Towards a common lexicon for equity, diversity, and inclusion work in academic medicine

Abstract

Differential rewarding of work and experience has been a longtime feature of academic medicine, resulting in a series of academic disparities. These disparities have been collectively called a cultural or minority “tax,” and, when considered beyond academic medicine, exist across all departments, colleges, and schools of institutions of higher learning–from health sciences to disciplines located on university campuses outside of medicine and health. A shared language can provide opportunities for those who champion this work to pool resources for larger impacts across the institution. This article aims to catalog the terms used across academic medicine disciplines to establish a common language describing the inequities experienced by Black, Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Women, and other underrepresented people as well as queer, disabled, and other historically marginalized or excluded groups. These ideas are specific to academic medicine in the United States, although many can be used in academic medicine in other countries. The terms were selected by a team of experts in equity, diversity, and inclusion, (EDI) who are considered national thought leaders in EDI and collectively have over 100 years of scholarship and experience in this area.

Locally Connected Underrepresented Minority Faculty in Academic Medicine

“…There may be little investment in support and retention strategies for locally connected URM faculty because of the assumption that they are less likely to leave the institution because of ties to the local community. Little support can add to the net of issues that affect the retention of URM faculty and block the gate to advancement and leadership in academic medicine 6,7,9 . Although locally connected non-URM faculty may experience challenges with unconscious bias and limited institutional support for advancement, we believe that these concerns are more significant for URM faculty because of the distinct challenges URM faculty face 7,10,11 …”

“…Little support can add to the net of issues that affect the retention of URM faculty and block the gate to advancement and leadership in academic medicine 6,7,9 . Although locally connected non-URM faculty may experience challenges with unconscious bias and limited institutional support for advancement, we believe that these concerns are more significant for URM faculty because of the distinct challenges URM faculty face 7,10,11 …”

“…HR departments serve as a resource to not only provide data on employee hires, such as demographic information, rank, job descriptions, and performance evaluations, but they also work to maximize faculty productivity and contributions to the organization. As academic medicine continues to champion diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, it will be imperative for HR to maximize opportunities to bring equity to academic environments to mitigate institutional causes for the gate blocking of URM faculty, including those who are locally connected 6,7 …”

“…We believe the locally connected faculty member may suffer more from low institutional expectations because he or she is believed to be less likely to leave the institution. Locally connected URM faculty are a subset of URM faculty that call for a nuanced approach to advancement strategy and a heightened awareness of potential bias and gate blocking 6,7 …”

“…Locally connected URM faculty are a subset of URM faculty that call for a nuanced approach to advancement strategy and a heightened awareness of potential bias and gate blocking. 6,7 Challenges for Supporting Locally Connected URM Faculty…”