Black Woman in Medicine Documentary Discussion

ORDER CUSTOM, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS ON Black Woman in Medicine Documentary Discussion

As of right now, you are only required to submit ONE paper as your final course paper to cover both the documentary paper and the final course paper. It will basically be a longer reflection paper on the documentary. For this final paper, you will be writing a 5-7pages ( NOT including references page) reflection paper on the different themes, topics, issues and concepts that we have learned and discussed in this course in the light of the documentary “Black Women in Medicine”. Therefore, you are no longer required to submit a separate final course paper.

The “Back Women in Medicine” documentary honors black female doctors around the country who work diligently in all facets of medicine through featuring a cross-section of black female pioneers in medicine and healthcare. The documentary speaks to several issues that we have been discussing together in class and through the modules’ readings. Although the documentary focuses on black women’s experiences within the medical field, it actually sheds the light upon a lot more than that. Issues like access of underrepresented minorities to the health professions education, affirmative action, racism and sexism in the health profession, challenges that underrepresented minority students face, implicit bias, mentorship, role modeling…. etc are some of the topics that have been discussed in this documentary. The speakers also discuss some of the policies and strategies that can be used to increase diversity in the health profession and the reason why diversity of the health professionals force can be important for our patients and students. Although the documentary might not have addressed directly some of our class topics (ex: cultural competency), you can still make these connections. I would love to see you apply what we have learned in this course as your own interpretation of what has been discussed in the documentary and to present your own vision of what can be done.

You are required to address at least 3 of the main themes that were discussed in the course modules in your paper (see below). The evidence used in this paper should be grounded in readings, literature, reflection, and discussions from, but not limited to, this course. The paper must examine at least 8 peer-reviewed empirical articles related to the issue that we have used in class (you can use the class readings). This paper should reflect on the intersection between literature with current higher education and the health profession education diversity and equity issue(s) being proposed. Referencing (APA format) the readings that have helped you with your discussion and reaching your conclusions is an essential part of this assignment.

Course Modules Themes that you need to address in your paper (use at least 3):

Module 1:Theories and perspectives on diversity and equity
Module 2: The role of identity and diversity
Module 3: Privilege, Power and Discrimination
Module 4: Diversity and equity in the educational pipeline: From K-12 to Medical School…Where did we go wrong?
Module 5: Medical education and interrupting the usual
Module 6: Cultural competence and its role in the health profession education and minimizing health disparities
Module 7: Diversity in the health profession: Medical practice and working across differences

Link to the documentary:

https://www.kcet.org/shows/black-women-in-medicine/episodes/black-women-in-medicine

You can use some of the following questions to help you as you write your reflection paper on this documentary:

What were your reactions to this documentary?
How are the readings from our class, in-class discussion, videos…etc connected to what has been discussed in this documentary?
What are the theoretical frameworks or concepts in our modules that can be related to what has been discussed in this documentary? How can these frameworks explain the speakers’ experiences?
Are any of the experiences of the women in the video relatable to what you have seen in your education and career as a health professional? How so?
Do you think it is different now in the health profession than what has been described in the documentary or are some of the experiences still relevant? How far along have we become since this documentary?
What role can our personal identities and professional identities play in improving our encounters with our patients and health professional colleagues?
How did this documentary change or confirm your view on diversity and equity issues in the health profession?
Do you think diversity is important in the health professional force? Why or why not?
What are certain measures or policies that you think can help increase diversity in the health professional force?
What are some of the implications for your conclusions in the health professions education and practice? What are some implications in your workplace?
What is our role as health professional educators? What are some of the strategies that we can use with our students and in our institutions?
What is the role of leadership in improving diversity and dealing with diversity and equity issues in their institutions?
Why are cultural competency training and cultural humility important? How can it affect the quality of medical care?
What are some of the lessons that you have learned in this course and/or from the documentary?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Journal of Counseling Psychology 2017, Vol. 64, No. 4, 349 –358 © 2017 American Psychological Association 0022-0167/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000227 White Male Power and Privilege: The Relationship Between White Supremacy and Social Class William Ming Liu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. University of Iowa Counseling psychologists have studied privilege as an individual behavior, belief, and attitude related to an individual’s privileged identity such as masculinity, Whiteness, or Christianity. Conceptualizing individual privileged identities in this way means that privileged identities may exist alongside marginalized intersectional identities. However, in this article, the author defines privilege as a multi-identity act that is facilitated and supported by institutions and organizations (e.g., banks, law enforcement, and schools). These institutions are defined as power-governors that regulate access to scaffolds of privilege afforded to the affluent and wealthy. The author posits that power-governors were created to support an ideology of White supremacy and to organize actors within the system to perpetuate and legitimize the status quo. The author describes the ways in which White wealthy men use privilege as a means to access and gain power while White men in lower- and working-classes use privilege to build relationships and legitimize inequality. The author also discusses the proxy privilege of White women and people of color and how this privilege is in fact restricted to specific physical spaces and is limited due to their overt marginalized identities. Recommendations for privilege research are provided. Public Significance Statement The author describes the ways in which privilege is related to White supremacy and how it is used differentially among the White wealthy men as a means to access and gain power while White men in lower- and working-classes use privilege to build relationships and legitimize inequality. The author also discusses the different types of privilege for White women and people of color and how these privileges are limited by their overt marginalized identities and restricted to specific physical spaces. Keywords: privilege, White supremacy, social class, affluent, wealthy, working class Multicultural scholars (e.g., Sue & Sue, 2015) have proffered individuated privileges like Christian privilege (Schlosser, 2003), masculine privilege (Cuddy et al., 2015), and even middle-class privilege (Liu, Pickett, & Ivey, 2007), and in her Division 17 presidential address about privilege, Israel (2011) followed a similar format of listing types of privileges for different identities. For decades, people from diverse racial, gender, and sexual orientations were invited to consider and audit their individual privileges by teachers, psychologists, and workshop leaders. Within this perspective, a person’s privilege is the perception of choices and opportunities in a given context as well as an individual’s expression of rights and opportunities afforded to her/him/them in our society (e.g., Israel, 2011). Yet this focus on individual exercise of privilege or the exploration of privilege has not yielded much new definitional scholarship beyond the original McIntosh explication (Lapour & Heppner, 2009; Neville, Awad, Brooks, Flores, & Bluemel, 2013; Pinterits, Poteat, & Spanierman, 2009). Certainly counseling psychology scholars like Neville et al. (2013) have studied color-blind racial ideology as forms of White privilege to understand the ways in which White people evade and dismiss the importance of race and racism. McConnell and Todd (2015) also examined the intersection of White privilege and religious identification, and Pinterits et al. (2009) addressed Yes, I’m in the building, you just on the list of guest names. Black Woman in Medicine Documentary Discussion

—Lil Wayne What does it mean to believe one has privilege, but only to have that privilege restricted? Lil Wayne perceives himself as a member of a privileged club, his access afforded via money, all the while he lives as an African American man. But can he be privileged if he is simultaneously limited by race? In counseling psychology, the discourse on privilege has yet to accurately address and contextualize this question. Indeed, since the publication of McIntosh’s “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” in (McIntosh, 1988), counseling psychology theory and research has not deviated much from this original heuristic of listing privileges. Editor’s Note. Terence J. G. Tracey served as the action editor for this article. I would like to thank Rossina Zamora Liu for carefully reviewing many drafts of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to William Ming Liu, N360 Lindquist Center, College of Education, Psychological and Quantitative Foundations, Iowa City, IA 52242. E-mail: Williamliu@uiowa.edu 349 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 350 the costs, awareness, and the remorse of White privilege. Similarly, Spanierman, Garriott, and Clark (2013) called attention to the intersections of Whiteness and social class and the functions of privilege within these social class groups. While researchers developed a better understanding of White privileges and their connections to histories, systems, and structures of power that are specific for White men and White women (Spanierman et al., 2013), the individuation of privileges (e.g., masculine) reveals a disconnection in the scholarship. One of the most problematic aspects of individuated privileges is the notion that, for any one person, privileged identities can coexist alongside intersecting marginalized identities (e.g., Lapour & Heppner, 2009). This contradiction occurs, in part, because (a) privilege has been decontextualized, has been ahistoricized, and has not been described as a co-construct of White supremacy; (b) privilege is focused on individual expressions and agency; (c) privilege does not account for sociostructural institutions that afford these privileges (e.g., banking, law, education; Herring & Henderson, 2016; Liu & Ali, 2005); (d) privilege does not account for how it is used across different social class groups; and (e) the purposes of privilege is not well explored. This author suggests that multicultural competency research and counseling psychology research on privilege have mostly evaded their foundational discourse in White supremacy and have not understood the social structures that bind privilege and White supremacy and that to understand perceptions, behaviors, and attitudes on privilege, counseling psychologists must have a better conceptualization of what it is, how it functions, and for whom. In addressing these problems in the counseling psychology literature, this author divides the article into three main sections. Black Woman in Medicine Documentary Discussion

First, the author discusses the historical and current context of privilege as a coconstruct of White supremacy and argues that future scholarship should reflect this relationship. The author defines several terms such as privilege, power-governors, and proxy privilege. Second, the author reviews research suggesting how wealth and affluence may differentiate privilege among White men and how privilege and power may be different among White men, White men who are poor, White women, and people of color (men and women). Finally, the author concludes with hypotheses and recommendations for future research. In this article, this author uses some language conventions to discuss people who are wealthy, middle class, working class, lower class, and poor. This author describes distinct groups and understands the vast diversity within and across social classes. Furthermore, the descriptions are not perfectly representative of people in these various social class groups with respect to discrete income levels. As Liu (2011) has identified, social class groups are subjectively meaningful for those inside and outside of that group. But to give some criteria, this author provides the following: Wealthy and affluent classes reflect those who are among the top 1%–5% of our economy and have stable intergenerational assets, and middle, working, and lower classes refer to those with a range from white- to blue-collar work, who exist on work-derived income (i.e., set salary or weekly paycheck), who may have one physical asset (e.g., home, car), and who may be intergenerationally stable within the same social class group (Liu, 2011). LIU Privilege and Systems of White Supremacy Counseling psychologists must define privilege because it reveals the profession’s assumptions about how privilege is afforded, how it functions, and how it relates to social systems and cultural history. This first section establishes privilege within the architecture of sociopolitical (e.g., the unequal/asymmetric distribution of power), sociohistorical (e.g., biased and inaccurate histories of peoples), and sociostructural (e.g., legal, education, and economic systems) forces that create White supremacy as well as marginalize and oppress White women and communities of color (Liu & Ali, 2005). Racism has always been a part of, and about, geographic control and expansion and economic inequality, and therefore these features should be a part of contemporary operationalizations of racism, White privilege, and White supremacy. However, as suggested, the extant counseling psychology scholarship on privilege is similar to McIntosh (1988) original listing of behaviors and attitudes, which focuses on how people with Christian, heterosexual, or masculine privileges have used their identities to access opportunities and avoid psychological distress by finding comfort in racially homogeneous spaces and like-minded people (i.e., White racial affiliation; DiAngelo, 2011; Liu et al., 2007; Schlosser, 2003). Black Woman in Medicine Documentary Discussion

From a McIntosh (1988) framework, privilege is everywhere and given to everyone (i.e., everyone has potentially one privileged identity). Yet privilege is, in fact, scarce since it only belongs to those who are principle beneficiaries—if everyone had privilege, it would be a right. From a critical race perspective, the function of racialized privileged beliefs and behaviors is deeply intertwined in culture, history, and institutions. For example, White supremacy laws worked well because these laws conflated and established wealthy White male Christian identities into a singular entity (Harris, 1995; Isenberg, 2016; Spanierman et al., 2013). U.S. Supreme Court decisions made sure that privileges like marriage and landownership were restricted to those with “White-skin,” anthropologically Caucasoid, and commonly identifiable by a layWhite-person as Caucasoid American-White (Molina, 2014; Omi & Winant, 2015). In fact, in a series of experimental studies, Devos and Banaji (2005) confirmed the implicit bias that “to be American is to be White” (p. 463). hooks (2004) argued these institutions worked in concert to establish an ideology and practices of “White supremacist capitalist patriarchy” (p. ix) such that Whiteness was principally Caucasoid American and masculine (Molina, 2014; Omi & Winant, 2015). These original laws and designations of Whiteness and privilege set the foundation for subsequent laws and cultural practices that created a cultural momentum in society (i.e., subsequent laws and cultural productions) that surpassed the scope of the original laws. White supremacist ideology allowed a minority (White men) to control a numerically larger majority and rationalize the legitimacy of land acquisition, genocide, economic inequality, slavery, and White supremacy. Upward mobility ideologies (e.g., John Henryism) were also integrated into White supremacist ideologies to justify the caste-like discriminatory economic system (Isenberg, 2016) Black Woman in Medicine Documentary Discussion

. Additionally, protecting and controlling White women and White feminine purity was ideologically integral to White supremacy and facilitated the expectation of specific and rigid gender roles such that White men were providers (econom- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. PRIVILEGE AND SOCIAL CLASS ically), procreators, and protectors against men of color (hooks, 2004; Isenberg, 2016; Omi & Winant, 2015). For White men, Whiteness became both phenotype and commodity and was imbued with protections and authorized with power and agency (Harris, 1995; Liu, Hernandez, Mahmood, & Stinson, 2006). Whiteness, White masculinity, and White property (i.e., territory and White women) were protected against any encroachment; this is a principal tenet of White supremacist ideology. White men procreated with Black slaves, for instance, but these children were racially classified according to the mother’s race to secure White racial purity (Thompson, 2012). Multiracial children, immigration, and colonialism made the country more racially diverse, and as such, the U.S. Census was developed, in part, as a form of racial surveillance (a count) of non-White people’s territorial dispersion and White racial purity and supremacy (Hochschild & Powell, 2008; Omi & Winant, 2015). While governmental institutions “counted” women, people who were poor, and communities of color, the police and various Whitemilitia forces were tasked with physically curtailing and keeping members of these communities in specified spaces. Incarceration and actual and threatened physical violence (e.g., lynching) were used as forms of geographic control (McGoldrick, 2001; Omi & Winant, 2015). Surveilling, policing, and intervening to correct behaviors of White women and people of color were an expectation of White men and White masculinity (McGoldrick, 2001). Public entertainment and news provided images, stereotypes, and narratives (storylines) of marginalized people to normalize racist animus and to help many Americans understand their role in legitimizing oppression and inequality (Black, 2003). In the meanwhile, White women and some persons of color seemed to have privileges (e.g., freedom of movement); however, in-depth reviews of these instances suggest that any privilege they enjoyed was only by way of living in specific spaces (e.g., free territory) or being closely allied with, or living in close physical proximity to, a free White man (Isenberg, 2016; McGoldrick, 2001). Given these historical and systemic lenses, privilege cannot be solely an individual experience or behavior, as currently defined. Instead, privilege must represent the ways in which history, systems of power, and structures of legitimization leverage themselves into people’s worldviews, values, and beliefs in everyday life. Counseling psychology research, in particular, should examine cultural, systemic, professional, scientific, and institutional support for White supremacy and how an individual’s subscription to her/his/their privileges might normalize marginalization and oppression and deter critique—a kind of counseling psychology critical race theory may be needed (Psychcrit; e.g., Tribcrit for First Nations scholarship; Brayboy, 2005). Black Woman in Medicine Documentary Discussion

Power-Governors, Privilege, and Power Institutions work in concert to regulate, legitimize, and afford privileges to individuals. Residential redlining and housing segregation (Aalbers, 2013; Pulido, 2015) and the school-to-prison pipeline (Seroczynksi & Jobst, 2016) are examples of how institutions might coordinate efforts to maintain racism and grant privileges to a select few. These interdependent institutions or, as this author will refers to as, “power-governors” (see Figure 1) are institutions (e.g., a state legislature) or individual actors (e.g., a school or a bank) that have legitimacy and authority to regulate 351 Figure 1. Power-governors and privileged spaces. access to its resources (e.g., voting, education, money, and housing), power, and privileges. These power-governors rely upon each other for stability via formal relationships (e.g., legislation) and informal connections (e.g., cultural practices and expectations such as men as “head of the household”). And individuals within these power-governors are empowered to work on their behalf. Thus, privilege is not a natural product of human interaction where people grant each other privileges; rather, it is a synthetic product of institutional necessity. These power-governors are ubiquitous and function in the background while privileged individuals work in the foreground, sometimes unaware, that they are reinforcing institutional connections and White supremacy. That is, some people are willing to support privilege because they believe they have a stake in the stability of the status quo and that institutions and the operations within the institutions (i.e., policies and procedures) are beneficial to them. Consequently, individuals may endorse the legitimacy of an institution and what are deemed “neutral and fair” policies and procedures even though ultimately the outcome normalizes White supremacy. Marginalization, segregation, and exclusion, therefore, are not anomalies or individual actions but rational products of people using policies and procedures within a White supremacist system. Because oppression and marginalization work by simultaneously subjugating multiple identities (e.g., women of color who are poor), privilege should also be defined as the simultaneous multiidentity (i.e., White male) assertion and exercise of power. Rather than intersectional identities, the term multi-identity, as this author suggests, underscores the importance of each White supremacist system-derived privilege and its connection to multiple structures of power (power-governors and scaffolds) that are continuously operating in favor of White men. With the support of the powergovernors, White men may exercise their authority anywhere because this privileged space is geographically unbound; White men simultaneously see benefits to their White male privilege and threats to their White privilege everywhere; that is, any gain by a This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 352 non-White person is a loss to the White person (Norton & Sommers, 2011). Moreover, White men who are exercising their privilege are likely protected from punishments and consequences (e.g., poor behavior is explained away or individuated away from systems of privilege). Black Woman in Medicine Documentary Discussion

And while Whiteness affords the White man who is poor similar racial benefits as the White man who is wealthy (i.e., they may be both given the “benefit of the doubt” because both are White; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002), the White man who is poor or of a lower social class has differential access and a different purpose with the power-governors than the wealthy and affluent White man (Isenberg, 2016). Because social classes by definition are hierarchical and graduated, there is differential access to resources and access to power (Liu, 2011) Black Woman in Medicine Documentary Discussion

In any case, White racial affiliation, regardless of one’s social class background or worldview, becomes a critical psychological aspect in substantiating and continuing the status quo. Especially for the White man from a lower social class, racial affiliation obscures his perception of structural limits to his upward mobility (Isenberg, 2016) so that … Black Woman in Medicine Documentary Discussion