Anti-DEI Policies and Academic Surgery: Preserving the Mission in an Era of Legal Constraint.

IF 7.4 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Allison N Martin, Alexandra C Istl, Tania K Arora, Courtney Collins, Justin Dimick, Lisa M McElroy, Olamide Alabi, Tracy S Wang, Oluwadamilola M Fayanju
{"title":"Anti-DEI Policies and Academic Surgery: Preserving the Mission in an Era of Legal Constraint.","authors":"Allison N Martin, Alexandra C Istl, Tania K Arora, Courtney Collins, Justin Dimick, Lisa M McElroy, Olamide Alabi, Tracy S Wang, Oluwadamilola M Fayanju","doi":"10.1097/SLA.0000000000007237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The January 2025 federal executive orders (EOs) restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming in government-funded and private institutions represent a structural inflection point for academic surgery. The effects extend beyond institutional compliance and directly threaten workforce sustainability, research enterprises, and editorial freedom.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the immediate and projected effects of January 2025 federal EOs on research, editorial freedom, and workforce recruitment and retention in academic surgery, and to propose adaptive strategies for mission preservation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A narrative synthesis of the literature and multi-institutional experience presented during a 2026 Academic Surgical Congress Committee panel session evaluated across multiple domains: workforce, scientific research/education, patient care, and editorial ecosystems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Anti-DEI EOs produced measurable disruptions across the domains examined. Regarding the workforce, survey data indicate that 50% of faculty in affected states are seeking positions elsewhere, and underrepresented-in-medicine trainees are redistributing away from institutions with policy climates perceived as hostile. In research, federal grant withdrawals and self-censorship constrain equity-focused scientific inquiry and threaten surgeon-scientist career trajectories. In publishing, editorial leaders report early signals of declining submissions addressing disparities, reflecting investigators' concerns for possible retaliation rather than actual changes in editorial policy. Across domains, a false binary of \"doubling down\" versus \"pivot\" obscures a potentially more viable path: adaptive reframing that modifies language and programmatic infrastructure, while sustaining core missions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Academic surgery should preserve its mission to train a diverse surgical workforce, advance rigorous science, and deliver equitable patient care. Adaptive reframing, by embedding equity-oriented work within quality improvement, workforce sustainability, and patient safety frameworks, offers a principled strategy for navigating evolving legal constraints, without abandoning institutional missions or scientific integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":8017,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000007237","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: The January 2025 federal executive orders (EOs) restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming in government-funded and private institutions represent a structural inflection point for academic surgery. The effects extend beyond institutional compliance and directly threaten workforce sustainability, research enterprises, and editorial freedom.

Objective: To evaluate the immediate and projected effects of January 2025 federal EOs on research, editorial freedom, and workforce recruitment and retention in academic surgery, and to propose adaptive strategies for mission preservation.

Design: A narrative synthesis of the literature and multi-institutional experience presented during a 2026 Academic Surgical Congress Committee panel session evaluated across multiple domains: workforce, scientific research/education, patient care, and editorial ecosystems.

Results: Anti-DEI EOs produced measurable disruptions across the domains examined. Regarding the workforce, survey data indicate that 50% of faculty in affected states are seeking positions elsewhere, and underrepresented-in-medicine trainees are redistributing away from institutions with policy climates perceived as hostile. In research, federal grant withdrawals and self-censorship constrain equity-focused scientific inquiry and threaten surgeon-scientist career trajectories. In publishing, editorial leaders report early signals of declining submissions addressing disparities, reflecting investigators' concerns for possible retaliation rather than actual changes in editorial policy. Across domains, a false binary of "doubling down" versus "pivot" obscures a potentially more viable path: adaptive reframing that modifies language and programmatic infrastructure, while sustaining core missions.

Conclusions: Academic surgery should preserve its mission to train a diverse surgical workforce, advance rigorous science, and deliver equitable patient care. Adaptive reframing, by embedding equity-oriented work within quality improvement, workforce sustainability, and patient safety frameworks, offers a principled strategy for navigating evolving legal constraints, without abandoning institutional missions or scientific integrity.

反dei政策和学术手术:在法律约束的时代保留使命。
重要性:2025年1月的联邦行政命令(EOs)限制了政府资助和私立机构的多样性、公平性和包容性(DEI)计划,这代表了学术手术的结构性拐点。其影响超出了制度的遵从性,并直接威胁到劳动力的可持续性、研究企业和编辑自由。目的:评估2025年1月联邦法律对学术外科研究、编辑自由、劳动力招聘和保留的直接和预期影响,并提出任务保存的适应性策略。设计:在2026年外科学术大会委员会小组会议上提出的文献和多机构经验的叙述性综合评估,涉及多个领域:劳动力、科学研究/教育、患者护理和编辑生态系统。结果:Anti-DEI EOs在检查的各个领域产生了可测量的中断。在劳动力方面,调查数据显示,在受影响的州,50%的教师正在其他地方寻找职位,而在医学领域,代表性不足的学员正在从政策环境被视为敌对的机构重新分配。在研究领域,联邦拨款的撤回和自我审查限制了以公平为中心的科学探究,并威胁到外科医生-科学家的职业轨迹。在出版界,编辑部负责人报告了关于投稿减少的早期信号,反映了调查人员对可能的报复的担忧,而不是编辑政策的实际变化。在各个领域,“加倍下注”与“支点”的错误二元关系掩盖了一条潜在的更可行的路径:在维持核心任务的同时,修改语言和程序性基础设施的适应性重构。结论:学术外科应保持其使命,培养多样化的外科工作人员,推进严谨的科学,并提供公平的患者护理。适应性重构通过在质量改进、劳动力可持续性和患者安全框架中嵌入以公平为导向的工作,为在不放弃机构使命或科学诚信的情况下应对不断变化的法律约束提供了一种原则性策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of surgery
Annals of surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
4.40%
发文量
687
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Surgery is a renowned surgery journal, recognized globally for its extensive scholarly references. It serves as a valuable resource for the international medical community by disseminating knowledge regarding important developments in surgical science and practice. Surgeons regularly turn to the Annals of Surgery to stay updated on innovative practices and techniques. The journal also offers special editorial features such as "Advances in Surgical Technique," offering timely coverage of ongoing clinical issues. Additionally, the journal publishes monthly review articles that address the latest concerns in surgical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书