Drexel University’s prestigious fellowship for women in medicine now accepting male applicants.

During a recent celebration marking the 30th anniversary of Drexel University’s Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine (ELAM) program, the initiative’s executive director expressed concern over the “frustratingly slow” advancement of women to leadership positions in academic medicine. This remark came shortly after Drexel announced significant changes to the ELAM program, which traditionally served only female participants.

Three days prior to the anniversary event, Drexel informed hundreds of ELAM alumnae that the program would now accept male candidates. The decision has raised concerns among former fellows who believe it undermines efforts to address long-standing gender disparities in medical education and leadership. As the administration of former President Donald Trump advocated for the dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, the timing of Drexel’s announcement elicited apprehension from many in the academic community.

Page Morahan, a founder of the ELAM initiative and a professor emerita at Drexel’s College of Medicine, commented on the potential consequences of this shift, suggesting that allowing men into the program could detract from its original mission to support female leaders. Morahan affirmed that progress toward gender equity in leadership roles remains incomplete. The program, which focuses on mentoring women and fostering dialogues around barriers in the medical field, is seen by many as a vital resource.

Drexel, however, justified the change as a way to expand educational access to all qualified applicants. In a statement, the university maintained that the program’s core mission—developing visionary leaders in academic medicine—remains intact while also seeking to “broaden ELAM’s reach” and “amplify its impact.” The current cohort of ELAM includes 148 female and two male fellows, marking a notable shift in the program’s demographics.

The decision at Drexel is reflective of a broader rethinking of women’s leadership training in medical education, with several institutions reassessing similar programs amidst heightened scrutiny. Nationally, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recently announced changes to its leadership programs, opening them to male participants and revising language that specifically highlighted women.

Despite the varying perspectives on these developments, statistical evidence suggests that female representation in medical leadership continues to lag. Women constitute over 50% of medical school graduates yet hold only 27% of deans’ positions and 25% of department chair roles. As discussions around these changes unfold, the future of single-gender leadership programs in academia remains uncertain, particularly in an environment increasingly attentive to issues of equity and inclusion.

Drexel’s decision to include male candidates in the ELAM program could also serve as a preemptive measure against potential legal challenges under Title IX, a federal law protecting against gender discrimination in education. The legal landscape surrounding gender-specific programs is shifting, prompting institutions to reassess their policies in light of recent Supreme Court rulings and pressures from advocacy groups opposed to woman-only initiatives.

As the dialogue surrounding leadership training in medicine continues, stakeholders are left to ponder whether the evolution of programs like ELAM will ultimately advance or hinder progress toward gender equity in the field.