Account for Identity in URM Mentorship

To The Editors:

We commend Quach et al.’s excellent recommendations on improving the mentorship process in academic medicine for trainees that are under-represented in medicine (URM) [1]. The importance of sponsorship and the rewarding of good mentoring aligns strongly with our experience. However, we note that their discussion also lends itself to some complimentary recommendations.

In considering mentorship for URM trainees, there is significant benefit in considering the particular issues raised by their identity. Physicians tend to demonstrate anti-black bias on implicit association tests [2]. Faculty at research universities are not exempt from this trend. Medical school evaluations tend to use less laudatory language when assessing URM trainees [3]. Sponsorship, which depends on willingness to risk one’s own reputation to offer someone opportunities, might be susceptible to such influence [4]. At the same time, qualitative studies of early-career academics attest to the importance of mentors that can understand the struggles of URMs [5]. Training can and does help ameliorate some of these issues. But it is also a relatively clear-cut argument for increasing the number of senior researchers on faculty with a diverse background that can serve in these roles.

Within our division at the University of California San Francisco, many of these recommendations were institutionalized several years ago to great success. As an African American male, I have had the privilege of receiving mentorship from female, African American, and Latinx researchers during my time here. Statistically, all these points are unfortunately anomalous in our profession at present. It is our hope that more institutions will find the will and resources necessary to foster a more inclusive environment in healthcare.