Are committee experiences of minoritized family medicine faculty part of the minority tax? a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Because much of the work in academic medicine is done by committee, early career URiM faculty, are often asked to serve on multiple committees, including diversity work that may not be recognized as important. They may also be asked to serve on committees to satisfy a diversity "check box," and may be asked more often than their non-URiM peers to serve in this capacity. We sought to describe the committee experiences of early career URiM faculty, hypothesizing that they may see committee service as a minority tax. METHODS: Participants in the Leadership through Scholarship Fellowship (LTSF) were asked to share their experiences with committee service in their careers after participating in a faculty development discussion. Their responses were analyzed and reported using qualitative, open, axial, and abductive reasoning methods. RESULTS: Four themes, with eight sub-themes (in parenthesis), emerged from the content analysis of the LTSF fellows responses to the prompt: Time commitment (Timing of committee work and lack of protected time for research and scholarship), URiM Committee service (Expectation that URiM person will serve on committees and consequences for not serving), Mentoring issues (no mentoring regarding committee service, faculty involvement is lacking and the conflicting nature of committee work) and Voice (Lack of voice or acknowledgement). CONCLUSIONS: Early career URiM faculty reported an expectation of serving on committees and consequences for not serving related to their identity, but other areas of committee service they shared were not connected to their URiM identity. Because most of the experiences were not connected to the LTSF fellows' URiM identity, this group has identified areas of committee service that may affect all early career faculty. More research is necessary to determine how committee service affects URiM and non-URiM faculty in academic family medicine.

Addressing and Dismantling the Legacy of Race and Racism in Academic Medicine: A Socioecological Framework.

Over the past several years, in both clinical and academic medicine, there seems to be a growing consensus that racial/ethnic health inequities result from social, economic and political determinants of health rather than from nonexistent biological markers of race. Simply put, racism is the root cause of inequity, not race. Yet, methods of teaching and practicing medicine have not kept pace with this truth, and many learners and practitioners continue to extrapolate a biological underpinning for race. To achieve systemic change that moves us toward racially/ethnically equitable health outcomes, it is imperative that medical academia implement policies that explicitly hold us accountable to maintain a clear understanding of race as a socio-political construct so that we can conduct research, disseminate scholarly work, teach, and practice clinically with more clarity about race and racism. This short commentary proposes the use of a socioecological framework to help individuals, leadership teams, and institutions consider the implementation of various strategies for interpersonal, community-level, and broad institutional policy changes. This proposed model includes examples of how to address race and racism in academic medicine across different spheres, but also draws attention to the complex interplay across these levels. The model is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather encourages adaptation according to existing institutional differences. This model can be used as a tool to refresh how academic medicine addresses race and, more importantly, normalizes conversations about racism and equity across all framework levels.