The contribution of undergraduate medical education dress codes to systemic discrimination: A critical policy analysis

Abstract

Purpose Critical review of institutional policies is necessary to identify and eliminate structural discrimination in medical schools. Dress code policies are well known to facilitate discrimination in other settings. Methods In this critical policy analysis, the authors used qualitative inquiry guided by feminist critical policy analysis (FCPA) and critical race feminism (CRF) frameworks to understand how Canadian undergraduate medical school dress code policies may contribute to discrimination and a hostile culture for marginalised groups. Dress code policies were obtained from 14 of 17 Canadian medical schools in September 2021. Deductive content analysis of dress codes was performed independently and in parallel by all four members of a racially diverse study team using Edwards and Marshalls' established framework for applying FCPA and CRF to dress code policy statements. Inductive content analysis was used to classify statements that fell outside this framework. Using a historical and contemporary legal understanding of how dress code policies have been used to discriminate against marginalised groups, the authors analysed how recommendations or restrictions may contribute to discrimination of marginalised medical students. Results Fourteen dress code policies were analysed. Overall, there were five feminine‐coded restrictions for every one masculine‐coded restriction (n = 77/213 and n = 16/213, respectively). Some policies prohibited feminine‐coded items (e.g. perfumes and bracelets) while specifically allowing masculine‐coded items (e.g. cologne and watches). A discourse of ‘professionalism’ based on patient preferences prioritised Eurocentric patriarchal norms for appearance, potentially penalising racially and culturally diverse students. Most policies did not include a policy for appeals or accommodations. Conclusion Canadian undergraduate medical school dress code policies overregulate women and gender, racially and culturally diverse students by explicitly and implicitly enforcing white patriarchal social norms. Administrators should apply best practices to these policies to avoid discrimination and a hostile culture to marginalised groups.

The weaponization of professionalism against physicians of color

“…Dress code policies in healthcare should rely on evidence-based practices that promote patient safety, rather than archaic “professionalism” notions based on Eurocentric ideals. Occasionally, patient preferences are cited to justify discriminatory dress code policies, with restrictions only on certain ethnic and religious minorities [ 7 ].…”

Can the medical educator speak? The next frontier of globalisation research in medical education

“…Using critical policy analysis, Ruzycki et al examine how Canadian undergraduate medical school dress code policies may contribute to discrimination and a hostile culture for marginalised groups 4 . They unearth a discourse of ‘professionalism’ based on patient preferences that prioritise Eurocentric patriarchal norms for appearance, potentially penalising racially and culturally diverse students.…”

Turning the tide: Addressing threats to pharmacist well‐being through work redesign

“…Some constraints have clear benefits, such as requiring double‐verification for a high‐risk medication, whereas the rationale for others may go unquestioned. For example, many organizations impose restrictive dress codes under the pretext of professionalism even though they may discriminate based on factors like gender, race/ethnicity, or religious beliefs 45 …”

“…For example, many organizations impose restrictive dress codes under the pretext of professionalism even though they may discriminate based on factors like gender, race/ethnicity, or religious beliefs. 45 Having low autonomy at work increases the risk of burnout, but the harms may be even greater when it is less than one expects to have in the job. 46 Pharmacy education has long prepared students for the practice of tomorrow, but this may also inflate graduates' expectations regarding the use of their expertise in the current practice environment.…”