A course at the University of Maryland is drawing considerable criticism from experts for emphasizing “identity politics” at the expense of traditional education in health care. Titled “Decolonizing Medicine: Steps to Actionable Change,” the course aims to explore how historical colonialism has shaped contemporary health systems. Its stated goal is to challenge students to rethink medical ethics and frameworks, but the approach has raised alarm among members of the medical community.
The class description states, “This course provides a comprehensive foundation of how colonial legacies continue to shape global health systems and medical practices.” Topics covered include “Medicine as a Colonial Project,” “Indigenous Medicine and Knowledge Systems,” “Structural Violence in Public Health,” and “Intersectionality as a Decolonial Tool in Modern Medicine.” The course utilizes readings from notable works, including Medical Apartheid and The Killing of the Black Body. Supporters might argue that these subjects are necessary to understand systemic issues in health care, yet critics contend that framing these issues through an identity politics lens could misguide future medical professionals.
Reagan Dugan, director of higher education initiatives at Defending Education, expressed her concerns, stating, “Coursework that frames medicine as problematic because of its ‘colonial legacy’ is both historically and scientifically unfounded.” Dugan argues that the emphasis on identity politics may cause future doctors to perceive patients in terms of oppressor and oppressed, rather than focusing solely on their medical needs. This critique emphasizes a fear that such ideological training could overshadow the evidence-based practices that are vital for effective medical care.
The arrangement of the course raises further issues. It is facilitated not by a traditional faculty member but by students, which questions the academic rigor and authority behind its teachings. The syllabus encourages participants to disclose their preferred pronouns and aspects of their identity during discussions, shifting the focus toward personal identity instead of neutral medical theories. Dr. Kurt Miceli, medical director at Do No Harm, voiced additional concern, stating, “These courses focused on identity politics unfortunately shift attention from evidence-based reasoning to ideological framing.” This commentary reflects a worry that over time, trust in the medical profession could erode if patients feel their treatment is influenced more by political ideologies than by objective medical needs.
The controversy surrounding this course fits into a broader trend. Recent reports have highlighted a growing trend among universities to weave social justice advocacy into the fabric of their educational frameworks, particularly in health-related fields. A report by Defending Education noted that the accreditation processes for social work programs across various universities heavily incorporate themes from DEI and critical race theory. The intersection of ideology and education is prompting a reconsideration of what academic environments should prioritize in training the next generation of healthcare professionals.
As institutions reexamine their curricula, the question remains: Should the focus of medical education align with the realities of patient care and scientific knowledge, or must it also encompass the broader societal context? The debate continues to evolve, but the implications are profound for the future of healthcare training.
"*" indicates required fields
