American Diabetes Association ejects researchers from conference for sharing editorial from its own journal

Last week, several medical researchers were kicked out of an American Diabetes Association conference after handing out copies of an editorial published in the organization’s own flagship journal.

The ADA is a private organization, so this isn’t a First Amendment issue. But it does raise questions about why an organization that claims to “welcome scientific inquiry, respectful dialogue, and diverse perspectives” responded so harshly to conference attendees peacefully distributing an article from one of its own publications.

The incident occurred outside a conference hall where Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, was scheduled to deliver a keynote address. The Washington Post reports that a small group of researchers quietly handed out printouts of a recent editorial in Diabetes Care criticizing Trump administration policies affecting biomedical research. One of the researchers is the journal’s editor and co-authored the piece. Security staff and police escorted them out of the conference at the request of event organizers. Video captured the confrontation.

Some of the ousted researchers said they believed they were removed partly because the ADA feared repercussions from the Trump administration. Let’s hope that’s not true. But all the organization has offered are weak and shifting justifications that seem to be inconsistent with its stated commitments to open dialogue and viewpoint diversity.

For example, in a statement to the Post, the ADA said the researchers were ejected for “violating the conference code of conduct,” under which participants are expected to “conduct themselves in a professional and respectful manner.” Those terms are highly subjective, but it’s worth noting that, on the reported facts, there is no claim or evidence the ejected researchers chanted, blocked access, disrupted an event, or otherwise interfered with the conference. They simply handed out pieces of paper.

Then, in another statement defending its actions, the ADA cited the “safeguards” it has in place to ensure compliance with its obligations as a tax-exempt organization, including “maintaining a strictly nonpartisan environment at all organizational events and functions.” But the ADA was in no real danger of losing its tax-exempt status by allowing conference participants to distribute the editorial.

Police escort Steven Kahn out of a diabetes conference in New Orleans for handing out copies of an editorial critical of the Trump administration, via MedPage Today.

IRS rules do restrict Section 501(c)(3) nonprofits from participating or intervening in political campaigns on behalf of, or in opposition to, candidates for public office. But the editorial merely criticizes administration policies and calls on “concerned citizens” to contact their congressional representatives. That is issue advocacy — and under certain circumstances may be grassroots lobbying — but it is not urging people to vote for or against a candidate. As the IRS has made clear, “Section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office.”

Not only that, but the ADA was not even the speaker here. Conference participants were acting independently, and the editorial itself includes a prominent disclaimer — at the top and bottom — stating that the opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the ADA.

The organization’s rationale echoes a mistake FIRE has seen universities make for years: erroneously claiming that their tax-exempt status requires suppressing the independent political advocacy of students or student organizations. At Washington and Lee University in 2021, for example, the administration prohibited the College Republicans from displaying campaign materials in support of then-Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin. As FIRE explained to W&L, the university had ignored “the distinction between institutional expression and the expression of its students.” IRS guidance recognizes that the “actions of students generally are not attributed to an educational institution unless they are undertaken at the direction of and with authorization from a school official.”

The ADA similarly appears to be misinterpreting IRS rules. Allowing conference attendees to hand out copies of an editorial is not the same as the organization itself promoting the editorial or adopting it as an official position.

If the ADA really believes distribution of the editorial endangered its tax-exempt status, it raises an obvious question: Why didn’t the same concern stop it from publishing the editorial in the first place?

All that said, the organization was still within its rights to remove the researchers. But if it truly seeks to “welcome scientific inquiry, respectful dialogue, and diverse perspectives,” it should avoid this kind of heavy-handed response to the peaceful exchange of views at its conferences.