The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine is getting slammed for an academic article that advocated for medical students to be taught in racially-segregated groups.
The seven authors, who all come from the University of California, San Francisco, claimed that medical education had been “founded on legacies of colonialism and racism,” “historically centered White learners,” and “continues to perpetuate structural racism.”
The authors offered their racially divisive solution for the supposed problem: “As academic medicine begins to recognize and examine racism as the root cause of racially disparate health outcomes, we need curricula for training physicians to dismantle the systems that perpetuate these inequities. … Racial affinity group caucuses (RAGCs) are one such approach.”
“RAGCs are facilitated sessions involving participants grouped according to self-identified racial or ethnic identity to support integration of antiracism curricula into clinical practice,” they explained.
They lauded RAGCs for protecting their fragile students: “This environment buffers participants from (often daily) experiences of micro- and macroaggressions, structural inequities, and isolating siloes in predominantly White institutions.”
As for whites: “White trainees benefit from facilitated discussions in which they consider and are challenged by frameworks for dismantling centuries of socialized misconceptions about race and racism.”
The Do No Harm activist group lashed out, writing, “Racial segregation in medical education. That is what the @NEJM is proposing. This sends a deeply concerning message about the priorities and principles of what is supposedly the most prestigious journal in American medicine. Our physicians and patients deserve better.”
Racial segregation in medical education. That is what the @NEJM is proposing.
This sends a deeply concerning message about the priorities and principles of what is supposedly the most prestigious journal in American medicine.
Our physicians and patients deserve better. https://t.co/QEfQLse38F
— Do No Harm (@donoharm) May 2, 2023
“It is difficult to understand how such offensive language made it past the gatekeepers of this prestigious institution,” Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, the leader of Do No Harm, added. “Have you considered the possibility that divisive and highly politicized pieces such as this might be worsening this crisis, in addition to moving medical education toward segregation?”
It is difficult to understand how an article endorsing racial segregation in medical school made it past the gatekeepers of this prestigious institution.
Have you considered the threat that such divisive and highly politicized pieces pose to the medical profession?
— Do No Harm (@donoharm) May 2, 2023
“Except that type of racial segregation has generally been found to be an illegal violation of Title VI’s prohibition of discrimination/segregation on the basis of race, color, or national origin. It’s a major step backward to the racial segregation of the past,” economics professor Mark Perry added.
Except that type of racial segregation has generally been found to be an illegal violation of Title VI's prohibition of discrimination/segregation on the basis of race, color, or national origin. It's a major step backward to the racial segregation of the past. @donoharm
— Mark J. Perry (@Mark_J_Perry) May 2, 2023
“You’re promoting neo-segregationism, and a return to institutionalized identity politics. Which is to say, you’re promoting actual racism,” psychology professor Geoffrey Miller pointed out.
You're promoting neo-segregationism, and a return to institutionalized identity politics. Which is to say, you're promoting actual racism.
— Geoffrey Miller (@primalpoly) May 2, 2023
“I remember when the NEJM was serious and run by grownups,” professor Christina Hoff Sommers, the author of “War Against Boys” and “Who Stole Feminism,” wrote.
I remember when the NEJM was serious and run by grownups.
— Christina Hoff Sommers (@CHSommers) May 2, 2023