D.A. Acosta is chief diversity and inclusion officer, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
D.M. Lautenberger is director, faculty and staff studies and services, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
Acad Med. 2020 Oct;95(10):1468-1471. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003610.
Across academic medicine, and particularly among faculty and medical school leadership, the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to gender diversity, equity, and inclusion. The Association of American Medical Colleges has launched a bold gender equity initiative, endorsed by its Board of Directors, to implore academic medical institutions to take meaningful and effective actions.Defining what progress should look like to guide these actions is worth deeper exploration. It is not enough to measure the representation of different genders at various levels of leadership within our institutions. Research and experience we share suggests more must be done, especially for women of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. What is needed is a fundamental conversation about privilege, intersectionality across different backgrounds, and progress.Institutional leaders have a choice to make. Will we make gender equity a top priority system-wide because we recognize that doing so leads to organizational excellence? Do we understand that establishing a robust, comprehensive definition of gender equity and how it is practiced will result in better outcomes for all? And are we ready and able to prioritize and be accountable for efforts that are measurable, with clear definitions of progress; driven and reinforced by leadership directives; inclusive of all, including men as well as women of diverse backgrounds and orientations; and systemic rather than ad-hoc? Implementing such actions requires initiating difficult conversations, making conscious choices, and modeling best practices from leaders who have successfully made gender equity a priority.
在整个医学学术领域,尤其是在教职员工和医学院领导层中,当涉及到性别多样性、公平性和包容性时,现状是不可接受的。美国医学协会已经发起了一项大胆的性别平等倡议,并得到了其董事会的支持,呼吁学术医疗机构采取有意义和有效的行动。定义应该是什么样的进展来指导这些行动值得更深入的探索。仅仅衡量不同性别在我们机构各级领导层中的代表性是不够的。我们分享的研究和经验表明,还需要做更多的工作,特别是对于不同种族和族裔背景的女性。需要的是关于特权、不同背景下的交叉性以及进展的根本性讨论。
机构领导者需要做出选择。我们是否会将性别平等作为全系统的首要任务,因为我们认识到这样做会导致组织卓越?我们是否理解,建立一个强有力的、全面的性别平等定义以及它的实践将导致所有人的更好结果?我们是否准备好并能够优先考虑并对可衡量的、有明确进展定义的、由领导层指令驱动和强化的、包括所有背景和取向的男性以及女性在内的、系统性而不是临时的努力负责?实施这些行动需要发起艰难的对话,做出有意识的选择,并从成功将性别平等作为优先事项的领导者那里树立最佳实践。