As a medical practitioner applying for a faculty position at the University of Massachusetts (UMass) Chan Medical School, it is no longer satisfactory to demonstrate a curriculum vitae of excellent merits in research and medical practice. One must also be actively involved in promoting “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) to a level that penalizes individuals who do not meet the strict levels of DEI engagement.
Records obtained by Minding the Campus demonstrate that the medical school uses a “Level of Engagement in Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) rubric when evaluating a candidate’s qualifications for hire. According to this rubric, unsatisfactory engagement is identified as the following:
- “Only mentions activities that are already the expectation of faculty as evidence of commitment and involvement … inviting and welcoming learners from all backgrounds to participate in their research lab or mentoring learners from different backgrounds”
- “Explicitly states the intention to … ‘treat everyone the same.’”
- “Vague or no statements about what they plan to do within the department, the institution, the community, or scientific field to advance DEI within the next year.”
In contrast, exceptional engagement, and therefore engagement which would result in a job offer, includes the following:
- “Clearly formulates new ideas for advancing equity and inclusion at UMass Chan and within their field, through their research, teaching, and/or service.”
- “Organized or spoken at workshops or other events aimed at increasing others’ understanding of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging.”
- “Convincingly expresses intent, with examples, to be a strong advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion within the department/school/community and also their field.”
Such involvement “highlight[s] a faculty member’s commitment and contributions to advancing DEI.” The question that remains, however, is how DEI engagement has any bearing on medical practice in the first place.
Here is the rubric in full:
In the broader UMass education system, DEI is addressed in the undergraduate pre-health and pre-medical degree programs at the UMass Amherst affiliate with a statement explaining the underlying argument for the purpose of DEI in medicine:
Communities with high proportions of Black and Hispanic residents were four times as likely as others to have a shortage of physicians…numerous other studies conclude that patients are more likely to feel satisfied by their interactions with physicians of similar racial and ethnic backgrounds. That said, medical schools currently do not reflect the diversity in the United States well.[1]
This argument seems logical. We want a diverse pool of medical professionals. We also want all communities to have access to medical care. However, the execution of DEI at UMass Chan is far removed from accomplishing these goals.
The Level of Engagement in Advancing DEI checklist for UMass Chan is just that—a checklist hiring method. Individuals who check off all of the boxes of DEI contribution in publication, grants, mentorship, teaching, research, service, and/or community engagement demonstrate a resume that is “highly valued and should be acknowledged and recognized in the review process.”
But does using this checklist serve as a good proxy for a candidate’s ability to teach and practice medicine well? And does it demonstrate that the candidate can provide valuable contributions to the greater medical community? If this rubric is the primary means of evaluation for their candidates, UMass Chan is clearly ignoring the most vital element of the hiring process: merit.
Essentially, this rubric indicates that a candidate with excellent academic merit but unsatisfactory DEI engagement could easily be dismissed in favor of a candidate with lower academic merit but exceptional DEI engagement, all in an attempt to promote DEI. What’s more, the rubric actually fails at promoting true “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Consider this:
The “perfect” candidate applies for UMass Chan. He has published two papers demonstrating active study of the trends of Black and Hispanic individuals pursuing medicine. He has served as an advisor for both the Society for the Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science and White Coats for Black Lives. He has spoken at several public health events for individuals in underserved Black and Hispanic communities. He obtained the Building Trust grant through Diversity, Health Care Equity, & Inclusion for DEI research.
The statements above show that the candidate checks off numerous boxes on the DEI rubric. We also have established that our candidate is committed to racial diversity. But what about other kinds of diversity? Does he demonstrate equal engagement with males vs. females? What about engagement with disabled students or religious differences, two factors that have no mention in the entirety of the rubric? All of this is unclear. Therefore, is UMass Chan’s DEI checklist really measuring commitment to diversity and equity?
According to the Level of Engagement in Advancing DEI checklist, the applicant I described fits the bill as an excellent candidate for a faculty member at UMass Chan: a candidate committed to DEI. But put into practice, UMass Chan Medical School’s attempt at “diversity” clearly misses the mark.
[1] University of Massachusetts Amherst. Pre-Med/Pre-Health: URIM Opportunities. https://www.umass.edu/natural-sciences/advising/pre-med-pre-health/urim-opportunities
Image by Massachusetts Office Of Travel & Tourism — Flickr
This article was originally published at www.mindingthecampus.org
