Dare you to reply!

[Chartreuse Wombat]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Not an ASTRO member and in general I feel that hiring of consultants is often a way to establish action without action and with a prohibitive cost.

However, if this was a good faith effort at getting a sense of how stakeholders feel about DEI initiatives, that is not a bad thing (at all).

I just want to make sure that the narrative is correct here. Is there a good reason to believe that your answers will not be anonymized. Often, there are free form answers at the end of surveys as well. Are these present?

Is this malfeasance or just incompetence on ASTRO's part...or are we just paranoid.

Is there a way forward for ASTRO on the DEI front with this group or no?

It matters.

Not a member any longer but if the tenor of the questions posted are accurate there is a clear preference that DEI is beneficial. The actions of the ASTRO Board in the last 3-4 years indicate that they are completely on board with DEI and are afraid of transparency. Inviting Kendi as a keynote speaker was absurd in my view. The Board has also forced DEI metrics down the throats of editors of the ASTRO journals. Simul has documented some of their actions not to mention the memory holing of the 2023 panel on Workforce. The decision to weigh in on the events of J6 was shortsighted. Finally, the Board felt compelled to make a statement on the events of October 7 in Gaza. The Board should be focused on the discipline of radiation oncology.

 

[communitydoc13]

Not a member any longer but if the tenor of the questions posted are accurate there is a clear preference that DEI is beneficial. The actions of the ASTRO Board in the last 3-4 years indicate that they are completely on board with DEI and are afraid of transparency. Inviting Kendi as a keynote speaker was absurd in my view. The Board has also forced DEI metrics down the throats of editors of the ASTRO journals. Simul has documented some of their actions not to mention the memory holing of the 2023 panel on Workforce. The decision to weigh in on the events of J6 was shortsighted. Finally, the Board felt compelled to make a statement on the events of October 7 in Gaza. The Board should be focused on the discipline of radiation oncology.

Yes, yes...this is a list of grievances. But it does not address my questions (which are focused)…namely, do we have evidence that the aforementioned survey is: 1. offered in bad faith, 2. a potential tool to punish people that is not appropriately anonymized or 3. does not allow for open ended feedback outside of scripted multiple choice answers (i.e. is just a gamed referendum with leading questions and answers).

Maybe it is all of the above, I do not know as I am not a member.

But from where I'm standing, I see an anonymous survey on DEI offered and I see an opportunity for members to offer their real opinions.

For criticism of ASTRO on this board to resonate, it cannot be overwhelmed by grievances regarding DEI, unless we have good evidence that DEI initiatives are in fact the reason that there are carve outs in ROCR, past radical residency expansion and less than inspiring scientific work in our trade publication.

ASTRO leadership at this point may have a fairly defensible (not meaning correct, meaning that it resonates with a majority of members) position that the SDN crowd is disproportionately the aggrieved and not the rational.

If someone can provide evidence that the survey is not anonymized as advertised and limits feedback, I am happy to add it to the list of ASTRO missteps.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

Yes, yes...this is a list of grievances. But it does not address my questions (which are focused)…namely, do we have evidence that the aforementioned survey is: 1. offered in bad faith, 2. a potential tool to punish people that is not appropriately anonymized or 3. does not allow for open ended feedback outside of scripted multiple choice answers (i.e. is just a gamed referendum with leading questions and answers).

Maybe it is all of the above, I do not know as I am not a member.

But from where I'm standing, I see an anonymous survey on DEI offered and I see an opportunity for members to offer their real opinions.

For criticism of ASTRO on this board to resonate, it cannot be overwhelmed by grievances regarding DEI, unless we have good evidence that DEI initiatives are in fact the reason that there are carve outs in ROCR, past radical residency expansion and less than inspiring scientific work in our trade publication.

ASTRO leadership at this point may have a fairly defensible (not meaning correct, meaning that it resonates with a majority of members) position that the SDN crowd is disproportionately the aggrieved and not the rational.

If someone can provide evidence that the survey is not anonymized as advertised and limits feedback, I am happy to add it to the list of ASTRO missteps.

I am not claiming that DEI initiatives are the reason for ROCR, residency expansion, etc. I am claiming that the Board needs to focus on the things that matter for radiation oncologists. I would submit that DEI is far down the list for most.

The survey may indeed be anonymous but we already know that preference falsification is a real thing. The questions are biased. The ASTRO history with membership surveys is notoriously poor. Poor response rate, highlighting those things the Board wants to and ignoring alternative viewpoints.

I don't know how you can prove that a survey limits feedback. Even if there are free text boxes (which by definition are qualitative) it will difficult to know whether all of the responses will be given the same level of review.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

We all need to be busier in the clinic.

 

[drowsy12]

We all need to be busier in the clinic.

Only if that directly leads to more pay. We don’t need to get busier for the sake of being busier in terms of expectations changing for what an average RO is responsible for in the future. I say this speaking mostly about RO as an employed job, as that’s what most of us are and will continue to be in the future.

I will keep saying this, because as employed docs, we should try to maintain what it is now before corporate overlords change the game on us

Okay personal rant/aside over.

 

[Neuronix]

Incredible that Astor wastes money and resources to hire consultants for this drivel. I imagine the response rate will be less then the percentage of members voting in the Astro elections. Only the die hards will waste their time with such nonsense.

Meanwhile we have someone in the Astro online forums complaining we don't donate to their PAC...

Ok buddy. How about Astro takes some resources from either:

1. Way overpaid CEO.
2. DEI consultants.

Only if that directly leads to more pay. We don’t need to get busier for the sake of being busier in terms of expectations changing for what an average RO is responsible for in the future. I say this speaking mostly about RO as an employed job, as that’s what most of us are and will continue to be in the future.

I will keep saying this, because as employed docs, we should try to maintain what it is now before corporate overlords change the game on us

Okay personal rant/aside over.

Exactly. Why contribute to a PAC? It's our employers who most directly control our lives. Where can I donate to end non-compete agreements and reduce oversupply of rad oncs?

 

[communitydoc13]

Where can I donate to end non-compete agreements

Huge. Has ASTRO (or any medical professional organization) addressed non-competes in recent history?

 

[Neuronix]

Huge. Has ASTRO (or any medical professional organization) addressed non-competes in recent history?

Not that I'm aware of. This is a huge axe of mine that I'm always grinding about. I've never seen a major medical organization take a serious stand against non-competes.

This is in comparison to the American Bar Association that takes a strong stand that they are unethical for lawyers.

Why would it be unethical for lawyers and not physicians?

"American Bar Association's Model Rule 5.6, an attorney cannot draft or enter into a noncompete agreement that “restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination,” except when retirement benefits come into play. The rationale is the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship."

Meanwhile I have been handed physician contracts that state that I cannot see a patient that I saw at that practice for years after I leave the practice for any reason. How is that ethical or legal?

 

[TheWallnerus]

an attorney cannot draft or enter into a noncompete agreement that “restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination,” except when retirement benefits come into play. The rationale is the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship."

Meanwhile I have been handed physician contracts that state that I cannot see a patient that I saw at that practice for years after I leave the practice for any reason. How is that ethical or legal?

Because a CEO said it’s ethical and got an attorney to say it’s legal

 

[fiji128]

"Astro Needs Your Input: Survey on Inclusive Excellence"

Question 1.
"The goal of this section is to gain an understanding of where members are in their Health Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (HEDI) journey. What does success look like for you upon completion of any specific HEDI education and training. 1) Increasing confidence in addressing HEDI work place issues 2) Strengthen my comfort level in having HEDI conversations 3) Growing in my personal HEDI journey 4) Other please specify"

Question 2.
"Using the scale, rate the extent to which you agree with the statement below. Health equity and DEI are important to me both personally and professionally. 1) Strongly disagree 2) Somewhat disagree 3) Neither agree no disagree 4) Somewhat agree 5) Strongly agree.

Question 3.
How comfortable are you in your understanding of the following health equity, diversity and inclusion related concepts.
Rate each separately 1) Power and Privilege 2) Cultural Humility 3) Inclusive Workplace Practices 4) Implicit Bias 5) Allyship 6) Harassment 7) Bystander Intervention 8) Systemic Racism from I have not head of this concept, No or slight understanding, Some understanding, Good understanding, Extensive understanding.

And it goes on and on from there.

 

[RickyScott]

Not that I'm aware of. This is a huge axe of mine that I'm always grinding about. I've never seen a major medical organization take a serious stand against non-competes.

This is in comparison to the American Bar Association that takes a strong stand that they are unethical for lawyers.

Why would it be unethical for lawyers and not physicians?

"American Bar Association's Model Rule 5.6, an attorney cannot draft or enter into a noncompete agreement that “restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination,” except when retirement benefits come into play. The rationale is the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship."

Meanwhile I have been handed physician contracts that state that I cannot see a patient that I saw at that practice for years after I leave the practice for any reason. How is that ethical or legal?

Increasing restrictions on sequential contracts is a real issue in this field as we have almost no lateral mobility. If a chair wants to increase the scope of the non-compete on a second contract, what are you going to do, pick up your family and move across the country? This is another way the job market in radonc contributes to burnout. In my town, the NCI pps exempt institution insists on non competes for the radoncs, but not all of the medoncs (because of market forces) And medoncs can take pts with them while radoncs generally can’t.

 

[deleted1180461]

Only if that directly leads to more pay. We don’t need to get busier for the sake of being busier in terms of expectations changing for what an average RO is responsible for in the future. I say this speaking mostly about RO as an employed job, as that’s what most of us are and will continue to be in the future.

I will keep saying this, because as employed docs, we should try to maintain what it is now before corporate overlords change the game on us

Okay personal rant/aside over.

That’s not the reason this person keeps reposting this same quip in response to topics they don’t like being discussed.

You know who really needs to be busier in clinic? The DEI “researchers” and MDs involved with ASTRO driving this toxic trash. I promise you, myself and everyone else here taking the time out of our day to think critically about DEI are not doing so because we don’t have enough clinical work. I am somewhat suspicious that those spending their bankers hours on DEI “work” are clinical superstars who can immediately see and treat any patient any site that walks in the door.

Really advancing our field forwards.

 

[NotMattSpraker]

Question 1.
"The goal of this section is to gain an understanding of where members are in their Health Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (HEDI) journey.

LOL my HEDI journey.

Huge. Has ASTRO (or any medical professional organization) addressed non-competes in recent history?

I heard they are going to work on this as soon as they get done with the 2024 wage-fixing survey.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

That’s not the reason this person keeps reposting this same quip in response to topics they don’t like being discussed.

You know who really needs to be busier in clinic? The DEI “researchers” and MDs involved with ASTRO driving this toxic trash. I promise you, myself and everyone else here taking the time out of our day to think critically about DEI are not doing so because we don’t have enough clinical work. I am somewhat suspicious that those spending their bankers hours on DEI “work” are clinical superstars who can immediately see and treat any patient any site that walks in the door.

Really advancing our field forwards.

Nah, that's not it.

It's because if we were all busier in the clinic, there would be less of us (a bit of a zero sum game), each of us would make more money, have higher career satisfaction by helping more people, academia and community would be more united, and docs would have increased opportunity to engage in academic careerism via actual clinical research on patients (to, you know "advance our field forward") rather than bread and circus surveys meant to distract from the actual headwinds facing our specialty and the fact that a few self-interested actors are trying to push through unpopular legislation that impact the whole of us.

So yes, we need to be busier in the clinics.

 

[deleted1180461]

Nah, that's not it.

It's because if we were all busier in the clinic, there would be less of us (a bit of a zero sum game), each of us would make more money, have higher career satisfaction by helping more people, academia and community would be more united, and docs would have increased opportunity to engage in academic careerism via actual clinical research on patients (to, you know "advance our field forward") rather than bread and circus surveys meant to distract from the actual headwinds facing our specialty and the fact that a few self-interested actors are trying to push through unpopular legislation that impact the whole of us.

So yes, we need to be busier in the clinics.

Nobody is arguing that increased work for all of us under a fair production model would not be a good thing.

But that’s not possible given the number of rad oncs in practice now and the number of patients to go around. In a modern efficient clinic a 1.0 FTE load should be 30 patients on treatment, How many are actually there and not trying to fill in the gaps with 10-15?

But again that’s not why you keep posting that, to try and make a point that literally nobody here disagrees with. DEI in rad onc is NOT simply a distraction to obfuscate systemic changes in physician reimbursement and autonomy. This is going on in all major industries. It is a societal issue and not rad onc or medicine specific in regards to their economics.

 

[Neuronix]

LOL my HEDI journey.



I heard they are going to work on this as soon as they get done with the 2024 wage-fixing survey.

The whole SCAROP salary survey demonstrates that our society is actively working against employed radiation oncologists, which I believe to be the majority of its membership.

The funniest part of the whole thing is that they claim they cannot recommend against residency expansion because it's anti-competitive. Yet holding a salary survey privately and putting "this is not anticompetitive" as a disclaimer in the front of it is totally cool?

 

[Gfunk6]

2) Cultural Humility 3) Inclusive Workplace Practices 4) Implicit Bias 5) Allyship . . . 7) Bystander Intervention

To paraphrase Dave Chapelle, DEI proponents make up terms to win arguments.

 

[communitydoc13]

LOL my HEDI journey.

Any barriers to commenting on the wording of the survey.

Any barriers to being one of the respondents who replies that they are very comfortable with the concepts of: 1) Power and Privilege 2) Cultural Humility 3) Inclusive Workplace Practices 4) Implicit Bias 5) Allyship 6) Harassment 7) Bystander Intervention 8) Systemic Racism but see no value in DEI interventions.

Any barrier to being one of the respondents who states that they believe these to be "made up terms".

Again, if it is in fact anonymous, I would encourage all members to respond, particularly those who care (on either side of the issue). If ASTRO receives a significant number of responses, they may learn from this. The aggregate replies should be published. The results may not be what anybody wants.

I would like if ASTRO (or any organization) would include very simple questions as part of these questionnaires, including a "Do you believe that DEI initiatives are necessary and helpful in the present context"? How your colleagues respond to this question should mean a lot to you.

If I were still still an ASTRO member, I would take an opportunity to free write in the following response:

I tend to believe in limited DEI initiatives that focus on outreach and an emphasis on creating a safe working environment for all people regardless of race, gender, gender identity , economic background, religion or sexual orientation. However, I am increasingly skeptical of the ability of DEI initiatives to transform a given person's outlook on issues of equity, personal privilege and implicit bias. In a pluralistic society, we must accept diversity of opinion regarding these issues among our peers.

DEI initiatives are mandated by "pathologies of power", which are endemic to all human endeavors. As present, the presentation of DEI initiatives without corresponding initiatives to advocate for members of our field vulnerable to such pathologies, independent of identity, undermines the credibility of ASTRO as a whole. Such initiatives should include advocacy for community care, including equal compensation under any promoted payment model, advocacy for the elimination of non-compete clauses in employment contracts, organizational concern for consolidation of care nationally and organizational concern regarding employment opportunities for trainees as well as aggregate number of training positions.

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

Any barriers to commenting on the wording of the survey.

Any barriers to being one of the respondents who replies that they are very comfortable with the concepts of: 1) Power and Privilege 2) Cultural Humility 3) Inclusive Workplace Practices 4) Implicit Bias 5) Allyship 6) Harassment 7) Bystander Intervention 8) Systemic Racism but see no value in DEI interventions.

Any barrier to being one of the respondents who states that they believe these to be "made up terms".

Again, if it is in fact anonymous, I would encourage all members to respond, particularly those who care (on either side of the issue). If ASTRO receives a significant number of responses, they may learn from this. The aggregate replies should be published. The results may not be what anybody wants.

I would like if ASTRO (or any organization) would include very simple questions as part of these questionnaires, including a "Do you believe that DEI initiatives are necessary and helpful in the present context"? How your colleagues respond to this question should mean a lot to you.

If I were still still an ASTRO member, I would take an opportunity to free write in the following response:

I tend to believe in limited DEI initiatives that focus on outreach and an emphasis on creating a safe working environment for all people regardless of race, gender, gender identity , economic background, religion or sexual orientation. However, I am increasingly skeptical of the ability of DEI initiatives to transform a given person's outlook on issues of equity, personal privilege and implicit bias. In a pluralistic society, we must accept diversity of opinion regarding these issues among our peers.

DEI initiatives are mandated by "pathologies of power", which are endemic to all human endeavors. As present, the presentation of DEI initiatives without corresponding initiatives to advocate for members of our field vulnerable to such pathologies, independent of identity, undermines the credibility of ASTRO as a whole. Such initiatives should include advocacy for community care, including equal compensation under any promoted payment model, advocacy for the elimination of non-compete clauses in employment contracts, organizational concern for consolidation of care nationally and organizational concern regarding employment opportunities for trainees as well as aggregate number of training positions.

I completely support your response but (based on face to face conversations with ASTRO leadership in which I made similar statements) I am very confident that nothing of this sort would ever be published. I can't predict the future but past actions of the Board have suggested that they are not on board with heterodox thinking. Ask the editors of the ASTRO journals.

 

[deleted1180461]

To paraphrase Dave Chapelle, DEI proponents make up terms to win arguments.

In general, terms that could easily be mistaken for being in 1984 should raise immediate scrutiny.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. A division of the Ministry of Love.
What kind of awful person could possibly have a problem with diversity, equity, and inclusion?
A trip to Room 101 will fix you.

Spoiler: In DEI, it's really the "E" that matters. Notice how it's conveniently wedged between the others. Not a coincidence. It is about wealth and power structures and is why it has horrifically toed the line with overt anti-semitism (which is based in conspiracy theories about power) in recent months.

I am glad there is a place where reasonable people are free to criticize this awful ideology. No doubt many would like to see this discussion censored and ASTRO would outright shut it down.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

https://x.com/benshapiro/status/1762195994123407577?s=20

🤔

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Oh boy. Ben Shapiro has made an appearance.

https://i.gifer.com/EG6.gif

 

[drowsy12]

https://x.com/benshapiro/status/1762195994123407577?s=20

🤔

This thread has reached its natural evolution

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

This thread has reached its natural evolution

Yes, I have agreed with much that has been said here. And agree with the tweet I saw. Otoh, citing that asshat diminishes this thread.

 

[TheWallnerus]

This thread has reached its natural evolution

Like it was genetically predispositioned to reach this status. Hmmm.

 

[deleted1180461]

Yes, I have agreed with much that has been said here. And agree with the tweet I saw. Otoh, citing that asshat diminishes this thread.

He's right about a lot of things but delivers it in such a way that you really just want him to be wrong.
It was interesting to watch him rip Tucker Carlson a new one for extolling how awesome life is in Moscow.

 

[deleted1180461]

Shapiro set up a tip line specifically for reporting crazy DEI stuff in medicine. (the story broke over events at Duke)

Say what you want about him, but if you're at an academic center experiencing some especially bad DEI nonsense, well knock yourselves out...

tips.dailywire.com

 

[evilbooyaa]

https://x.com/benshapiro/status/1762195994123407577?s=20

🤔

I'm going to focus on the views, not the person submitting those views.

And I find myself thinking that it seems wrong that people can voice things like this publicly without any professional blowback.

All the folks he is mentioning are saying the quiet part out loud. If it was on the other end of the political spectrum, these folks would be all sorts of cancelled.

I would really not want to work with any of these folks involved unless they understood that what they said was stupid and apologized for it. It's one thing to be an established attending who has made a career for themselves with DEI, but MS4s or surgical residents posting dumb **** like this on a nationally visible social media? Not a good idea.

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

Manels is such a funny word. RIP

 

[TheWallnerus]

View attachment 384199
Manels is such a funny word. RIP

What’s the opposite. Damel? Chickel? Harridanel?

 

[Ray D. Ayshun]

What’s the opposite. Damel? Chickel? Harridanel?

Missinformation?
LMFAO

 

[Gfunk6]

View attachment 384199
Manels is such a funny word. RIP

Glad to see Rad Onc continues to live on the bleeding edge of research.

 

[drowsy12]

Glad to see Rad Onc continues to live on the bleeding edge of research.

Your mistake is thinking this is unique to rad onc.

 

[deleted1180461]

Murphy Introduces Bill to Ban DEI in Medicine

Washington, D.C. — Congressman Greg Murphy, M.D. introduced the Embracing anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act to ban race-based mandates at medical schools and accrediting institutions.

murphy.house.gov

 

[communitydoc13]

Murphy Introduces Bill to Ban DEI in Medicine

Washington, D.C. — Congressman Greg Murphy, M.D. introduced the Embracing anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act to ban race-based mandates at medical schools and accrediting institutions.

murphy.house.gov

This is the guy who tweeted "no one forces anyone to have sex" with regard to overturning Roe vs. Wade in the circumstance of rape.

Just providing context.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

This is the guy who tweeted "no one forces anyone to have sex" with regard to overturning Roe vs. Wade in the circumstance of rape.

Just providing context.

Which, as completely bat **** insane as it is, is potentially the most normal thing a North Carolina Republican has said in a long time.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

This is the guy who tweeted "no one forces anyone to have sex" with regard to overturning Roe vs. Wade in the circumstance of rape.

Just providing context.

It’s crazy we have people here who are physicians who truly believe just because someone is a republican and pro life they think that Rep/Dr. Greg Murphy would think rape is consensual. Let’s give a little benefit of the doubt. He was talking about abortion between consensual partners and abortion under those circumstances. Just to show that republican pro lifers are actual thinking humans here is what he said when he was taken out of context:

“Sex is a term I’ve always used when dealing with consensual action. Intercourse when forced or nonconsensual is assault or rape, and that is abhorrent. I deleted the tweet when I noticed it was being misinterpreted or misconstrued. I regret any confusion this has caused.”
Rep. Greg Murphy

This is the internet and I could take some trolling but geez…

 

[deleted1180461]

Wow, what a loser. Got through med school and doesn't even know how babies are made. Definitely can't take anything else this idiot says seriously or anyone who has ever word vomited stream of consciousness nonsense on X.

Sarcasm aside, this "context" is about as textbook as an ad hominem logical fallacy can get if the goal is to discredit anti-DEI initiatives.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

It’s crazy we have people here who are physicians who truly believe just because someone is a republican and pro life they think that Rep/Dr. Greg Murphy would think rape is consensual. Let’s give a little benefit of the doubt. He was talking about abortion between consensual partners and abortion under those circumstances. Just to show that republican pro lifers are actual thinking humans here is what he said when he was taken out of context:

“Sex is a term I’ve always used when dealing with consensual action. Intercourse when forced or nonconsensual is assault or rape, and that is abhorrent. I deleted the tweet when I noticed it was being misinterpreted or misconstrued. I regret any confusion this has caused.”
Rep. Greg Murphy

This is the internet and I could take some trolling but geez…

I'm sure with his logical consistency, he's a big anti-Trump guy, given he must find him abhorrent and all.

 

[communitydoc13]

It’s crazy we have people here who are physicians who truly believe just because someone is a republican and pro life they think that Rep/Dr. Greg Murphy would think rape is consensual. Let’s give a little benefit of the doubt. He was talking about abortion between consensual partners and abortion under those circumstances. Just to show that republican pro lifers are actual thinking humans here is what he said when he was taken out of context:

“Sex is a term I’ve always used when dealing with consensual action. Intercourse when forced or nonconsensual is assault or rape, and that is abhorrent. I deleted the tweet when I noticed it was being misinterpreted or misconstrued. I regret any confusion this has caused.”
Rep. Greg Murphy

This is the internet and I could take some trolling but geez…

I'm sure it was an off the cuff tweet and did not represent his true feelings.

He also objected to counting electoral college voted on 1/6. I'm sure this was well thought out by him.

 

[deleted1180461]

I'm sure it was an off the cuff tweet and did not represent his true feelings.

He also objected to counting electoral college voted on 1/6. I'm sure this was well thought out by him.

Well, we're half there. This is the problem: We can't consider an issue without immediately mentally filing it in the good vs. evil bin based on the source. 2020 election and abortion have nothing to do with DEI in medicine.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Well, we're half there. This is the problem: We can't consider an issue without immediately mentally filing it in the good vs. evil bin based on the source. 2020 election and abortion have nothing to do with DEI in medicine.

Perhaps not. But perhaps should lead you to “consider the source.”

If the source is a person who will routinely debase themself in furtherance of a partisan political agenda, perhaps take it less seriously, or dismiss it outright if you choose.

That’s the risk you run by being a terrible person.

 

[deleted1180461]

If the source is a person who will routinely debase themself in furtherance of a partisan political agenda, perhaps take it less seriously, or dismiss it outright if you choose..

Politics is a dirty business. Everyone used to understand this. Now it's about running cover for literally everything from your team because the other side is partisan and terrible, and we're doing God's work. This is a slippery slope to censorship and authoritarianism. I promise you, for every sociopolitical topic you are passionate about, I can find scores of famous asshats who support it who have made total fools of themselves on social media (as is the nature of social media). I'm not sure what's going to happen to us if we are considering everything from the other side the same way we would consider press releases from North Korean state media. I guess we'll find out.

 

[evilbooyaa]

This is the guy who tweeted "no one forces anyone to have sex" with regard to overturning Roe vs. Wade in the circumstance of rape.

Just providing context.

Attack the ideas, not the person

 

[medgator]

It’s crazy we have people here who are physicians who truly believe just because someone is a republican and pro life they think that Rep/Dr. Greg Murphy would think rape is consensual. Let’s give a little benefit of the doubt. He was talking about abortion between consensual partners and abortion under those circumstances. Just to show that republican pro lifers are actual thinking humans here is what he said when he was taken out of context:

“Sex is a term I’ve always used when dealing with consensual action. Intercourse when forced or nonconsensual is assault or rape, and that is abhorrent. I deleted the tweet when I noticed it was being misinterpreted or misconstrued. I regret any confusion this has caused.”
Rep. Greg Murphy

This is the internet and I could take some trolling but geez…

Birth control fails, fetal anomalies are detected....

 

[temujim]

View attachment 384199
Manels is such a funny word. RIP

Saw this paper again since it was published in Mar 2024 red journal. Looked at some of the numbers. The breakdown amongst ASTRO faculty was 1573 men and 1169 women. The data they reference for all ASTRO members was 3766 men and 1574 women. 74% of all female ASTRO members were faculty at an ASTRO meeting between 2018 - 2021!? I understand that not every ASTRO faculty would be an ASTRO member, but even if pulling from non-ASTRO members how far would that number change? And 2742 individual faculty, over 4 years 685 individuals? Not sure how the same faculty members were handled across the analysis should they have given multiple talks/moderator/etc across the time period. Still found that to be a bit surprising, so if the numbers are questionable the following analyses may not hold.

But accepting those numbers 70.5% male ASTRO membership vs 59.9% male ASTRO faculty, if put that in a 2x2, the p-value is < 0.00001; i.e. women may be considered over-represented as ASTRO faculty.

As for "manels", the percentage declined from 25.6% to 8.2% over 2018 - 2021 at ASTRO meetings. If ASTRO members were picked randomly for the 2021 meeting, you would expect 24.4% of all 4 person panels to be all men compared with 8.2% actual (p=0.0004; ie may be biased against men). But if selecting only from the pool of previous ASTRO faculty (~60/40 split) at random, would expect 9.1% of panels to be all men (p=NS for 2021).

For the converse the percentage was relatively stable over time from 11.3% to 7.5% over 2018 - 2021. If ASTRO members were picked randomly for the 2021 meeting, 0.62% of 4 person panels would be all women compared with 7.5% actual (p = 0.0054, ie may be biased in favor of women) . However, if selecting from the pool of previous ASTRO faculty at random, would expect 3.2% of panels to be all women (p = 0.19).

These results seem more consistent with deliberate ASTRO policy. Which I understand to be the case. But contra the conclusions of the paper, not sure "further efforts are necessary to continue to improve gender diversity and the representation of women in our field, including the elimination of manels whenever possible." Mission accomplished.

 

[NotJasonBeckta]

Saw this paper again since it was published in Mar 2024 red journal. Looked at some of the numbers. The breakdown amongst ASTRO faculty was 1573 men and 1169 women. The data they reference for all ASTRO members was 3766 men and 1574 women. 74% of all female ASTRO members were faculty at an ASTRO meeting between 2018 - 2021!? I understand that not every ASTRO faculty would be an ASTRO member, but even if pulling from non-ASTRO members how far would that number change? And 2742 individual faculty, over 4 years 685 individuals? Not sure how the same faculty members were handled across the analysis should they have given multiple talks/moderator/etc across the time period. Still found that to be a bit surprising, so if the numbers are questionable the following analyses may not hold.

But accepting those numbers 70.5% male ASTRO membership vs 59.9% male ASTRO faculty, if put that in a 2x2, the p-value is < 0.00001; i.e. women may be considered over-represented as ASTRO faculty.

As for "manels", the percentage declined from 25.6% to 8.2% over 2018 - 2021 at ASTRO meetings. If ASTRO members were picked randomly for the 2021 meeting, you would expect 24.4% of all 4 person panels to be all men compared with 8.2% actual (p=0.0004; ie may be biased against men). But if selecting only from the pool of previous ASTRO faculty (~60/40 split) at random, would expect 9.1% of panels to be all men (p=NS for 2021).

For the converse the percentage was relatively stable over time from 11.3% to 7.5% over 2018 - 2021. If ASTRO members were picked randomly for the 2021 meeting, 0.62% of 4 person panels would be all women compared with 7.5% actual (p = 0.0054, ie may be biased in favor of women) . However, if selecting from the pool of previous ASTRO faculty at random, would expect 3.2% of panels to be all women (p = 0.19).

These results seem more consistent with deliberate ASTRO policy. Which I understand to be the case. But contra the conclusions of the paper, not sure "further efforts are necessary to continue to improve gender diversity and the representation of women in our field, including the elimination of manels whenever possible." Mission accomplished.

Wait...wait a second...

Following your link:

But...but

So...ASTRO published a "Workforce Taskforce" study that wildly conflicts with their own internal numbers?

If only they knew, maybe they would realize how far off the beaten path they've become, how out of touch their behavior is, trapped inside their high garden walls, and...

Oh yeah.

I wonder if significantly underestimating your supply in your "supply/demand" modeling has any sort of effect?

Well, it's not like I think you can change minds with data these days, anyway.

Having an accurate measurement of "manels" and the carbon footprint of a linear accelerator sure feels like watching Nero play the fiddle while you sense the heat of approaching flames...

 

[TheWallnerus]

Wait...wait a second...

Following your link:


View attachment 385515


But...but


View attachment 385516
View attachment 385517


So...ASTRO published a "Workforce Taskforce" study that wildly conflicts with their own internal numbers?

If only they knew, maybe they would realize how far off the beaten path they've become, how out of touch their behavior is, trapped inside their high garden walls, and...


View attachment 385518

Oh yeah.

I wonder if significantly underestimating your supply in your "supply/demand" modeling has any sort of effect?

Well, it's not like I think you can change minds with data these days, anyway.

Having an accurate measurement of "manels" and the carbon footprint of a linear accelerator sure feels like watching Nero play the fiddle while you sense the heat of approaching flames...

I just can’t with ASTRO anymore