The proportion of black, Latino, and Native American faculty in U.S. academic medical centers has remained almost unchanged over the last 20 years. Some authors credit the "minority tax"—the burden of extra responsibilities placed on minority faculty in the name of diversity. This tax is in reality very complex, and a major source of inequity in academic medicine. The “minority tax” is better described as an Underrepresented Minority in Medicine (URMM) faculty responsibility disparity. This disparity is evident in many areas: diversity efforts, racism, isolation, mentorship, clinical responsibilities, and promotion. The authors examine the components of the URMM responsibility disparity and use information from the medical literature and from human resources to suggest practical steps that can be taken by academic leaders and policymakers to move toward establishing faculty equity and thus increase the numbers of black, Latino, and Native American faculty in academic medicine.

Ferdinand KC, Nasser SA. Racial/ethnic disparities in prevalence and care of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Curr Med Res Opin 2015;31:913–923 This article is a narrative review of the epidemiological data available on diabetes prevalence and care and of studies indexed in PubMed involving trials that evaluated treatments for type 2 diabetes in racial minority populations. The authors examined data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Table 1 provides a summary of demographic data (1–7). Because of the difficulties in gathering data for all three large racial and ethnic minorities in the United States, disparities are presented solely for African Americans compared to whites and for Hispanics compared to whites. The prevalence of diagnosed type 2 diabetes by racial/ethnic group is as follows: Asians 9.0%, African Americans 13.2%, Hispanic 12.8%, and non-Hispanic whites 7.6%. There is a wide variation in prevalance in the Native American population (e.g., 6.0% in Alaskan Natives and 24.1% in southern Arizona Native American groups) and among Hispanics (e.g., 8.5% in Central/South Americans, 9.3% in Cubans, 13.9% in Mexican Americans, and 14.8% in Puerto Ricans) (8). View this table: TABLE 1. Summary of Disparities Data Presented in the Article Reviewed (1–7) Objective. The purpose of this study was to identify and describe all clinical drug trials for type 2 diabetes that included Asians, African Americans, or Hispanics. Design. The authors conducted a literature review of studies indexed in MEDLINE and accessed through PubMed. Methods. The authors searched …

Differential rewarding of work and experience has been a longtime feature of academic medicine, resulting in a series of academic disparities. These disparities have been collectively called a cultural or minority “tax,” and, when considered beyond academic medicine, exist across all departments, colleges, and schools of institutions of higher learning–from health sciences to disciplines located on university campuses outside of medicine and health. A shared language can provide opportunities for those who champion this work to pool resources for larger impacts across the institution. This article aims to catalog the terms used across academic medicine disciplines to establish a common language describing the inequities experienced by Black, Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Women, and other underrepresented people as well as queer, disabled, and other historically marginalized or excluded groups. These ideas are specific to academic medicine in the United States, although many can be used in academic medicine in other countries. The terms were selected by a team of experts in equity, diversity, and inclusion, (EDI) who are considered national thought leaders in EDI and collectively have over 100 years of scholarship and experience in this area.