New England Journal of Medicine Brooks No Dissent of DEI

Policymakers and the public push back against DEI in the public square with increasing confidence. Why should the world’s leading medical journal be immune?

Enter Dr. Kathleen Brown, with a recent commentary submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine in response to an article published in March. That article was written by the American Medical Association’s “Chief Health Equity Officer,” Dr. Aletha Maybank. Among other things, it rebuked earlier efforts by Dr. Brown and colleagues to sunset DEI in dermatology, characterizing it as an assault on efforts to promote “equity” in medicine.

---

The New England Journal of Medicine, predictably, rejected Dr. Brown’s response. Of course, this makes it all the more worth reading:

In January 2024 I joined more than 80 other dermatologists in requesting that the American Academy of Dermatology sunset its DEI initiative. In a recent Perspective, Dr. Aletha Maybank rebuffed our concerns and warned that “eliminating DEI efforts negatively affects not only Black people, but all racially and religiously marginalized groups,” including “non-Christians.”

These assertions are emblematic of issues with DEI praxis. That is, dogma and politics are treated as substitutes for reason and evidence. There is no indication that DEI fosters harmonious group relations, but there is mounting concern that the reductive “oppressor/oppressed” paradigm regularly adopted by DEI advocates shelters and instigates antisemitism. Indeed, the many Jewish doctors agitating for change in dermatology would plainly disagree that DEI efforts are “rooted in values of belonging.”

Meaningful debate about DEI has rightly reached the public square. I hope the American healthcare system is allowed to follow suit and that The New England Journal of Medicine plays a leading role in fostering constructive dialogue.

Kathleen Brown, M.D., member of the American Academy of Dermatology.

As Dr. Brown writes, there is no evidence that DEI improves patient care or outcomes and good reason to suspect the opposite. Similarly, there is no evidence that DEI fosters inclusivity in medicine, but ample evidence that it shelters and instigates hostility against Jews.

A medical journal interested in the dispassionate, apolitical pursuit of truth would recognize these shortcomings and allow open debate about the merits of an ideology that manifests in medical recruitment, training, research, and practice.  Unfortunately, the New England Journal of Medicine is too ideologically committed to racial separatism to take on that role.

We salute Dr. Brown for her efforts to engage in fruitful debate about DEI. Judges, policymakers, and members of the public are listening, even if the editors of this once esteemed journal aren’t.