A legal battle has arisen in Michigan over mandatory implicit bias training for healthcare professionals.

According to Just the News, the core of the controversy lies in the enforcement of mandated training which was challenged in court by a dentist.

Grand Rapids dentist Dr. Kent Wildern filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) last week. Dr. Wildern’s legal action challenges the state's imposition of implicit bias training as a requirement for medical license renewal.

The training requires participants to take the Harvard-designed implicit association test, which critics have challenged for its reliability in predicting discriminatory behaviors. A 2009 study published by the Journal of Applied Psychology found the test's ability to predict such behaviors "surprisingly weak."

Further scrutiny came in 2011 when the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin characterized implicit measures as "sexy but often unreliable." This questioned the effectiveness of using such tests in mandatory training scenarios.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued an executive order in July 2020, installing Michigan’s required implicit bias training regulations. The order aimed to enhance equity in healthcare and largely drew from findings by the Coronavirus Task Force on Racial Disparities after the George Floyd protests.

Implemented 11 months after the governor's order, the mandate impacts approximately 400,000 healthcare professionals across the state, with veterinarians being the only exception. However, Dr. Wildern argues through his lawsuit that LARA has overreached its legal boundaries by enforcing these training mandates. Represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, he claims that mandatory training requirements stray from LARA's statutory purposes.

LARA lacks any statutory authority to impose these sweeping, one-size-fits-all mandates, and the rule's ideological content bears no connection to the purposes of LARA's authorizing statutes.

Despite the ongoing integration of implicit bias training in professional mandates, the credibility of tests like the Harvard-designed implicit association test remains in hot debate. Media reports from outlets such as Vox and New York Magazine have highlighted inconsistencies in the test's results.

Moreover, these tests come with a disclaimer that they are not definitive assessments of implicit preferences, raising further questions about their practical applicability in sensitive professional areas like healthcare.

Since the implementation of the training regulations, Michigan conducted "at least 132" investigations into healthcare professionals who either refused or failed to complete the mandatory implicit bias training. As a result, fines ranging from $125 to $2,500 were imposed. Some healthcare providers faced license suspension, and others opted to voluntarily relinquish their licenses, showing the significant impact of these mandates on the professional lives of healthcare workers.

This case illuminates a broader discussion on the integration of social science tools in regulatory environments. It brings to the forefront questions about the balance between legislative oversight and professional autonomy, particularly in sensitive sectors such as healthcare, where the implications of such mandates are not solely theoretical but have practical and personal impacts.

The outcome of this lawsuit may set significant precedents for how states can implement professional training requirements and the extent to which they can mandate content that delves into societal and psychological aspects.