A prominent medical school on the East Coast is facing criticism for a course that invites students to analyze the concept of the “white body” within the context of medicine. The University of Maryland is offering a class titled “Decolonizing Medicine: Steps to Actionable Change” during the upcoming spring semester. This course has raised eyebrows among some who view its content as emblematic of “woke” ideology.
The course description states that students will “critically engage with the concept of ‘the White body'” and explore how colonial legacies influence modern health systems and medical practices. Led by Professor Dina Borzekowski, who also directs the Global Health Initiative at the university, the course aims to provoke thought among students pursuing careers in medicine, public health, or health policy.
Participants will examine the historical and contemporary impacts of colonialism on global health, as well as the role of structural violence in perpetuating health disparities. The syllabus outlines learning outcomes that include applying decolonial frameworks to healthcare policies and creating proposals for more inclusive systems.
Course Objectives and Student Reactions
Weekly topics for the course include “Structural Violence in Public Health” and “Gender and Sexuality,” alongside a section inviting students to disclose their names and pronouns. Critics, including Reagan Dugan, director of higher education initiatives at Defending Education, have expressed concern over the course’s framing of medicine as inherently problematic due to its colonial roots. Dugan described the course as “troubling” and suggested that it prioritizes ideological perspectives over evidence-based reasoning.
The backlash has escalated online, with many individuals labeling the course as “nonsense” and accusing the university of promoting identity politics. Some social media users have called for accountability, suggesting that taxpayer funds should not support such curricula. One critic remarked, “The taxpayers of Maryland need to put a stop to this nonsense and require their schools to teach people how to heal patients.”
Supporters of the course argue that addressing historical injustices is essential to improving healthcare outcomes for marginalized communities. They assert that understanding the roots of health disparities is necessary for future healthcare professionals.
Institutional Responses and Broader Implications
Despite the controversy, Dina Borzekowski has received accolades for her contributions to public health, including the American Public Health Association short film award in 2020. The university has yet to issue a formal statement regarding the backlash.
Critics like Dr. Kurt Miceli, medical director at Do No Harm, warn that such courses could undermine public trust in healthcare. Miceli stated, “Over time, trust in the profession gets undermined, particularly if patients feel their care is being filtered through a political lens.” He emphasized that medical education should focus on clinical judgment grounded in biology and individualized care.
As discussions surrounding the course continue, the University of Maryland finds itself at the intersection of evolving educational priorities and the public’s expectations of medical training. The outcome of this debate may have lasting implications for the curriculum of future healthcare professionals and the broader field of medical education.
