A prominent medical school in the United States is facing significant criticism for a course that encourages students to analyze the concept of the “white body” in medicine. The University of Maryland’s course, titled “Decolonizing Medicine: Steps to Actionable Change,” aims to challenge traditional medical education by addressing the historical and contemporary impacts of colonialism on health systems.
According to the university’s course catalog, this spring semester class will have students engage in discussions about the “white body” as the standard in medical training. Professor Dina Borzekowski, who leads the course and is also the Director of the Global Health Initiative at the university, stated that the course intends to illuminate how colonial legacies affect global health practices.
The course description emphasizes that it will explore the ramifications of a colonial past on present-day healthcare, with objectives that include:
– Analyzing the impact of colonialism on global health systems and clinical practices.
– Critically evaluating the influence of structural violence and neocolonialism on health disparities.
– Proposing culturally competent healthcare systems to address inequities.
While intended for students pursuing careers in medicine, public health, or health policy, the course has drawn sharp criticism. Many have labeled it as an example of “identity politics” and deemed it “nonsense.” Critics argue that framing medicine through a lens of colonialism detracts from evidence-based practices essential in healthcare.
Reagan Dugan, Director of Higher Education Initiatives at Defending Education, expressed concern over the course’s implications. “While this one-credit course at Maryland is predictable, it is nonetheless troubling,” Dugan remarked. He believes that focusing on the colonial legacy of medicine risks overshadowing the scientific foundation of the discipline. Dugan argues that future healthcare professionals should be trained to view patients as equals, not through a framework of oppression.
The course has ignited a firestorm of discussion online, with many users vocally opposing the curriculum. Comments on social media reflect a sentiment that the course represents a troubling trend in medical education. One user criticized the university for prioritizing ideological perspectives over practical medical training, stating, “The taxpayers of Maryland need to put a stop to this nonsense and require their schools to teach people how to heal patients.”
In contrast, supporters of the course argue that it is essential for future healthcare professionals to understand the broader social and historical contexts that shape health disparities. The syllabus includes a section on “Names/Pronouns and Self-Identifications,” inviting students to disclose their identities voluntarily, further emphasizing the course’s focus on inclusivity.
Dr. Kurt Miceli, Medical Director at Do No Harm, also commented on the situation, stating that courses emphasizing identity politics can undermine trust in healthcare professionals. “These courses shift attention from evidence-based reasoning to ideological framing,” he noted. Miceli warned that this trend could lead to patients feeling their care is filtered through a political lens rather than grounded in clinical needs.
The backlash against the course illustrates a growing divide in educational approaches within the medical field. As discussions about the role of identity and historical context in healthcare continue, the University of Maryland’s course remains a focal point of a broader debate on how best to prepare future medical professionals for the challenges they will face in a diverse and complex society.
The Daily Mail has reached out to Professor Borzekowski and the University of Maryland for further comments regarding the course and the ongoing discussions surrounding it.
