In the records of social science, few mandates are as gravely articulated as the requirement to assess racism with the unyielding accuracy that only quantification can afford. It is only when bias is distilled into p-values and effect sizes that one may authoritatively declare, “Behold, the undeniable proof of racism,” reassured that no reasonable opponent can escape through the strength of personal anecdotes or hurt feelings. However, for such assessments to be taken seriously, they must also be non-intrusive; the subjects must remain unaware of observation, lest the Hawthorne effect from virtue signaling taint the results. Therefore, neuroscientists, examining the minds of the subtly progressive, find that mirror neurons react sympathetically when a white face displays pain, yet remain as dormant as a Trappist monk when the individual in distress is Black or Brown, displaying scarcely more activity than when the screen is empty.

A few months ago, within the quiet hallways of a prestigious academic medical institution, my colleagues embarked on precisely such unobtrusive investigations, subtly assessing the implicit biases of physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals. The department chair (a man of flawless progressive credentials and, incidentally, Mexican heritage) exhibited an almost feverish enthusiasm for the initiative. He imagined the impending publication as yet another accolade for the institution, ideally featuring his own name prominently among the contributors.

Then the results came in.

Of all the demographic groups analyzed, Mexican physicians, nurses, and medical assistants exhibited racism with a fervor and persistence unmatched by any other cohort. The impact was unmistakable; it was, in the unpleasant terminology of our field, exceedingly significant. Overnight, the chair’s fervor chilled to that of liquid nitrogen. Scheduled meetings vanished. The draft paper remained unread. Eventually, in a tone blending paternal concern with subtle threat, he insinuated that certain lines of inquiry are “better left in the file drawer,” that obscure limbo where inconvenient realities quietly perish, unbothered by peer review or public examination.

One might have anticipated a contrasting response: a renewed dedication to larger sample sizes, improved instruments, and the careful unraveling of culture, class, and historical grievances that doubtlessly mediate such results. After all, no serious individual believes racism to be the sole dominion of any one group; it is instead a universal human trait, disseminated with the impartiality of original sin. Yet the institution recoiled as if the data itself were an act of lèse-majesté against the chair’s Mexican identity and, by extension, against the meticulously crafted narrative of the medical center as a sanctuary of enlightened multiculturalism.

Herein lay the greater scandal, not the provisional trend revealed by our instruments, which any responsible academic would respond to with caution and calls for replication, but the rapid administrative urge to silence inquiry the moment it challenged institutional pride or ideological comfort. Science, we are perpetually reminded, must “speak truth to power.” Evidently, this imperative applies only when the truth in question flatters the powerful.

This incident showcases a somber reality of modern academic medicine: its often-touted bravery in addressing racism and bias is frequently little more than a performative act, upheld only as long as the narrative concludes with the identified villains exposed and the designated victims vindicated. When the data strays off script (when the mirror reflects an unwelcome image), the production is quietly canceled, the performers dispersed, and the audience left none the wiser.

If we aspire to a health care system deserving of public trust, we must cultivate a greater tolerance for unflattering evidence. Racism, akin to cholesterol, is not confined to one’s political foes; it permeates all bloodstreams. The question is whether our institutions have the intellectual integrity to measure it wherever it surfaces or whether they will persist in retreating into the comforting shadows of the file drawer whenever the figures threaten someone’s self-esteem.

Real advancement, as always, starts not with findings that reinforce our prior moral certainties, but with the uncommon and beneficial humility to learn from those that do not.

*The author is an anonymous physician.*