The American College of Surgeons silences the voices of its 93,000 members
The closure of the ACS Communities has rendered the entire membership of the ACS mute. The unanswered question is why?
(Apologies for yet another post related to the American College of Surgeons. I hope you will stay on this post long enough to appreciate the sea change that has recently occurred in this once venerated organization.)
The ACS is the oldest and, with 93,000 member Fellows, the largest professional organization in the world representing all surgeons and the practice of surgery. Fellowship status, which allows a surgeon to place ‘FACS’ after their MD, has always been regarded as a mark of distinction, signifying the surgeon’s commitment to excellence in their surgical practice.
On November 7, with minimal advance notice, no opportunity for discussion, and an explanation that was simply not believable, the leadership shut down the ACS Communities discussion forum, effectively silencing the entire membership of the ACS.
When the Communities site was launched in July 2014 it was lauded as way for surgeons to network with one another, to discuss clinical and non-clinical matters of interest, and to truly establish a community of surgeons beyond just paying dues and being an ACS Fellow surgeon. It was available 24/7 for surgeons to log in and view posts or post their own concerns. Popular posts could garner dozens or even hundreds of comments from individual Fellows. The largest comment thread in the history of the ACS Communities ran from April to August of 2021, and was a lively discussion and debate regarding the embrace, by the leaders of the ACS, of antiracism and DEI in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. Two thirds of the participants on that thread objected to the direction of the ACS leadership in adopting the position that the ACS, its surgeons, and surgery itself were racist.
In July 2024, the 10th anniversary of the Communities, the ACS published a laudatory piece by Tyler Hughes, Editor-in-Chief of the Communities with glowing references to the robust and active engagement and stellar numbers, including “6,825 unique contributors [who] have posted approximately 156,000 discussion group posts, created nearly 27,000 threads, and viewed library items more than 437,000 times.” In February of this year, the ACS introduced the Communities new Editor-in-Chief, Sean Langenfeld, who would lead the “ACS Communities to a new era introducing younger surgeons to this platform while strengthening its most vital components.”
Given the unique status of the ACS and the history of the Communities, it is disingenuous for the leadership to state that Fellows of the ACS can just go to other discussion sites to have conversations. These are not nearly as convenient nor limited to ACS surgeons like the Communities were, and this ignores why the Communities was formed in the first place.
The Communities have not been without controversy. Both Tyler Hughes and Sean Langenfeld have felt the need to moderate discussions and censor, delete, or totally deplatform Fellows who, they claim violate the rules of the Communities as interpreted by them and/or posted comments critical of the ACS leadership for its commitment to ideological positions, initiatives, and policies. The leadership at first attempted to control the discussions by modifying the rules of conduct to prohibit certain discussions on the Communities or eliminating so-called “non-clinical” forums and discussions altogether. When this apparently failed to bring Fellows into compliance, they took the next logical step to close the Communities totally. In keeping with its recent history of administration by fiat, the leadership made no effort to engage the membership regarding this decision.
When I asked Jerry Schwartz, Managing Editor of the ACS, who announced the closure, why the Communities were closed, the reply came from Natalie Boden, MBA, Vice-President, Division of Integrated Communications, Member and Staff Communications. Ms. Boden said this was done, “…after reviewing more than a decade’s worth of data showing a steep decline in the number of contributors and discussion threads” (keep in mind, the ACS was responsible for removing discussion forums). This seems to directly contradict the glowing statements about the Communities put out earlier. I have asked for this “data” to be shared with the full membership, but so far there has been no reply. From Hughes and Lagenfeld? Crickets.
What changed? The only incident that seemed to be temporally connected to the closure was my confrontational meeting with leaders of the ACS at the Annual Clinical Congress in October at which I demanded to know why I was banned from the Communities for a life, without due process and in violation of the bylaws of the ACS. All refused to answer.
The ACS leadership has now truly crossed the Rubicon with the leadership’s decision to suddenly eliminate all discussions among Fellows and between Fellows and themselves. It remains to be seen whether the membership of the ACS will rise up and demand some transparency and accountability from the leaders of the organization we pay dues to or just meekly accept this muzzling of discussion and debate among ourselves without protest.
Richard T. Bosshardt, MD, FACS
If you are looking for that perfect stocking-stuffer for Christmas, look no further. My book, The Making of a Plastic Surgeon- Two Years in the Crucible Learning the Art and Science, is the perfect size and inexpensive. It will give your friend or family member a unique, honest, and unflinching glimpse into the fascinating world of plastic surgery. While you are at it, get your own copy.
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)