Caitlin Jade Esparza
Mark Simon2
Eraka Bath- 1School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States
- 2Storywalkers Consulting, Davis, CA, United States
- 3The Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, Department of Psychiatry, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- 4Division of Health Policy and Management, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States
While the number of positions, committees, and projects described as “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)” work has grown rapidly in recent years, there has been little attention to the theory, praxis, or lived experience of this work. In this perspective, we briefly summarize the research and concepts put forth by DEI leaders in higher education more broadly, followed by an analysis of the literature's application to academic medicine. We then discuss the ways in which language obscures the nature of DEI and the necessity of scholarship to evaluate the extensive range of practices, policies, statements, and programs the label is given to.
Introduction
The words “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) are frequently linked together in academic medicine to encompass everything from admission guidelines, to curriculum, to mistreatment policies. Yet despite years of solidarity statements and highly publicized promises, academic medicine has only recently begun to visibly pursue “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” For decades, the DEI work of scholars, community members, and trainees was rarely acknowledged, much less adequately resourced or compensated-even when institutions' progress has been reliant on their labor. Even formal DEI positions often lack clear expectations and the responsibilities associated with these roles have largely not been defined or codified, particularly beyond the executive level (1). Additionally, there is a noticeable lack of scholarship to interrogate the nature of these efforts, potential foundational frameworks and best practices, or meaningful outcomes to measure progress.
The DEI Landscape Today
To better understand emerging trends, between December 2020 and September 2021 we interviewed DEI leaders from medical schools and academic medical centers across the US on their experiences, motivations, and available resources. Interviewees shared that DEI work in academic medicine currently has a wide breadth of definitions and manifestations, with individuals and teams working in almost every possible institutional space, and with dramatic variability in level of authority, financial support, dedicated staffing, and scope. Directives from their leadership tended toward broad generalities, such as “create a culture of inclusion” and “create an environment where everybody feels welcome and included” rather than specific policies or measurable outcomes (2).
The experiences shared by DEI leaders in academic medicine are consistent with the work of scholars in post-secondary education and industry. Prior research has pointed to the lack of coordinated effort, clear objectives, sufficient funding, and adequate staffing as limitations to the effectiveness of diversity initiatives (3). Others have described how institutions dilute the meaning of diversity from the field's origins in affirmative action, creating instead a collection of words that can mean both everything and nothing at all (4). Leaders fail to consider how Black, Latinx, and Indigenous trainees, faculty, and staff are harmed by institutions that were built, and are maintained, with the tools of white supremacy, settler colonialism, capitalism, and patriarchy. Sociologist James Thomas explains how institutions create “diversity regimes” that link “diversity” to institutional identity without the tangible commitments to functionally do so (5). As a result, diversity devolves to re-branding, rather than a core value or set of practices.
Common DEI efforts, such as establishing new administrative positions, departmental committees, or implementation of health equity curricula, are not inherently flawed approaches (6–17). However, when institutions adopt initiatives in the absence of evidence-based strategic planning or structural reinforcement, their potential impact is severely limited. In addition, the work typically falls on a single or small group of minoritized trainees, faculty, and staff (18–21). The placement of responsibility on a select few—rather than the entirety of institutional, departmental, and programmatic leadership—is neither sustainable nor equitable. This clear manifestation of minority tax, alongside the daily abuse and discrimination experienced by minoritized people in academia, leads to burnout and exit (22–30). In turn, an institution's entire DEI programming may stall or completely halt with the loss of only a handful of individuals.
Institutional accountability largely relies on diversity-related accreditation standards such as those established by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) despite their vague, non-metric driven construction and unclear effectiveness (2, 31–34).
It is essential that the burden of responsibility and accountability to DEI work lay with the institution and its leaders. Identifying people with expertise and lived experience to consult or lead DEI initiatives is crucial, but not sufficient. Below we describe how the unexamined, vague language of “DEI” is inherently limiting to the design and implementation of DEI efforts.
Language Matters… to a Point
The language we choose can bolster or undermine our work. The phrase “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is made up of three distinct concepts, yet they are usually lumped together to reference a range of ideas and practices with no functional definition.
In some contexts, this ambiguity has allowed for the weaponization of language, such as the excusal of racist rhetoric under the guise of a “diversity of opinions” (3). This lack of specificity also further weakens productive dialogue, allowing for an incident of discrimination or abuse to be treated as an isolated “disagreement” or event and relegated to the DEI office to manage, or ignored completely (18).
Furthermore, each concept within DEI does not receive equal emphasis. The concept of diversity garners the lion's share of attention in academic medicine, vs. “equity” or “inclusion”—and in recent years “anti-racism” and “justice” (35). While there is value in expanding our vocabulary—particularly when seeking to understand and challenge complex systems of oppression—doing so does not inherently lead to action. An inconsistent understanding and application of language not only hinders our ability to communicate but fosters new opportunities for manipulation, obfuscation, and avoidance of responsibility by institutions and their leadership.
In the months following the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery in 2020, many academic medicine institutions released statements in response to public demand. However, in an analysis of 45 such statements, researchers found that one third did not include the words “racism” or “racist.” Of those that did, many minimized institutional accountability by focusing on interpersonal racism, and offered no commitments to specific actions. In addition, many used the words “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” or highlighted past DEI work unrelated to racial justice, rather than explicitly address anti-Black racism (36). In other words, following a clear national moment of racial reckoning, academic medical institutions were unable or unwilling to name racism, failed to acknowledge medicine's role in perpetuating racial violence and structural inequities, and instead often conflated DEI work with anti-racism.
A specific example of misalignment between an institution's stated values and observed action can be seen in the case of Dr. Aysha Khoury, a Black faculty member who was suspended and ultimately dismissed by Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine (KPSOM) in August 2020 after sharing institutional and personal experiences of racism in a small group discussion. Dr. Khoury was asked to facilitate the session and include content regarding the “legacies of power structures and institutionalized racism that result in gender bias and race bias in medicine today” (37). However, within hours of the session Dr. Khoury was notified that she was to be suspended from teaching and clinical duties due to a complaint regarding the discussion. Dr. Khoury had joined the KPSOM as an inaugural faculty member in 2019 and just 10 weeks prior to her suspension had been notified that she would be considered for an increase in academic rank. Despite student and community support—including all eight students from the discussion group—Dr. Khoury was denied appointment renewal in December 2020 and her case for wrongful termination against KPSOM is ongoing (37–39). As of Spring 2022, the KPSOM website includes among its values “promoting inclusiveness and diversity in medical education and the health professions… [and] advocating for change in medical education and the health professions” (40).
Academic medicine leaders may avoid acknowledging institutional responsibility because this would associate them with the forces that create, uphold, and perpetuate inequitable systems—namely white supremacy, misogyny, ableism, classism, and homophobia (41, 42). However, these are the same forces that wrote medicine's violent history and continue to uphold inequitable healthcare systems. The catch-all term, “diversity, equity and inclusion” can thus allow institutions to hide behind language and skirt the difficult work of examining and uprooting the foundations upon which medicine has accumulated and concentrated power (43–48).
A Closer Look
Unexamined language is reflected in unexamined work. For example, an institution could create a new DEI office, provide funding, and issue a directive to bring the percentage of students “underrepresented in medicine” in their next matriculating class to a level that parallels the state's demographics (49). However, if the push to reach this representation goal is not matched by investment in the learning environment—i.e., diversity without inclusion or equity—the harm to those students would be significant.
Multiple studies have found that trainees minoritized by their race, gender, or sexuality experience severe career and psychosocial consequences in academic medicine, including mistreatment, discrimination in evaluations, and high rates of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Students navigate rigid, ableist expectations of medical training without adequate support or culturally responsive resources (50–57). This highlights an intersectional challenge—that is one which is formed by overlapping axes of oppression—and therefore requires an appropriately robust and adaptable set of solutions.
For example, a program can be designed to provide trainees access to therapy, including to providers who reflect the identities and experiences of trainees. However, such an investment must also be paired with structural changes, such as protected time, to allow for actual access and benefit. Program and academic leave policies that limit excusals, require extensive documentation, or do not explicitly include mental health care as equivalent in validity to other areas of medical treatment are inherently ableist. So, while hiring providers who share the marginalized identities of trainees might partially mitigate inequitable access to culturally responsive care, it does not adequately consider structural design that can multiply the barriers that minoritized trainees, in particular disabled and chronically ill trainees, experience while in medical training.
Institutions must invest time and resources to remove, redesign, and replace the systems that have been established to center and prioritize the needs of predominantly white able-bodied cisgender men. Otherwise, increased representation merely magnifies the same cycles of abuse, marginalization, and harm. Diversity alone cannot fulfill the promise of equity or inclusion.
Looking Inward While Moving Forward
Academic medicine needs to use the rigor of scholarship to understand what diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, anti-racism, and other such concepts mean and how they can be actualized. Such scholarship is critical to develop frameworks and models to move institutions beyond performative DEI policies, mission and solidarity statements, and toward actual theory-grounded praxis and sustainable, transformative organizational change.
Academic medicine must look beyond its own expertise and collaborate with scholars of other fields, particularly the social sciences. Academic medicine has a self-defeating tendency to treat non-clinical research as minimally relevant (58–60). However, academic medicine, like other institutional structures, is a social construction. Analysis of institutional power dynamics remains woefully absent, despite its centrality to other fields such as critical race and feminist theory (42, 61–63). To understand how academic medicine has institutionalized racism, reinforced gender biases, constructed barriers to accessibility, and so much more, we need to recognize and seek the help of experts in those very issues.
Finally, we must consider the intention and value of the questions we choose to ask. As a start, we need to define the field—what does DEI mean, what are trying to achieve, and why? We still lack a clear picture of what DEI in academic medicine currently encompasses—what are we doing and how are we doing it? With these pieces of information, we can begin to assess the ways in which the work- DEI or not- aligns with stated objectives. We can then move on to the systematic and rigorous evaluation of specific programs and policies for their impacts. There are many ways to move forward, and an abundance of unanswered questions, but these overarching inquiries will allow us to create a foundation upon which to rebuild.
Discussion
Meaningful progress in academic medicine will require stepping away from ad hoc DEI programs and moving toward work grounded in theories of change, supported by evidence, and constantly interrogated for purpose, operationalization, and impact.
While we push for investment in the rigorous analysis of DEI work in academic medicine, that must not come at the expense of progress. When there is so much left undone and uninterrogated, there is a risk of limiting action for the sake of reflection. Given the ongoing harm experienced by those currently working and training in our field, we can not allow such a delay and must balance careful examination with continued action.
The reality of the current academic medicine landscape is one that was designed by and for cis-gender, heterosexual, non-disabled white men. The effects of such a history are baked into our current reality and while the manifestation of such a construction differs significantly depending on who or what the subject is, across marginalized identities and experiences there is abuse, discrimination, and exclusion. We keep out poor people with ever increasing tuition costs and debt burdens, we withhold power from Black people by limiting leadership representation to designated DEI roles, we hinder disabled students' learning by gatekeeping accommodations and failing to offer remote learning options, and we suppress the expression of our queer colleagues with racist and gendered professionalism standards (51, 64–66). The active exclusion, discrimination, and harm created by the medical education system are even more complexly entrenched when considered through a lens of intersectionality, revealing a built environment that is near impossible to enter and incredibly traumatic for those with multiple marginalized identities. Until we approach DEI in academic medicine with the rigor, intentionality, and investment needed to evaluate and influence an exceedingly complex and adaptable ecosystem of oppression, meaningful change will continue to elude us.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Author Contributions
MS: research team member, conceptual development, and draft review. EB and MK: research team advisor/co-PI, conceptual development, and draft review. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This work was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of an award totaling $3,791,026 with 0% financed with non-governmental sources. Grant ID UH1HP29965. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by HRSA, HHS, or the U.S. government. For more information, please visit HRSA.gov. This work was also supported by the University of California, Davis Office for Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (HEDI) and University of California, Davis Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
Conflict of Interest
MS was employed by Storywalkers Consulting.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. The Role of the Chief Diversity Officer in Academic Health Centers. Available online at: https://store.aamc.org/the-role-of-the-chief-diversity-officer-in-academic-health-centers-pdf.html (accessed March 19, 2022).
2. Esparza CJ. Doing the work —or not: the promise and limitations of diversity, equity and inclusion in US medical schools and academic medical centers. Oral presentation presented at: Beyond Flexner 2022 Conference. Phoenix, AZ (2022).
3. Berrey E. The Enigma of Diversity: The Language of Race and the Limits of Racial Justice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press (2015). p. 352. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226246376.001.0001
4. Ahmed S. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press (2012). p. 243. doi: 10.1515/9780822395324
5. Thomas JM. Diversity Regimes: Why Talk Is Not Enough to Fix Racial Inequality at Universities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press (2020). (The American campus). doi: 10.36019/9781978800458
6. Diaz T, Huerto R, Weiss J. Making merit just in medical school admissions. AMA J Ethics. (2021) 23:E223–8. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2021.223
7. Afolabi T, Borowsky HM, Cordero DM, Paul DWJ, Said JT, Sandoval RS, et al. Student-led efforts to advance anti-racist medical education. Acad Med. (2021) 96:802–7. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004043
8. Herling J. “Oh you should talk to…”: the implementation of LGBTQ health curricula in medical education. Adv Med Sociol. (2021) 21:277–98. doi: 10.1108/S1057-629020210000021017
9. Bi S, Vela MB, Nathan AG, Gunter KE, Cook SC, López FY, et al. Teaching intersectionality of sexual orientation, gender identity, and race/ethnicity in a health disparities course. MedEdPORTAL. (2020) 16:10970. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10970
10. Harpe JM, Safdieh JE, Broner S, Strong G, Robbins MS. The development of a diversity, equity, and inclusion committee in a neurology department and residency program. J Neurol Sci. (2021) 428:117572. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2021.117572
11. Narayan AK, Schaefer PW, Daye D, Alvarez C, Chonde DB, McLoud TC, et al. Practical tips for creating a diversity, equity, and inclusion committee: experience from a multicenter, academic radiology department. J Am Coll Radiol. (2021) 18:1027–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2021.03.022
12. Borowsky H, Morinis L, Garg M. Disability and ableism in medicine: a curriculum for medical students. MedEdPORTAL. (2021) 17:11073. doi: 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11073
13. South-Paul JE, Roth L, Davis PK, Chen T, Roman A, Murrell A, et al. Building diversity in a complex academic health center. Acad Med. (2013) 88:1259–64. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829e57b0
14. Lingras KA, Alexander ME, Vrieze DM. Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at a departmental level: building a committee as a vehicle for advancing progress. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. (2021) 16:1–24. doi: 10.1007/s10880-021-09809-w
15. Guevara JP, Adanga E, Avakame E, Carthon MB. Minority faculty development programs and underrepresented minority faculty representation at US medical schools. JAMA. (2013) 310:2297–304. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282116
16. Page KR, Castillo-Page L, Wright SM. Faculty diversity programs in US medical schools and characteristics associated with higher faculty diversity. Acad Med. (2011) 86:1221–8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822c066d
17. Beech BM, Calles-Escandon J, Hairston KG, Langdon SE, Latham-Sadler BA, Bell RA. Mentoring programs for underrepresented minority faculty in academic medical centers: a systematic review of the literature. Acad Med. (2013) 88:541–9. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828589e3
18. Rodríguez JE, Campbell KM, Pololi LH. Addressing disparities in academic medicine: what of the minority tax? BMC Med Educ. (2015) 15:1–5. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0290-9
19. Carson TL, Aguilera A, Brown SD, Peña J, Butler A, Dulin A, et al. A seat at the table: strategic engagement in service activities for early-career faculty from underrepresented groups in the academy. Acad Med. (2019) 94:1089–93. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002603
20. Campbell KM. The diversity efforts disparity in academic medicine. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18:4529. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094529
21. Chen JA, Rodríguez JE, Campbell KM. Examining diversity offices in medical education. J Best Pract Health Prof Divers. (2018) 11:43–50. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26554290
22. Rand C. Why Black Doctors Like Me Are Leaving Faculty Positions in Academic Medical Centers. STAT. (2020). Available online at: https://www.statnews.com/2020/01/16/black-doctors-leaving-faculty-positions-academic-medical-centers/ (accessed February 21, 2022).
23. Why Are BIPOC Physicians Leaving Academia? Medscape. Available online at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/957896 (accessed February 22, 2022).
24. Pololi L, Cooper LA, Carr P. Race, disadvantage and faculty experiences in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. (2010) 25:1363–9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1478-7
25. Shaw AK, Accolla C, Chacón JM, Mueller TL, Vaugeois M, Yang Y, et al. Differential retention contributes to racial/ethnic disparity in U.S. academia. PLoS ONE. (2021) 16:e0259710. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259710
26. Myers O, Greenberg N, Wilson B, Sood A. Factors related to faculty retention in a school of medicine: a time to event analysis. Chron Mentor Coach. (2020) 1:334–40.
27. Kaplan SE, Gunn CM, Kulukulualani AK, Raj A, Freund KM, Carr PL. Challenges in recruiting, retaining and promoting racially and ethnically diverse faculty. J Natl Med Assoc. (2018) 10:58–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jnma.2017.02.001
28. Xierali IM, Nivet MA, Syed ZA, Shakil A, Schneider FD. Recent trends in faculty promotion in US medical schools: implications for recruitment, retention, and diversity and inclusion. Acad Med. (2021) 96:1441–8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004188
29. Madrigal J, Rudasill S, Tran Z, Bergman J, Benharash P. Sexual and gender minority identity in undergraduate medical education: impact on experience and career trajectory. PLoS ONE. (2021) 16:e0260387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260387
30. Dyrbye LN, Satele D, West CP. Association of characteristics of the learning environment and US medical student burnout, empathy, and career regret. JAMA Netw Open. (2021) 4:e2119110. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.19110
31. Boatright DH, Samuels EA, Cramer L, Cross J, Desai M, Latimore D, et al. Association between the liaison committee on medical education's diversity standards and changes in percentage of medical student sex, race, and ethnicity. JAMA. (2018) 320:2267–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13705
32. Barzansky B, Hash RB, Catanese V, Waechter D. What is the role of accreditation in achieving medical school diversity? AMA J Ethics. (2021) 23:946–52. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2021.946
33. Lett LA, Murdock HM, Orji WU, Aysola J, Sebro R. Trends in racial/ethnic representation among US medical students. JAMA Netw Open. (2019) 2:e1910490. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10490
34. Lett E, Orji WU, Sebro R. Declining racial and ethnic representation in clinical academic medicine: a longitudinal study of 16 US medical specialties. PLoS ONE. (2018) 13:e0207274. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207274
35. Peek ME, Kim KE, Johnson JK, Vela MB. URM candidates are encouraged to apply: a national study to identify effective strategies to enhance racial and ethnic faculty diversity in academic departments of medicine. Acad Med. (2013) 88:405–12. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318280d9f9
36. Brown A, Auguste E, Omobhude F, Bakana N, Sukhera J. Symbolic solidarity or virtue signaling? A critical discourse analysis of the public statements released by academic medical organizations in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. Acad Med. (2022) 97:867–75. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004597
37. Aysha K. Black in Medical Education. Medium. (2020). Available online at: https://ahkhourymd.medium.com/black-in-medical-education-4045b4407e6e (accessed April 28, 2022).
38. Lenzer J. Black US doctor is fired after complaint about talk on racism in medicine. BMJ. (2021) 372:116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n116
39. Janice GA. One Doctor Shares Her Story Of Racism In Medicine. Forbes. (2021). Available online at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2021/02/01/one-doctor-shares-her-story-of-racism-in-medicine/ (accessed April 28, 2022).
40. Mission, Vision, and Values. Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine. Available online at: https://medschool.kp.org/about/mission-vision-and-values (accessed April 29, 2022).
41. Nguemeni Tiako MJ, South EC, Ray V. Medical schools as racialized organizations: a primer. Ann Intern Med. (2021) 174:1143–4. doi: 10.7326/M21-0369
42. Ray V. A theory of racialized organizations. Am Sociol Rev. (2019) 84:26–53. doi: 10.1177/0003122418822335
43. Washington H. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans From Colonial Times to the Present. New York, NY: Random House (2019). p. 501.
44. Shim R, Vinson SY. Social (In) Justice and Mental Health. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Publishing (2020). p. 298.
45. Owens DC. Medical Bondage: Race, Gender, and the Origins of American Gynecology. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press (2017). Available online at: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/30659 (accessed February 22, 2022).
46. Stern AM. Sterilized in the name of public health. Am J Public Health. (2005) 95:1128–38. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.041608
47. Lawrence J. The Indian health service and the sterilization of native American women. Am Indian Q. (2000) 24:400–19. doi: 10.1353/aiq.2000.0008
48. Campbell FK. Medical education and disability studies. J Med Humanit. (2009) 30:221–35. doi: 10.1007/s10912-009-9088-2
49. Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity. Health Workforce Diversity Tracker. Available online at: https://www.gwhwi.org/diversitytracker.html (accessed February 23, 2022).
50. Hardeman RR, Przedworski JM, Burke SE, Burgess DJ, Phelan SM, Dovidio JF, et al. Mental wellbeing in first year medical students: a comparison by race and gender: a report from the medical student change study. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. (2015) 2:403–13. doi: 10.1007/s40615-015-0087-x
51. Alexis DA, Kearney MD, Williams JC, Xu C, Higginbotham EJ, Aysola J. Assessment of perceptions of professionalism among faculty, trainees, staff, and students in a large university-based health system. JAMA Netw Open. (2020) 3:e2021452. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.21452
52. Aysola J, Barg FK, Martinez AB, Kearney M, Agesa K, Carmona C, et al. Perceptions of factors associated with inclusive work and learning environments in health care organizations: a qualitative narrative analysis. JAMA Netw Open. (2018) 1:e181003. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1003
53. Mabeza RM. Equity and a perpetual foreigner's professional exclusion. AMA J Ethics. (2021) 23:208–11. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2021.208
54. Vargas EA, Brassel ST, Perumalswami CR, Johnson TRB, Jagsi R, Cortina LM, et al. Incidence and group comparisons of harassment based on gender, LGBTQ+ identity, and race at an academic medical center. J Womens Health. (2021) 30:789–98. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2020.8553
55. Hill KA, Samuels EA, Gross CP, Desai MM, Sitkin Zelin N, Latimore D, et al. Assessment of the prevalence of medical student mistreatment by sex, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation. JAMA Intern Med. (2020) 180:653–65. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0030
56. McClinton A, Laurencin CT. Just in TIME: trauma-informed medical education. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. (2020) 7:1046–52. doi: 10.1007/s40615-020-00881-w
57. Osseo-Asare A, Balasuriya L, Huot SJ, Keene D, Berg D, Nunez-Smith M, et al. Minority resident physicians' views on the role of race/ethnicity in their training experiences in the workplace. JAMA Netw Open. (2018) 1:e182723. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.2723
58. Caelleigh AS. Social sciences and medicine. Acad Med. (2001) 76:869. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200109000-00005
59. Henrikson NB. Experiences of social scientists in health research settings: SBM leadership institute. Transl Behav Med. (2020) 10:902–4. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibaa065
60. Forrest S. Teaching social science research methods to undergraduate medical students: the state of the art and opportunities for practice and curriculum development. Teach Public Adm. (2017) 35:280–300. doi: 10.1177/0144739417715894
61. Bonilla-Silva E. More than prejudice: restatement, reflections, and new directions in critical race theory. Sociol Race Ethn. (2015) 1:73–87. doi: 10.1177/2332649214557042
62. Crenshaw KW. Twenty years of critical race theory: looking back to move forward commentary: critical race theory: a commemoration: lead article. Conn Law Rev. (2010) 43:1253–354. Available online at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/117
63. Allen A. Feminist perspectives on power. In: Zalta EN, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University (2021).
64. Pisaniello MS, Asahina AT, Bacchi S, Wagner M, Perry SW, Wong ML, et al. Effect of medical student debt on mental health, academic performance and specialty choice: a systematic review. BMJ Open. (2019) 9:e029980. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029980
65. Youngclaus J, Fresne JA. Physician Education Debt and the Cost to Attend Medical School: 2020 Update. Washington, DC: AAMC (2020).
66. Hospital Leadership Diversity and Strategies to Advance Health Equity. Elsevier Enhanced Reader online at: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1553725017304543?token=A207C36F8CD322203E118B0D2A779FFBF8B48962640CA623515A73034EEED6D02E79555A80DBD8967EEBDC35CB4F0266&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20220320040955 (accessed March 19, 2022).
Keywords: diversity, equity, inclusion, medical schools, academic medicine
Citation: Esparza CJ, Simon M, Bath E and Ko M (2022) Doing the Work—or Not: The Promise and Limitations of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in US Medical Schools and Academic Medical Centers. Front. Public Health 10:900283. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.900283
Received: 20 March 2022; Accepted: 26 May 2022;
Published: 22 June 2022.
Edited by:
Meshell Johnson, University of California, San Francisco, United StatesReviewed by:
Angela M. Goins, University of Houston–Downtown, United StatesCopyright © 2022 Esparza, Simon, Bath and Ko. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Caitlin Jade Esparza, cjesparza@ucdavis.edu