Fauci and Big Mama Rag in a Post-Covid World of Disinformation

Mis- Mal- and Dis-information are big problems even or especially in a world of information over load.  Everybody agrees on that much but not about who is doing the mis- mal- or dis-informing.  We all think its them not us. I know it ain’t me.  That’s what makes any effort to define “education” for tax exemption purposes almost impossible.  Not impossible, just almost impossible.  Which means possible. This post is about revising the Big Mama Rag regulations to define education in a way that excludes snake oil salesmen but doesn’t enforce orthodoxy. 

Here is the context:  The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Educational Foundation (AAPS) is an anti-vaxxer group exempt from tax under IRC 501(c)(3).  AAPS sued three other medical education groups exempt under IRC 501(c)(3) – the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology, and the American Board of Family Medicine.  And the Department of Homeland Security just to get over the state action problem. The complaint is that Dr. Fauci, a modern day Napoleon with a stethoscope, convinced the whole world to stop making money and do whatever Big Brother says.  And that he is still at it.  And that anybody who makes a peep in opposition to the one world one government plan — perhaps through an organization that teachings anti-vaxxing ideas — will be cancelled because of it.  And there are other conspiracies, opposition to which will get you cancelled, according to the complaint.  From AAPS’ brief on appeal to the 5th Circuit:

Defendants American Board of Internal Medicine (“ABIM”), American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology (“ABOG”), and American Board of Family Medicine (“ABFM” and collectively, the “Board Defendants”) have certification monopolies in their respective specialties, which are based primarily on written multiple-choice medical examinations. (ROA.9, ¶ 2) Unrelated to their qualifying examinations, the Board Defendants are also outspokenly allied with the Biden administration on the political issues of abortion, surgical and pharmacological transgender interventions, lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates. (Id.) The Board Defendants announced their campaign to take action against certifications earned by physicians who make public statements with which the Board Defendants disagree. (ROA.9-10, ¶ 3) 

A federal district court judge in Galveston summarily dismissed the complaint, relying on Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization to find that AAPS lacked standing. I’m telling you, you can be whatever kind of attorney you want if you start by reading cases about tax exemption.  Anyway, anti-vaxxers are all very bizarre, but AAPS’s complaint implicates a legitimate issue. When is education no longer education so that it should not be subsidized by tax exemption?

But first one more bit of context:  Board certifications are seals of approval without which physicians are at severe disadvantage in the market, apparently. AAPS alleges that those certification organizations exercise monopoly power – all in coordination with Uncle Joe – to shut people up.  Simply put, the Boards and Uncle Joe will not tolerate criticism of Dr. Fauci and the plan to dominate the world by lying about a modern flu virus in an effort to take over everything.  It’s even simpler than that.  AAPS fears that the Boards will cut off its supply of speakers for its anti-vaxxer conventions because those speakers fear the loss of Board certifications that might result if they speak against Fauci world domination. 

Defendants’ actions harm the conferences and fundraising efforts by AAPS, which depend on robust freedom of speech in-person and on the internet.  Presenters at conferences cosponsored by Plaintiff have received letters threatening revocation of their earned board certifications, for statements they made at AAPS co-sponsored conferences.

A federal district court judge in Galveston granted summary judgement against AAPS. On standing. But let’s talk about the medical boards’ threats as they relate to their charitable purpose and both sides’ claim to educational tax exemption.  The medical boards are private organizations and sure, they can decide who to endorse by certification. Based on their educational process they have concluded that Covid is real and that vaccines work.  The anti-vaxxers claim as opposite justified true beliefs that Covid is a big hoax, vaccines don’t work and masks are useless.l, except yo shut people up.  We would like both sides to pursue theory but at some point we simply have to make a judgement and declare that one theory or another is false, or in the language of epistemologists, an “unjustified belief.”    

But I am still not sure that denying or yanking a certification if a physician or scientist makes even a highly discreditable speech at an antigovernment medical convention is consistent with educational tax exemption.   We need some sort of analytical approach to protect the efficient subsidization of education; to distinguish education from indoctrination or thought policing, and to ensure that subsidizing educational organizations does not enabled suppression of legitimate educational inquiry or propagation of absurdities.  Because there have been quite a number theories espoused over the years that ought to have been accepted or challenged sooner. Or that ought not be subsidized long after all justifications evaporated. Copernican heliocentrism — that the earth is not the center of the universe, basically — might have been grounds for revoking certification [and tax exemption] without workable standards.  Exempting entities that might stifle theory and inquiry makes no more sense than granting tax exemption to every crackpot conspiracy group.  Presumably we subsidize in hopes of achieving the ideal middle ground.  A subsidized educational organization is supposed to indulge legitimate inquiry. 

So we need some sort of analytical approach to protect the efficient subsidization of education. And oh yeah, the rule needs to navigate the right of free speech.  The discredited regulations defining educational organizations say this much:

An organization may be educational even though it advocates a particular position or viewpoint so long as it presents a sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts as to permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion. On the other hand, an organization is not educational if its principal function is the mere presentation of unsupported opinion.

The vagueness is thought to have been ameliorated by Rev. Rul. 86-43, but don’t believe it.  Despite its vagueness even after Rev. Rul. 86-43, the regulations mean (1) an exempt organization claiming education status should present its positions epistemologically, like reliable evidence in court, and (2) an educational organization should not make assertions un-epistemologically — like hearsay or theories that don’t meet Frye or Daubert.  The anti-vaxxers violate the second rule by advocating as facts, ideas that are not epistemologically justifiable, but by excluding anti-vaxxer ideas, the medical boards violate the first rule if they do so without epistemological justifiacayion.  If the anti-vaxxers present as scientific knowledge — justified true belief — a position unsupported by epistemological methods, and the Boards present scientific knowledge but exclude “heresy” without regard to epistemology, both act in ways that should not be subsidized as education.   I think the AAPS is stupid, but if I were the King of Tax Exemption, able to grant, withhold or revoke, I would need to justify by logical analysis — and without regard to speech content if my Kingdom were America — my conclusion that one or the other sides is not “educational.”  Below the fold is an attempt at redrafting the education regulations towards that end.  I cut and pasted it from an article I have in the works.

darryll k. jones

Proposed 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3).  Education means a teaching activity in which epistemological methods are objectively employed to achieve intellectual goals.

• Epistemological methods include the unbiased use of:

• lectures or presentations, scholarly papers, news reports, fiction, or non-fiction literature, and the like,
• observation, demonstration, immersive experience, and the like,
• research, expository writing, debate, experimentation, collaboration, and the like,
• logical reasoning, critical thinking, argumentative construction or deconstruction, and the like, and
• problem solving, case analysis.

Whether an organization is educational will depend on an overall consideration of all the teaching methods.  An organization must objectively employ at least one epistemological method but need not employ any higher number of methods.  Nor is an organization required to use an equal number of methods supporting different propositions.  An organization must, to a reasonable extent of its resources, utilize an objective, unbiased pedagogy designed to foster the discovery of justified belief rather than the confirmation of pre-determined propositions or unjustified beliefs.

Intellectual goals include:

• Increasing justified beliefs, comprehension, and understanding
• Promoting independent thinking, curiosity, and exploration
• Acknowledging fallibility and employing critical thinking,
• Increasing subject matter fluency
• Promoting the social dispersion of all or any of the above

• Indoctrination is not education. Indoctrination should be understood by reference to its contemporary usage but in all cases is characterized by the selective use of methods, epistemological or not, to impart predetermined beliefs without regard to epistemic justification.  While indoctrination most often uses methods that excessively repeat a single proposition, or intentionally ignore or exclude evidence contrary to a proposition, the Service will consider all facts and circumstances to determine whether a teaching activity constitutes indoctrination rather than education.  Indoctrination is not determined by whether a belief is true, a topic is “controversial,” or the teaching method relies on emotive language.  Indoctrination refers only to whether a teaching activity is designed to impart non-evidential beliefs.