End of Affirmative Action-Who Is Impacted Most? Analysis of Race and Sex Among US Internal Medicine Faculty

Rui Yang Xu; Nilita Sood; Jeffrey Ding; Nadia Khan; Sabeen Tiwana; Javed Siddiqi; Ateeq Rehman; Namirah Jamshed; Faisal Khosa

doi:10.1007/s11606-023-08554-0

End of Affirmative Action-Who Is Impacted Most? Analysis of Race and Sex Among US Internal Medicine Faculty

J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Dec 15. doi: 10.1007/s11606-023-08554-0. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Rui Yang Xu¹, Nilita Sood², Jeffrey Ding¹, Nadia Khan¹, Sabeen Tiwana³, Javed Siddiqi⁴, Ateeq Rehman⁵, Namirah Jamshed⁶, Faisal Khosa⁷

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
² Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
³ Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
⁴ Department of Neurosurgery, Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, Colton, CA, USA.
⁵ Marshfield Clinic Health System, Marshfield, WI, USA.
⁶ UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
⁷ Department of Radiology, Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. fkhosa@gmail.com.

PMID: 38100008
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-023-08554-0

Abstract

Background: For over 50 years, the United States (US) used affirmative action as one strategy to increase diversity in higher education including medical programs, citing benefits including training future public and private sector leaders. However, the recent US Supreme Court ending affirmative action in college admissions threatens advancements in the diversity of medical college faculty.

Objective: Our study evaluated the demographic trends in Internal Medicine (IM) faculty in the US by assessing sex and race/ethnicity diversity to investigate who is likely to be impacted most with the end of affirmative action.

Design: Longitudinal retrospective analysis SUBJECTS: IM faculty from the Association of American Medical Colleges faculty roster from 1966 to 2021 who self-reported sex and ethnicity MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary study measurement was the annual proportion of women and racial/ethnic groups among IM faculty based on academic rank and department chairs.

Results: Although racial/ethnic diversity increased throughout the era of affirmative action, African American, Hispanic, and American Indian populations remain underrepresented. White physicians occupied > 50% of faculty positions across academic ranks and department chairs. Among the non-White professors, Asian faculty had the most significant increase in proportion from 1966 to 2021 (0.6 to 16.6%). The percentage of women increased in the ranks of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor by 19.5%, 27.8%, 25.6%, and 26.9%, respectively. However, the proportion of women and racial/ethnic minority faculty decreased as academic rank increased.

Conclusion: Despite an increase in the representation of women and racial/ethnic minority IM faculty, there continues to be a predominance of White and men physicians in higher academic ranks. With the end of affirmative action, this trend has the danger of being perpetuated, resulting in decreasing diversity among IM faculty, potentially impacting patient access and health outcomes.

Keywords: affirmative action; diversity; equity; internal Medicine; patient outcomes.