Abstract
Background The horrific nature of George Floyd’s killing by a Minneapolis Police Department officer on May 25, 2020 has sparked more than a month of nationwide protests against police brutality and in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. At critical junctures of the nation’s public health such as these, academic medical institutions may exert leadership by issuing public statements to communicate institutional values.
Methods We obtained statements issued by 56 leading U.S. medical schools relevant to George Floyd’s killing and subsequent protests. We tokenized statements into words, n-grams of sizes 2 and 3, and sentences; removed non-informative stop words and words that would compromise de-identification; and stemmed the remaining words using the Porter algorithm. We followed a predefined set of rules for identifying important elements of these statements related to leadership in antiracism and public health.
Results Nearly all named George Floyd (50 [89%]), a majority noted the role of racism (43 [77%]) and acknowledged the Black community specifically (41 [73%]). Fewer ╌ slightly more than half ╌ referenced the act resulting in Floyd’s death (31 [55%]) or made explicit reference to the police (29 [52%]). Only 7 (13%) explicitly used terms denoting active support, like “antiracism” or “Black Lives Matter.” Most (45 [80%]) included references to negative sequelae resulting from racism like “disparities” or “inequality”. All included hopeful language.
Conclusion Only a minority of institutions made reference to the killing of George Floyd by the police, and most failed to address this country’s targeted, historically engrained, and sustained oppression of Black people through white supremacy. Thus, our study identifies significant opportunities for U.S. medical schools to exert meaningful leadership in health.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded in part by grants from the Sullivan Family Foundation (ACT) and the U.S. National Institutes of Health K99DA051534 (MVK) and U01MD014023 (ACT).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was exempt from IRB review.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Grant support: This study was funded in part by grants from the Sullivan Family Foundation (ACT) and the U.S. National Institutes of Health K99DA051534 (MVK) and U01MD014023 (ACT).
Data Availability
Analysis code is available in the publicly available Github repository corresponding to this analysis.