New England Journal of Medicine faces backlash for racial segregation proposal in medical education

New England Journal of Medicine

The New England Journal of Medicine, a highly respected medical journal, faces intense criticism for publishing an article advocating racially-segregated education for medical students, prompting a debate on race, medicine, and education.

The controversial article, authored by seven scholars from the University of California, San Francisco, argues that medical education has been "founded on legacies of colonialism and racism," "historically centered White learners," and "continues to perpetuate structural racism."

The authors propose a divisive solution: Racial Affinity Group Caucuses (RAGCs) to integrate anti-racism curricula into clinical practice, the Daily Wire reported.

“RAGCs are facilitated sessions involving participants grouped according to self-identified racial or ethnic identity to support integration of anti-racism curricula into clinical practice,” the group explained.

Supporters of RAGCs claim they offer a safe space for students, protecting them from daily experiences of micro- and macroaggressions, structural inequities, and isolation in predominantly White institutions.

“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,” they said.

However, critics argue that such segregation is a step backward and violates Title VI's prohibition of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.

The Do No Harm activist group and prominent academics have expressed their disapproval of the proposal, arguing that it promotes neo-segregationism, institutionalized identity politics, and even racism.

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

“It is difficult to understand how such offensive language made it past the gatekeepers of this prestigious institution,” Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, who leads Do No Harm, said. “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?”

Critics also question how such divisive language was approved for publication in a prestigious journal like NEJM.

“I remember when the NEJM was serious and run by grownups,” wrote professor Christina Hoff Sommers, the author of “War Against Boys” and “Who Stole Feminism.”

I remember when the NEJM was serious and run by grownups.

— Christina Hoff Sommers (@CHSommers) May 2, 2023