Call for comments: AVMA COE accreditation standards
Following up after pausing its requirements for veterinary colleges to report on DEI activities, the AVMA Council on Education® (COE®) has issued a call for comments on proposed changes to related sections of its accreditation standards.
Comments are due no later than June 13, 2025, on proposed revisions to the accreditation standards in these seven areas: organization, clinical resources, students, admissions, faculty, curriculum, and outcomes. The proposed changes can be viewed here in the AVMA Center for Veterinary Accreditation, along with information on how to submit comments.
The proposed revisions are "driven by a demonstrated need to ensure the Standards continue to support and protect students while enabling colleges and schools to comply with federal laws, varying state laws, and evolving federal policies," according to the COE®.
The COE® has been reviewing its accreditation standards in order to help veterinary colleges and schools avoid potential conflicts with state and federal mandates. In March, the council moved to make reporting on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities optional for veterinary schools. The council explained its action this way in a Dear Colleague letter to veterinary school deans:
“In recognition of the potential conflicts arising due to changing state and federal law, regulations, and guidance, the COE will not require programs to report on, or comply with, current aspects of the Standards of Accreditation that relate to DEI or other related language in a manner that conflicts with applicable law or other institutional directives or regulations as determined by impacted institutions.”
The COE® noted at the time that executive orders and some state mandates/laws had the potential to negatively impact critical research funding and veterinary students’ access to Health Profession Student Loans.
The COE’s role
The AVMA COE® is the accrediting body responsible for setting veterinary education standards and assessing veterinary colleges to meet the minimum requirements for graduating day-one-ready veterinarians. It is recognized as an accreditor by the U.S. Department of Education, which allows access to Title VII Health Profession Student Loans.
The COE® is functionally autonomous from the AVMA. Because it is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as an accrediting body, the COE® is required to maintain independence from the AVMA. This includes making independent decisions regarding accreditation of veterinary schools, the standards of accreditation, and its policies and procedures.
Comments
Comment on proposed changes to accreditation standards.
The proposed changes are agreeable and more in line with merit based admission standards.
Deep Concern Regarding Proposed Changes to AVMA COE Accreditatio
Dear AVMA Council on Education,
I am writing as a deeply concerned veterinary student who strongly disagrees with the recent proposal to revise several sections of the AVMA COE accreditation standards—particularly in light of the decision to pause required reporting on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts.
As someone who is actively immersed in veterinary education, I find it deeply troubling that during a time when veterinary medicine is reckoning with its lack of diversity and striving toward inclusivity, the COE is stepping back from requiring programs to demonstrate their commitment to DEI. This move sends a harmful message—that equity and representation are optional rather than essential components of veterinary education.
These proposed changes are not taking place in a vacuum. They come at a time when students, faculty, and entire communities are asking for stronger accountability, not less. Reducing transparency in DEI initiatives undermines years of progress and makes it harder for programs to be held responsible for building inclusive learning environments. This directly affects students from underrepresented backgrounds and threatens to reverse efforts that have only just begun to move the profession forward.
Moreover, proposed changes to key areas such as admissions, faculty, curriculum, clinical resources, and student support could drastically reshape how veterinary programs function—with consequences that will be felt most acutely by students. Without thoughtful input from a diverse range of voices, including students, these revisions risk reinforcing inequities that already exist within the profession.
This is not the direction veterinary medicine should be heading. Now more than ever, we need clear standards that prioritize not only scientific excellence, but also equity, cultural competence, and systemic accountability. I urge the COE to reconsider these changes, reinstate DEI reporting as a core requirement, and commit to building a profession where all students feel seen, supported, and empowered.
Respectfully,
A DVM student who cares
Yes! I am also a current…
Yes! I am also a current veterinary student. DEI ought to be expanded and protected. It is deeply concerning that the COE is wanting to make these changes.
RE: Deep Concern Regarding Proposed Changes to AVMA COE Accredit
The COE welcomes all public comments and appreciates you taking time to offer your thoughtful input. Please note – per policy, for the COE to consider a public comment which includes your blog comment, the comment must be emailed to coe@AVMA.org and must use the following subject line: COE Standards revisions - Public Comments or they can be mailed to Anahita Gonda, Administrative Coordinator, AVMA, 1931 N. Meacham Road, Ste. 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360.
Agreement
Hello, As a first-generation college student and a woman pursuing a career in this field, I can say without hesitation that DEI initiatives have played a critical role in opening doors, not just for me, but for many others whose backgrounds have historically been underrepresented or marginalized in veterinary education. The AVMA's commitment to DEI should not be determined by shifts in the political climate, but by a moral and professional obligation to ensure that veterinary medicine reflects and serves the diverse communities we work with. Pausing DEI reporting requirements or erasing the language altogether sends the message that equity and transparency are optional or disposable. This undermines years of progress and discourages students, especially those like myself, from believing we have a place in this profession. I understand it is scary to speak up and based on the language used in the changes, I can see efforts being made but I implore you to stand up for the students and values that the AVMA represents.
I couldn’t agree more!
I couldn’t agree more!
Firm Opposition
As a Licensed Veterinary Technician and educator, I stand in firm opposition to the removal of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) language from the AVMA Council on Education (COE) accreditation standards.
Veterinary medicine must reflect the diverse communities we serve. Removing DEI-related expectations from accreditation not only sends the wrong message to students, faculty, and staff—it undermines our shared responsibility to create inclusive learning environments and compassionate, culturally competent professionals.
DEI is not political. It is a commitment to fairness, accessibility, and belonging. It ensures that all individuals—regardless of background—have the opportunity to succeed in veterinary medicine. Accrediting bodies should raise the bar for educational excellence, not lower it by erasing the values that strengthen our profession.
This move threatens to roll back progress in recruitment, retention, and representation—especially for historically excluded groups. I urge the AVMA COE to maintain strong, clear DEI expectations within accreditation standards. Our profession deserves nothing less.
Urgent Need for NAVLE Reform and Independent Audit
Dear AVMA Council on Education,
The NAVLE’s persistent quality issues – including poorly written questions, ambiguous scoring, and inconsistent difficulty – require immediate intervention through a full independent psychometric audit. This formal evaluation by testing experts would assess:
Question Validity
Do items actually measure clinical competency, or just test-taking skills?
Are "trick" questions and blurry images compromising content validity?
Reliability Analysis
Why do pass rates vary dramatically between exam versions?
Are scoring models statistically sound?
Bias Detection
Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis to identify questions that disadvantage specific student groups
Review of species/specialty representation against actual practice needs
Professional Standards Demand This Action
The National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) requires high-stakes exams like NAVLE to undergo regular psychometric review – yet the ICVA operates without this oversight. A 2023 survey of veterinary educators found that 68% lacked confidence in the exam’s psychometric integrity.
Three Non-Negotiable Reforms:
Contract an independent psychometric firm to conduct the audit
Public release of the audit findings, including item analysis
Ongoing review panels with faculty/clinicians to vet new questions
The $1.2M in annual NAVLE fees paid by students should guarantee professional exam design – not subsidize a flawed process. The COE has both the authority and obligation to mandate this review under Standard 11.
Co-signing this statement
In addition to this specific and actionable list, the AVMA COE should address and assess concerning reports of variation between universities for supporting students for this exam. There should be a baseline expectation for support for students, accommodation processes, as well as critical evaluation of current testing limits while the potential career options not requiring licensing exam have shifted drastically since January 2025.
NAVLE development
There is a tremendous amount of effort expended in an attempt to provide a fair, comprehensive, defendable, and equitable exam by the ICVA. Regular reviews of exam questions and submission of new questions by a dynamic group of item writers insures an up to date reflection of the professional education process. I would be confident that any certifying agency would give their stamp of approval on the development process and and administration of the NAVLE. The process for developing the exam undergoes regular review and is constantly evaluating input from many sources. The evaluation of the results of individual scores is a fair process after statistic review. I believe that the current "pass" rate of nearly 90% would indicate that ICVA has no intention of bias of any sort to anyone. I think anyone who wishes to challenge the fairness or validity is welcome to have the NCAA do an assessment in an effort to discredit it but, I think it would be a wasted effort.
Support NAVLE Reform
I completely agree with this assessment. NAVLE is not a fair test as it stands. It needs a complete overhaul.
Co-signing Dr. Lopez's statement
I support Dr. Lopez's recommendations for an independent audit of the exam process to ensure a fair and clinically relevant testing and licensure process for all students graduating into this profession.
RE: Urgent Need for NAVLE Reform and Independent Audit
The COE welcomes all public comments and appreciates you taking time to offer your thoughtful input. Please note – per policy, for the COE to consider a public comment which includes your blog comment, the comment must be emailed to coe@AVMA.org and must use the following subject line: COE Standards revisions - Public Comments or they can be mailed to Anahita Gonda, Administrative Coordinator, AVMA, 1931 N. Meacham Road, Ste. 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360.
DEI
DEI is a worthless concept that has no place in Veterinary Medicine or anywhere else. Reporting on DEI "activities" should be completely eliminated.
DEI is Ridiculous
I could not agree more. DEI is Ridiculous.
COE accreditation changes
DEI initiatives do not foster better veterinarians. People should not be admitted to any prestigious program based solely on diversity, equity and inclusion. It should always be based on merit (earning your spot by hardwork and excellence no matter your gender, race, socioeconomic status, etc). Everyone has the same opportunity to succeed or not succeed. Students should ONLY be accepted into a program based on their performance skills and behavior not on characteristics that do not correspond to the job they are training to do. The federal government has it right for once and it would be poor policy to lose research funds in order to allow less than qualified people into the field especially with a veterinary shortage that already exists.
DEI
It is critically important that we ignore the current federal administration's ridiculous political grandstanding and instead focus on the diversity, equity, and inclusion that is crucial to the success of veterinary medicine. I am ashamed, as a Gen X white woman, to see this pandering to the power which considers himself king.
DEI
The veterinary industry is the last to complain about the need for diversity programs! Had it not been for a federal mandate, the systemic issues relating to the need for diversity in our industry would have never occurred. Too many scared to speak up, and too many cronies in positions of power. I own Veterinary Staff Unlimited, a staffing and consulting firm in one of the largest companion animal
markets ( Los Angeles) and I can speak first hand to this. Folks, be more inclusive and stay out of those back room conversations that limit opportunities. Until then, mandates are important.
DEI
It is absolutely critical that we are teaching DEI in our classrooms. Speaking from my CURRENT experience as a student in veterinary schooling, it is critical that we are being taught how to work with clients of diverse ethnicities, socioeconomic status, culture, etc. Ignoring the differences in the language of this proposed ‘amendment’ will A) perpetuate the glossing over of diversity programs intended to target conversations around those who are EQUALLY QUALIFIED to attend veterinary school but have less resources B) harm client patient relationships with future vets, where students are not properly equipped with how to navigate communication regarding finances, religion, cultural expectations, etc C) limit diverse staffing of academic institutions — students learn best hearing perspectives of as many clinicians as possible to get a broader view of Vet Med as a whole. Without descriptive langue of DEI, there is more grey area and implicit bias WILL be stronger and set us back.
DEI
Multiple studies show that workplaces, schools, and collaborative environments are better when there is a diverse background of ideas and opinions. It leads to better communication, idea development, and outcomes. There are already enough wealthy, white people in vet schools. I think that it is our duty as a profession to encourage and seek out a variety of people to make up our vet school classes, especially as our clients make up a whole spectrum of people. Please, let's be a beacon of education and evidence-based ideas, and not be silenced by the current political focus.
DEI strengthens a merit based system
DEI improves and buttresses a merit-based criteria system. It is in place to ensure merit is the correct criteria being used. It is not a “quota” system, it ensures all people are viewed on merit and not based on our society’s historical marginalization of certain groups of people. Marginalized folks want to be viewed based on merit alone and that is what DEI does in our society that is historically not merit based.
DEI Comment Call Response
COE accredits the educational requirements for veterinary programs. It is up to the institution to adhere to the requirements according to that specific institution. As an accrediting body, governance to ensure federal guidelines are followed should be addressed however, at no point should anyone use the COE to regulate DEI activities. We have a great profession; whoever meets the institutions admission requirements on merit should be accepted in the program regardless of any thoughts on DEI. Otherwise, discrimination also occurs against those that are the better candidate. This is certainly out of the scope of COE. The institutions accrediting body/agency also regulates and assess federal requirements and COE specifics should match those or defer to those requirements.
Focus on What’s Right for Veterinary Medicine—Support DEI!
DEI initiatives are not political—they’re essential to advancing our profession. Merit and DEI are not opposites. Traditional metrics like grades and test scores often benefit those with more resources. DEI broadens our understanding of merit to include resilience, creativity, and diverse problem-solving skills.
Why DEI Matters in Veterinary Medicine:
1. Nearly 90% of U.S. veterinarians are white, despite rising pet ownership among minority groups. This underrepresentation can discourage future veterinarians from diverse backgrounds.
2. A diverse workforce improves cultural competence, leading to better communication, trust, and health outcomes for animals and clients alike.
3. Teams with varied backgrounds offer fresh perspectives which leads to more innovation and better problem-solving.
Shameful failure to support our profession
In a time when society is normalizing hate and discrimination, it is more important than ever to take a stand that we welcome and need diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences. We should actively work toward greater inclusion and equity, for the strength our profession, and for basic human decency. The AVMA should be the standard-bearer for those values. Instead, you turned your back on everyone in our profession that isn't a straight white male, in your rush to lick the boots of bigotry. You could have been Harvard - but you decided to be Target instead. That failure and disgrace should keep you up at night.
DEI
Our profession should look much like our population. Nearly 50/50 male/female with a make up of likely 60 percent white and close to 40 percent minority (2020 census data). If our veterinary classes don’t reflect this ratio then we must look if the applicants don’t reflect this make up and if they don’t start to dive deeper into the “why’s” vs admitting “groups” based on what a small committee feels “is best for the profession”. Public, land-grant universities must get back to their roots and their leaders as well as all of their employees must recognize why they were created and are still funded to this day. I’m not opposed to privately funded universities or programs having different missions or purposes but not tax payer funded educations.
DEI
Though I understand the intent of the COE to create "wiggle room" for veterinary colleges in face of today's political environment, I am disappointed in its lack of defense of the importance of ensuring the presence of all aspects of society, equity for all individuals, and comprehensive inclusive representation of every societal demographic that chooses to enter the veterinary profession. How quickly we seem to forget that it has not been that long ago when Jim Crow laws protected a segregated and misogynistic education system that prevented access for certain races and severely limited access for women in the veterinary profession.
The assertion that opening access to our entire society and assuring the structural impediments established during the Jim Crow era diminishes the consideration of merit in any way, is baseless. When the word “merit” is invoked, the crass assumption is merit is synonymous to “intellect”, as reflected by GPA. However, the inference that someone would be admitted solely based on one characteristic (including merit) is a recipe for disaster. I am unaware of any institution that actively seeks applicants that are not prepared for or not likely to successfully matriculate to graduation. This is an unsustainable model for any institution and does not serve the interests of the profession or society.
Entry into the veterinary profession is, (and should be), based on multiple factors - including social factors. During these times, when there seems to be a resurgence of views steeped in hatred and intolerance, the COE should protect its moral position of assuring educational access to all by promoting the educational values that benefit the profession in serving the whole of society.
RE: DEI
The COE welcomes all public comments and appreciates you taking time to offer your thoughtful input. Please note – per policy, for the COE to consider a public comment which includes your blog comment, the comment must be emailed to coe@AVMA.org and must use the following subject line: COE Standards revisions - Public Comments or they can be mailed to Anahita Gonda, Administrative Coordinator, AVMA, 1931 N. Meacham Road, Ste. 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360.
They say jump,
and you say how high. Shame!
DEI
DEI is critical for ALL populations that have had strategic barriers put in place to keep them out of the profession. It’s not about “brown” it’s about women, people with disabilities, LGBTQIA+, over 50 professionals and people with children. All of the populations that predominant the field and have no seat at the table.
DEIB
While I recognize that the COE and many institutions of higher learning find themselves in a precarious situation where funding and other critical resources are being threatened at the whim of the federal government, I am deeply concerned by the proposal to no longer endorse and enforce DEIB measures in veterinary schools. When we have the resources and the training to benefit from a diverse pool of individuals and help those who are a part of our profession feel safe and included, what possible reason could we have to not do it? Our profession is need of innovation and creativity, and the general public needs a veterinary industry that understands its needs. And all members of our profession deserve equity. It really baffles my mind that this is controversial. While I know each institution must act autonomously, we as a profession and the COE as a body that oversees veterinary education should be taking cues from Harvard University and others who are standing up against any attempts to bully them into submission. Universities must continue to be centers for freedom of thought and safety for its students and community.
Changes to COE
Quite frankly I am appalled and deeply deeply disappointed that the AVMA is considering prematurely capitulating to an authoritarian government that has already shown us, as veterinary professionals, what it thinks of our usefulness, what it thinks of science, and how little it cares for actual research. DEI has made possible maternity leave, ADA compliant bathrooms, and hundreds of other things that we take for granted today, because someone pointed out an inequity and sought to correct it. The idea that DEI somehow promotes unqualified individuals is a fake narrative designed to alarm and uphold a society deeply rooted in institutionalized whiteness. Look at our profession. It is overwhelmingly white. You think that's somehow not shaped by inequities in our culture? No one wants unqualified veterinarians, and that's absolutely not how DEI works. Research has shown that hidden bias keeps people of color out of qualified positions. I don't think I'll be rejoining the AVMA if this goes forward. Do better. I am truly truly horrified to think our professional society is upholding the wrong side of history here.
DEI
I am disappointed in the COE not standing up for marginalized students and faculty. How can we keep our oath if there are not veterinarians who understand, look like and are trusted by traditionally marginalized people who bring their animals to us? How can we support our colleagues if they are discriminated against by other veterinarians?
Keep DEI language
I am disappointed my professional organization, to which I pay dues, is not advocating for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. If we want to expand veterinary to rural and underserved areas, including large animals and food animal medicine, we will not be able to do so by not advocating to include those communities in our profession. The cost of access to education in rural and marginalized communities precludes them from having access to to joining our profession and thus expanding this care. There is repeated evidence that allowing for diversity of all kinds is advantageous to not only society but also to business. As an AVMA member, I DO NOT condone the removal of DEI.
RE: Keep DEI language
The COE welcomes all public comments and appreciates you taking time to offer your thoughtful input. Please note – per policy, for the COE to consider a public comment which includes your blog comment, the comment must be emailed to coe@AVMA.org and must use the following subject line: COE Standards revisions - Public Comments or they can be mailed to Anahita Gonda, Administrative Coordinator, AVMA, 1931 N. Meacham Road, Ste. 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360.
Keep DEI
DEI is very important. Other professional organizations have rejected the current administration's removal of this, and AVMA should follow suit. I am an AVMA member, and am extremely disappointed that AVMA isn't fighting for DEI. DEI has made possible maternity leave, ADA compliant bathrooms, and hundreds of other things that we take for granted today, because someone pointed out an inequity and sought to correct it.
RE: Keep DEI
Thank you for commenting – we always appreciate hearing from our members. The AVMA continues its ongoing commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, focusing on building environments and workplaces where veterinarians, members of our teams, and students from all backgrounds and experiences feel welcomed and supported.
Initiatives like Journey for Teams, the DEIW Summit, the Brave Space certificate program, and our workplace culture programming are still active and remain core to our mission.
It's important to note that the AVMA Council Of Education® is functionally autonomous from the AVMA. Please note – per policy, for the COE to consider a public comment which includes your blog comment, the comment must be emailed to coe@AVMA.org and must use the following subject line: COE Standards revisions - Public Comments or they can be mailed to Anahita Gonda, Administrative Coordinator, AVMA, 1931 N. Meacham Road, Ste. 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360.
DEI
I am disheartened and saddened to hear that COE is considering removing DEI standards from our schools. We must promote and applaud diversity in veterinary medicine!
COE and DEI changes
It appears that some of my colleagues have no idea about diversity and inclusion when it comes to curriculum, hiring, etc. NO ONE ACCEPTED into vet school is there because of lower standards for marginalized communities. I remember when my spouse worked in Flint. People came to see HIM because he was the VET that looked like them. His clinic gained clients because he was there. He has that same situation now and we are in a more diverse community. And folks need to remember that DEI is not just race--visible and invisible disabilities are part of it. There are numerous DVMs with invisible disabilities that are wonderful and their clients support them. You need to teach future DVMs that not everyone will think the same, have the same background, same experiences, etc. As a first generation student, my parents didn't know what to do to support me and I struggled with 2 jobs in undergrad to pay for school because FAFSA said they could use their house (take out a second mortgage) to help me pay. They couldn't afford that options so if I wanted to finish undergrad it was up to me to find a way, get DVM experience hours, and study to pass classes. I am so disappointed in the COE for not standing up for our profession and my "colleagues" that seem to think that unqualified people get in. Look in the mirror and examine your privilege.
DEI
Rolling Back DEI Without Dismantling the Systems It Was Designed to Counter Is Morally and Historically Absurd
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies emerged as a direct response to centuries of exclusion, discrimination, and systemic inequality embedded in American institutions. Far from being symbolic or superficial, DEI efforts have been a modest yet necessary attempt to begin correcting historically engineered disparities. Calls to “roll back DEI,” especially at the federal level, are not only misguided but dangerously naive unless preceded by the dismantling of the very systems DEI was intended to counterbalance.
Origins and Purpose of DEI
DEI programs were formally shaped in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement and codified through mechanisms such as Executive Order 11246 (1965), which required federal contractors to “take affirmative action” to ensure equal opportunity regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (U.S. Department of Labor, 1965). These initiatives responded to blatant hiring discrimination, exclusion from educational institutions, and economic systems designed to favor white Americans. DEI gained further structure in higher education and corporate America during the 1980s and 1990s in response to lawsuits and increasing demands for representation and equity (Bell, 1992).
Importantly, DEI was reactive, not proactive. It arose to counter systems like:
• Redlining and housing discrimination (Rothstein, 2017)
• School segregation and unequal education funding (Kozol, 1991)
• The racial wealth gap, with white households holding 6 to 7 times more wealth than Black households (Federal Reserve, 2019)
• Discriminatory policing and incarceration policies, including the legacy of slave patrols (Alexander, 2010)
• Workplace exclusion, with significant underrepresentation of women and people of color in leadership (EEOC, 2023)
DEI as Corrective Policy
These policies were designed to create access, not advantage. Affirmative action, for example, was never about hiring or admitting unqualified individuals—it was about ensuring that qualified individuals who were historically locked out could finally be seen. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), “the path to leadership must be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.”
In that context, DEI serves as a form of reparative justice. It acknowledges that the playing field has never been level and that equity sometimes requires differentiated treatment to account for vastly unequal starting points. Removing DEI without dismantling the systems of exclusion it was created to fix is like removing chemotherapy while the cancer still spreads.
What Would Need to Be Dismantled First
If DEI is to be rolled back, then logically, the root systems it addressed must also be dismantled:
• The White House, built by enslaved African Americans and named without irony as a symbol of national power. If we’re removing equity-based policies, we must also interrogate symbols of inequity (Loewen, 2005).
• Wealth transfers through redlined real estate, GI Bill exclusions, and segregated homeownership that allowed white families to accumulate generational wealth at the direct expense of Black and Brown families (Oliver & Shapiro, 1995).
• Legacy admissions, a direct pipeline to elite universities for white and affluent families—essentially affirmative action for the privileged (Espenshade & Radford, 2009).
• Corporate pipelines that continue to be dominated by white male leadership, with Black men making up less than 2% of Fortune 500 CEOs in 2024 (Fortune, 2024).
• Cultural gatekeeping, where media, politics, and academia still reflect a disproportionate white narrative and define “professionalism” and “normalcy” through a white lens (DiAngelo, 2018).
Without addressing these structures, eliminating DEI is not a move toward fairness—it is a reassertion of dominance.
White Privilege as the Default
DEI never created unfairness; it simply highlighted it. White privilege is not always about individual guilt but about collective, structural advantage. It is the unearned safety, trust, and presumption of competence that white people can generally rely on in jobs, schools, public spaces, and media portrayals (McIntosh, 1988). If DEI seems “too much” to those who have always benefited from this invisible network of preference, it is only because for the first time, power is being shared.
Conclusion: If DEI Is Excessive, So Was Exclusion
Rolling back DEI without first dismantling the machinery of systemic inequality is logically incoherent and ethically bankrupt. The backlash against DEI reflects a discomfort with disruption—but that disruption was never about domination. It was about repair.
If we are truly to move beyond DEI, it must not be because we retreat into colorblind fantasies but because we have genuinely addressed the systems of injustice that required DEI in the first place. Until then, DEI is not optional. It is essential.
⸻
References
• Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New Press.
• Bell, D. A. (1992). Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism. Basic Books.
• DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Beacon Press.
• Espenshade, T. J., & Radford, A. W. (2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton University Press.
• Federal Reserve. (2019). Survey of Consumer Finances.
• Fortune. (2024). Fortune 500 CEO Diversity Report.
• Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. Crown.
• Loewen, J. W. (2005). Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. Touchstone.
• McIntosh, P. (1988). White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.
• Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. (1995). Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. Routledge.
• Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Liveright.
• U.S. Department of Labor. (1965). Executive Order 11246—Equal Employment Opportunity.
diversity
We should all agree that admission to the profession must to be "merit" based. Defining "merit" is the variable. It is not only "ability to excel on a test". General and cultural empathy, scientific curiosity, social consciousness, etc are equally useful criteria.
As a veterinarian and…
As a veterinarian and stakeholder in the future of our profession, I appreciate the AVMA COE’s initiative to review and revise accreditation standards. I support efforts that protect students, ensure compliance with state and federal laws, and safeguard critical funding and loan eligibility.
With regard to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) reporting, I agree with the decision to make such reporting optional. While DEI efforts can add value to the educational environment, admissions and faculty selection should always prioritize merit and qualifications. The goal must be to train the most capable and dedicated veterinarians, regardless of background. Making DEI reporting optional allows institutions to tailor their approaches to their unique contexts without compromising legal compliance or educational quality.
These revisions represent an important step toward strengthening veterinary education while maintaining fairness, excellence, and legal integrity. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
RE: As a veterinarian and...
The COE welcomes all public comments and appreciates you taking time to offer your thoughtful input. Please note – per policy, for the COE to consider a public comment which includes your blog comment, the comment must be emailed to coe@AVMA.org and must use the following subject line: COE Standards revisions - Public Comments or they can be mailed to Anahita Gonda, Administrative Coordinator, AVMA, 1931 N. Meacham Road, Ste. 100, Schaumburg, IL 60173-4360.
DEI
DEI matters just as much as representation matters. Many communities are still underrepresented and the AVMA should be the first organization to protect them and make sure that educational spaces are made for everyone! What a shameful decision!
DEI
The current definition and spirit of DEI has no place in the development and production of medical professionals. Merit and intellect ought be the only criteria in the advancement of those in our profession. When a patient needs a mind to come through for them, the demographics of that mind ought not be part of the equation. For the good of the profession, we must strike this modern DEI criteria.
DEI
I think it would be a prudent decision for the COE, under present circumstances, to allow the veterinary schools to make the decision regarding DEI on an individual basis. All states are not the same regarding the administration of funds or stance on DEI and some schools are not sustainable in their efforts without state and national assistance.
Revisions to standards language
This mostly looks like the changes are removing the specific trigger words so 'the algorithm' won't flag it for further investigation. The overall goals of improving the selection of worthy students and supporting all students are good ones. Diversity is good. Being inclusive is good. Equity is good (though kind of a loaded term these days). "DEI" programs, as administered by the government, are as effective and efficient as any government-run program; that is, ineffective and inefficient. I'm confident that the colleges will continue trying to admit qualified students of all types, regardless of the specific wording.
Merit Goes Beyond Test Scores and GPA
DEI should continue to be a mandatory reporting component for accreditation. One comment here claimed that "everyone has the same opportunities to succeed", which is laughably inaccurate and further proves why DEI is so important.
DEI Ensures Equal Opportunity in Veterinary Medicine
It is well known that marginalized groups face systemic barriers to success, including limited access to high-quality education. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives help correct these imbalances by ensuring that all qualified individuals have equitable access to education and professional opportunities regardless of their background.
By removing DEI standards from veterinary school admissions, we risk reinforcing the very inequities we should be working to eliminate. The veterinary profession must reflect the diversity of the communities it serves. That begins with equitable, inclusive admissions practices.
We should be striving for a future in veterinary medicine that supports students and colleagues from all backgrounds. Upholding DEI in education is a critical step toward that future.
The veterinary industry is…
The veterinary industry is the last to complain about the need for diversity programs! Had it not been for a federal mandate, the systemic issues relating to the need for diversity in our industry would have never occurred. Too many scared to speak up, and too many cronies in positions of power. We must be more inclusive and stay out of those back room conversations that limit opportunities. Until then, mandates are important.
DEI initiatives
While I understand the difficulties associated with the current administration and the importance of maintaining funding for individual universities and institutions I think that it is critical for the AVMA COE to continue making diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives part of its standards and stand up for what is clearly right and in line with our veterinary oath, whether these standards are in their current form or a modified one.
For one thing it is both inaccurate and close-minded to suggest that DEI initiatives prevent the functioning of merit based systems when applied correctly. “Merit” is a complex idea and should incorporate many facets of an individual, not simply their academic achievements. It additionally must incorporate the limitations faced by many individuals from diverse backgrounds that are not faced by the majority (generally, though not always, white and wealthier individuals). It is insane to expect a student who is paying for all of their own education while supporting their family to be able to obtain the same grades and veterinary hours (usually unpaid interships or externships) as someone who has financial assistance from their family and does not need to worry about whether they will be able to eat next week. These factors need to be taken into consideration during application to veterinary schools which is exactly what DEI initiatives are designed to do.
Additionally, increasing diversity in the profession (not just in terms of race but also language, socioeconomic status, life experiences, gender and more) can only serve to benefit the profession by bringing in new viewpoints and ideas while also allowing veterinarians to better connect with our diverse clients and animal caregivers.
Hopefully in time we will be able to live in a world where DEI initiatives are not required but right now this is critical to create a more equitable world and a better profession.
Pagination
Add New Comment