reason why, but even then, I think the ideologues would just say "good riddance" and continue with their toxic ideology. Retired ACS members do not have to pay dues so that eliminates one avenue for registering our protest.
You are very kind, but I am in the "Sunshine State" of Florida and, besides that, I am also retired! 47 years in the trenches practicing medicine was enough. I look back with a great deal of satisfaction and contentment on a career that I consider to have been a great privilege.
So sorry and angered to hear about your profession and organization. Remember, in my "professional organization" of Marriage and Family Therapists in California, they censored my letter to the editor in my journal, then doubled down and completely removed the Letter to the Editor section altogether for a very similar non-explanation. I hope more stand up and fight to reestablish the integrity of our once esteemed professions.
Dr. Bosshardt,
I write not as a Fellow of the ACS but as a retired Marine Major who spent over two decades in uniform and later served on senior executive staffs in support of the Department of Defense and Federal Government. From that vantage point—where organizational clarity, disciplined governance, and unfiltered internal communication are matters of national security—the abrupt shutdown of the ACS Communities forum is deeply concerning.
This is not merely the loss of a digital bulletin board. It reflects a pattern of institutional drift that I have seen weaken organizations far larger and more complex than the ACS. When a legacy institution abruptly disables its primary mechanism for member-to-member engagement—especially after a decade of celebrating its vitality—several red flags appear immediately.
1. Transparency and Data Integrity
The rapid shift from praising “robust engagement” to claiming a “steep decline” is the type of contradictory messaging that, in the national-security world, would trigger immediate scrutiny. When explanations lack data, or when reasoning appears to change to suit a desired outcome, it typically signals internal pressure—political, ideological, or compliance-driven.
In member-funded organizations, transparency is not optional; it is a fiduciary duty.
2. Governance and Bylaws Compliance
In the DoD, bypassing established processes—especially without notice, adjudication, or reference to regulatory authority—would be recognized as procedural overreach. The ACS decision mirrors the same pattern:
unilateral authority exercised without consultation,
elimination of a critical communication channel,
and disciplinary actions taken without due process.
That is not a communications issue; it is a governance integrity issue.
3. Chilling Effects on Professional Autonomy
Throughout my career, whether in combat environments or in policy rooms at the Pentagon, the ability to speak candidly—to challenge assumptions, critique leadership decisions, and raise uncomfortable truths—was non-negotiable. Military readiness depends on it.
Surgical readiness is no different.
Shutting down the ACS Communities deprives surgeons of the only large-scale, professionally moderated space where candid discussion could occur outside of public scrutiny. Forcing conversations onto generic or less secure platforms fragments professional cohesion and increases risk to the very mission the ACS was created to support: patient safety and surgical excellence.
When an institution suppresses internal discourse, its members simply move their conversations elsewhere. The only casualty is trust.
4. A Prescient Warning Sign for the ACS
The pattern emerging here is familiar across government agencies, academic bodies, medical boards, and NGOs that have stumbled into ideological rigidity:
decreasing tolerance for dissent,
tightening control over communication,
strategic decisions made without member visibility,
and a shift from representing members to managing them.
Once this cycle begins, the effects are predictable:
declining engagement, parallel organizations forming, dues erosion, and ultimately—loss of institutional authority.
For the ACS, this is not administrative housekeeping; it is a strategic misstep with long-term consequences.
5. Why This Moment Matters Nationally
The Departments of Defense and State—and the Office of the DNI—have spent the past several years confronting the erosion of trust in American institutions, both domestically and globally. They are fighting against a climate where decision-making is perceived as opaque, ideologically filtered, or unaccountable.
When a pillar of American medicine, entrusted with setting standards for surgical excellence, adopts practices that look indistinguishable from the behaviors undermining other institutions, it contributes—however unintentionally—to the broader crisis of public confidence in expert bodies.
This is not just an ACS matter.
It is a matter of national professional culture.
When internal dissent is stifled and transparent dialogue is replaced by controlled messaging, institutions lose not only credibility but their core mission.
The Fellows are the College.
If such a consequential decision was made without member consultation, the responsibility for corrective action lies with the membership—whether through demanded transparency, governance review, or structural reform.
From the outside looking in, this appears far less like routine platform management and far more like a watershed moment exposing deeper tensions that must be addressed before they compromise the long-term integrity of the ACS.
Respectfully offered by a retired Marine officer who has seen the cost—nationally and organizationally—of allowing governance drift and communication suppression to go unchallenged.
Semper Fidelis, Major Henry R. Salmans, III (USMC, Retired)
Nice post, really miss acs forum. Being @India, I enjoyed discussions and opinions about my clinical posts .Try to revise the forum in any way ,are with you wholeheartedly. Best of luck.
Although you and i frequently butted heads on the threads and i suspect you wouldn't have granted me ACS membership had you been in charge, i fully agree with you in this article and always felt it was unfair to ban you. i enjoy seeing your passion expressed.
Lildoc3, Why in the world would you suspect that I would have denied you ACS membership, assuming of course, that you met the standard requirement for all candidates? My entire message related to surgery and ACS is that we must focus on excellence over lesser priorities and everyone should be welcome and their opinions allowed to be expressed without censorship. I was raised to consider all members of the human race to be equal in the eyes of our creator with no one above anyone else. I am strongly against discrimintion based on immutable characteristics like race, ethnicity, gender, etc. I am strongly for discrimination based on merit, excellence, and hard work. Cheers, Rick
What if ACS members stopped paying dues?
Goldilox, That would probably get their attention if enough surgeons dropped and gave the ACS policies as the reason why, but even then, I think the ideologues would just say "good riddance" and continue with their toxic ideology. Retired ACS members do not have to pay dues so that eliminates one avenue for registering our protest.
Where are you in CA? I would love to refer people to you.
You are very kind, but I am in the "Sunshine State" of Florida and, besides that, I am also retired! 47 years in the trenches practicing medicine was enough. I look back with a great deal of satisfaction and contentment on a career that I consider to have been a great privilege.