Pro-Con Debate: Consideration of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Is Detrimental to Successful Mentorship

Abstract

Anesthesiology remains a specialty with low representation of women or members of racial and ethnic groups considered underrepresented in medicine (UiM). In the United States, women account for 33% of anesthesiology residents, while physicians identifying as Black, African American, Latinx, American Indian, or Alaska Native account for approximately 10%. Underrepresentation of these groups is even more pronounced in academic anesthesiology, especially at the senior ranks and roles, such as department chairs. Leaders in the field have recently shared recommendations for how individual departments, medical schools, hospitals, and professional organizations can create and support a more diverse anesthesiology workforce. These commentaries have often stressed the importance of mentorship for supporting women and physicians from UiM groups, including mentorship of trainees and practicing anesthesiologists seeking to advance their careers. While the value of mentorship is undisputed, it remains a matter of controversy whether race, ethnicity, or gender should be explicitly considered by mentoring programs and individual mentors. In this article, we discuss whether and how race, ethnicity, and gender should be considered in the setting of mentorship programs and the formation of individual mentoring relationships, as well as some of the potential consequences that lie therein.