Rationale and Methods for Diversity Efforts in Medicine

[jfoxcpacfp]

My neighbor growing up (who was an OB/gyn who seemed a million years old when I was a kid) told me that the top third of med students go into academics, the next third made the best doctors, and the bottom third made the most money. I don’t know that there’s a lot of truth in it, but I found it amusing.

Well, that’s certainly scary (if ~true).

[JWeb]

Well, that’s certainly scary (if ~true).

It's not even close to being true (now).

[Tim]

It's not even close to being true (now).

What is the ROT now? a) Academics, b) best doctors, c) make the most money. Only options, all or none. Multiple choice answers.
Top 1/3
Middle 1/3
Bottom 1/3

[Tim]

To your prior post, he didn’t express animosity or say anything racist. The AHA retracted his paper after liberal backlash, not because of source utilization. They said it “wasn’t consistent with their values”.

And to answer your main question, no diversity should have no bearing on admissions. Because that inherently looks at race as a positive or negative attribute. Which is, you know, racist.

The is a difference between an employer and extremely long policies in higher education and research. Education and research has long been anchored to protect diversity of opinions. Contrary and opposing points of view are the foundation. Not the definition of "diversity". There is a move to enforce a new definition. Basically it is a name calling game based on "Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity" with a new definition.

"The purpose of this statement is to promote public understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon procedures to assure them in colleges and universities. Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.

Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights. [1] Tenure is a means to certain ends, specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society."

Basically, cancel culture to enforce the new definition. By whatever means necessary to enforce the "new definition". Kind of like an echo chamber. Tolerance is is sometimes defined as intolerance of opposing points of view.

Carry on, I have no favorites in these contest.

[afan]

I do not follow.

"New definition" of what?

Traditional tenure has largely disappeared for physicians on medical school faculties. Even those who hold the title of tenured typically have only a small part of their salaries protected. Most of their income derives from their clinical practice and one way or another there is no promise by the university to keep paying them like doctors.

Depending on the medical school in question, they may be protected from being fired for espousing unpopular ideas. But no place will guarantee leadership positions for people who go off the reservation. University presidents are tenured faculty but they get fired all the time for becoming embarrassments or simply losing the confidence of the trustees. Same for med school Deans. It is common for university presidents and deans who have screwed up enough to lose their leadership positions, but not so badly as to be embarrassing, to remain on faculty after they are shown the door. If it is really bad, then they are negotiated out.

Even a tenured medical faculty member cannot expect to publicly reject institutional policies and priorities and remain in leadership.

In other words, in medicine, tenure is not what it used to be.

[nastle]

The is a difference between an employer and extremely long policies in higher education and research. Education and research has long been anchored to protect diversity of opinions. Contrary and opposing points of view are the foundation. Not the definition of "diversity". There is a move to enforce a new definition. Basically it is a name calling game based on "Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity" with a new definition.

"The purpose of this statement is to promote public understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon procedures to assure them in colleges and universities. Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.

Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights. [1] Tenure is a means to certain ends, specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and of extramural activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society."

Basically, cancel culture to enforce the new definition. By whatever means necessary to enforce the "new definition". Kind of like an echo chamber. Tolerance is is sometimes defined as intolerance of opposing points of view.

Carry on, I have no favorites in these contest.

It’s like a new religion either you tow the official line or get ready to be branded a heretic and burned at the proverbial stake

[Tim]

I do not follow.

"New definition" of what?

Traditional tenure has largely disappeared for physicians on medical school faculties. Even those who hold the title of tenured typically have only a small part of their salaries protected. Most of their income derives from their clinical practice and one way or another there is no promise by the university to keep paying them like doctors.

Depending on the medical school in question, they may be protected from being fired for espousing unpopular ideas. But no place will guarantee leadership positions for.people who go off the reservation. University presidents are tenured faculty but they get fired all the time for becoming embarrassments or simply losing the confidence.of the trustees. Same for med school Deans. It is common for university presidents and deans who have screwed up enough to lose their leadership positions, but not so badly as to be embarrassing, to remain on faculty after they are shown the door. If it is really bad, then they are negotiated out.

Even a tenured medical faculty member cannot expect to publicly reject institutional policies and priorities and remain in leadership.

In other words, in medicine, tenure is not what it used to be.

Only the new "institutional policies and priorities" are allowed. Echo chamber.

[afan]

Only the new "institutional policies and priorities" are allowed. Echo chamber.

Pretty much.

[afan]

It’s like a new religion either you tow the official line or get ready to be branded a heretic and burned at the proverbial stake

Maybe not so dramatic.

No burning. Just removed from leadership.

[Tim]

Maybe not so dramatic.

No burning. Just removed from leadership.

Some actually get toasted. Even "banned". Not for anything "illegal" really, just they are branded and kicked out of the "club". It is not confined to any occupation.
Burn all bridges, destroy and isolate. Extremes on both sides.

[afan]

Again, not so dramatic. "Kicked out of the club" is just that. Still working, still practicing if a physician, still teaching and doing research if a conventional faculty member. But no longer in leadership.

This is nothing new. For as long as humans have had organizations they have expected those in leadership to support the goals and policies of the group. If someone finds they are no longer in step with the policies of the organization, then quitting the leadership job is natural and necessary.

If you are an executive with an oil company, you are free to have a private opinion that the company should stop buying, refining or selling oil. You are welcome to advocate moving the company away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources. But the company exists to sell oil products. If you start publicly demanding that it close down its oil operations immediately, you are not doing your job as an oil executive. You are not doing the job, so you should expect to lose it.

In Wang's case, he turned himself into a liability. Universities and hospitals are routinely accused of treating students or trainees inappropriately for all manner of reasons. Racial and ethnic discrimination are among those reasons. Wang made himself a poster child for such discrimination. The exact language he used in his "white paper" hardly matters. It would be impossible for an institution to justify keeping him in leadership once he has declared that large numbers of people who are members of particular groups do not belong there.

The institutions want their med school and its training programs to remain accredited. They want not to be sued for discrimination. They certainly don't want to lose such suits. They did the only things they could do. They told him he could continue to practice but that he could not be in a supervisory position for any students or trainees. He gave them no choice.

I don't know whether he really was naïve enough not to realize what he was doing. Or perhaps he was so upset about these people being in Cardiology that he decided to throw himself on his sword in protest. The lawsuits he has filed lead me to suspect the latter. Surely he must know he has no leg to stand on.

Suing a journal because it retracted his paper? Really? On what basis?

He could try to sue claiming they defamed him. He would lose, but he could try. But suing to claim that this private organization could not decide to remove a paper and that this issue should be resolved by the courts??? Publicity stunt. To the extent that it got some more press coverage, I suppose it worked. Not sure what his overall motivation could have been.

If he really could not abide the way they picked students and trainees, he could have removed himself from leadership positions without all the fanfare. His opinion piece did nothing to change their policies. As an academic, he must have known that.

[VentAlarm]

Again, not so dramatic. "Kicked out of the club" is just that. Still working, still practicing if a physician, still teaching and doing research if a conventional faculty member. But no longer in leadership.

This is nothing new. For as long as humans have had organizations they have expected those in leadership to support the goals and policies of the group. If someone finds they are no longer in step with the policies of the organization, then quitting the leadership job is natural and necessary.

If you are an executive with an oil company, you are free to have a private opinion that the company should stop buying, refining or selling oil. You are welcome to advocate moving the company away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources. But the company exists to sell oil products. If you start publicly demanding that it close down its oil operations immediately, you are not doing your job as an oil executive. You are not doing the job, so you should expect to lose it.

In Wang's case, he turned himself into a liability. Universities and hospitals are routinely accused of treating students or trainees inappropriately for all manner of reasons. Racial and ethnic discrimination are among those reasons. Wang made himself a poster child for such discrimination. The exact language he used in his "white paper" hardly matters. It would be impossible for an institution to justify keeping him in leadership once he has declared that large numbers of people who are members of particular groups do not belong there.

The institutions want their med school and its training programs to remain accredited. They want not to be sued for discrimination. They certainly don't want to lose such suits. They did the only things they could do. They told him he could continue to practice but that he could not be in a supervisory position for any students or trainees. He gave them no choice.

I don't know whether he really was naïve enough not to realize what he was doing. Or perhaps he was so upset about these people being in Cardiology that he decided to throw himself on his sword in protest. The lawsuits he has filed lead me to suspect the latter. Surely he must know he has no leg to stand on.

Suing a journal because it retracted his paper? Really? On what basis?

He could try to sue claiming they defamed him. He would lose, but he could try. But suing to claim that this private organization could not decide to remove a paper and that this issue should be resolved by the courts??? Publicity stunt. To the extent that it got some more press coverage, I suppose it worked. Not sure what his overall motivation could have been.

If he really could not abide the way they picked students and trainees, he could have removed himself from leadership positions without all the fanfare. His opinion piece did nothing to change their policies. As an academic, he must have known that.

Where’s the line? You cannot publicly dissent when you think your institution is wrong? Sure, they didn’t fire him, but they demoted him. What’s the message? Get in line, or else. This is a dangerous policy, regardless of which direction it’s leaning.

This isn’t an oil refinery, it’s academics - literally the place built around fostering diversity of thought.

[Tim]

Where’s the line? You cannot publicly dissent when you think your institution is wrong? Sure, they didn’t fire him, but they demoted him. What’s the message? Get in line, or else. This is a dangerous policy, regardless of which direction it’s leaning.

This isn’t an oil refinery, it’s academics - literally the place built around fostering diversity of thought.

Actually, they take no prisoners. Accusations are used. It is based upon a "new set of rules". The "accusations" themselves cause the most damage, not the result.
This IS new. Multiple examples exist. Attack, attack, attack makes one leave. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been thrown out. Mandatory "training". We have seen this at every level of society. Well funded with a goal, "enforce the new rules". Everything from "she must be believed" to "masks". Oppose and they try to take away your livelihood and reputation. Echo chambers at every level. The privilege of "accusation" is powerful.

[afan]

Where’s the line? You cannot publicly dissent when you think your institution is wrong? Sure, they didn’t fire him, but they demoted him. What’s the message? Get in line, or else. This is a dangerous policy, regardless of which direction it’s leaning.

This isn’t an oil refinery, it’s academics - literally the place built around fostering diversity of thought.

Again, he has the freedom to express his opinions that are contrary to the goals and policies of the institution.

He cannot express those opinions and keep his leadership job.

The leaders are supposed to lead in the directions set by the institution. Like an airline pilot who decides they do not want to go to LA and takes the LA flight to Houston instead. Would not again have the opportunity to lead airplanes.

I am surprised that people find this surprising. It is no different from any other institution. Leaders who do not want to lead in the institutional directions are sent on their ways. The unusual part is that he gets to keep his clinical job. The oil executive would simply be fired.

[afan]

Actually, they take no prisoners. Accusations are used. It is based upon a "new set of rules". The "accusations" themselves cause the most damage, not the result.
This IS new. Multiple examples exist. Attack, attack, attack makes one leave. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been thrown out. Mandatory "training". We have seen this at every level of society. Well funded with a goal, "enforce the new rules". Everything from "she must be believed" to "masks". Oppose and they try to take away your livelihood and reputation. Echo chambers at every level. The privilege of "accusation" is powerful.

But they did NOT take away his livelihood. He STILL WORKS THERE. Not only was he not physically attacked, he did NOT lose his job.

They did not "demote" him. He is still a professor.