University of Maryland's 'Decolonising Medicine' Course Faces Backlash Over 'White Body' Focus
A prominent East Coast university has ignited a fierce debate after introducing a controversial course this spring semester that requires students to critically examine the concept of the "white body" as a standard in medical practice. The University of Maryland is offering the one-credit module titled 'Decolonising Medicine: Steps to Actionable Change', which has drawn widespread condemnation from critics who label it an example of divisive identity politics infiltrating higher education.
Course Content and Learning Objectives
According to the official course description, the module aims to provide students with a foundation for understanding how colonial legacies continue to shape global health systems and contemporary medical practices. The syllabus explicitly states that participants will "critically engage with the concept of 'the White body' as the standard in medical training" while exploring the historical context of colonial medicine and examining neocolonial dynamics in modern global health initiatives.
The course, which is described as student-facilitated but lists Professor Dina Borzekowski as the instructor, outlines several specific learning outcomes for participants. Upon completion, students are expected to be able to:
- Analyse the historical and contemporary impacts of colonialism on global health systems, medical research, and clinical practices
- Critically evaluate the role of structural violence, intersectionality, and neocolonialism in perpetuating health disparities across different populations
- Apply decolonial frameworks to assess healthcare policies, practices, and interventions within global health and medical education
- Create proposals for more inclusive, culturally competent healthcare systems that address inequities and promote health justice
Additional weekly topics covered in the curriculum include 'Structural Violence in Public Health', examinations of gender and sexuality in medical contexts, and discussions about global health within what the syllabus terms "the moral economy of neocolonialism." The course materials also feature an optional 'Names/Pronouns and Self-Identifications' section where students may disclose how they personally identify.
Criticism from Educational and Medical Experts
The course has attracted significant criticism from educational watchdogs and medical professionals who argue that it prioritises political ideology over scientific rigor. Reagan Dugan, director of higher education initiatives at Defending Education, told media outlets that while such courses have become predictable in contemporary academia, they remain deeply troubling.
"Coursework that frames medicine as problematic because of its 'colonial legacy' is both historically and scientifically unfounded," Dugan stated. "The coursework seems to go even further and push critical theory into the classrooms of our future health leaders. Our institutions should train medical students in medicine, not progressive orthodoxy."
Dr. Kurt Miceli, medical director at Do No Harm, expressed similar concerns about the potential consequences of such courses on medical education and patient trust. "These courses focused on identity politics unfortunately shift attention from evidence-based reasoning to ideological framing, which risks confusing political analysis with clinical judgment," he explained.
Dr. Miceli further warned that "over time, trust in the profession gets undermined, particularly if patients feel their care is being filtered through a political lens rather than grounded in biology, data, and individualized medical need."
Public Outrage and Online Reaction
The controversy has generated substantial online discussion, with many social media users expressing outrage at what they perceive as the university promoting "woke" ideology to future healthcare professionals. Critics have flooded online platforms with comments condemning the course as nonsensical and questioning its educational value.
One particularly vocal critic wrote: "The taxpayers of Maryland need to put a stop to this nonsense and require their schools to teach people how to heal patients, instead of tilting at windmills." Another added: "No one is surprised as to why medicine has declined so much based on these morons."
The backlash has extended to concerns about practical healthcare consequences, with one commenter stating: "I don't want anyone who graduates from a Maryland University from this day forward to practice medicine on me. I'll be checking those diplomas for sure." Others have called for legal accountability, with one suggesting "there needs to be malpractice suits over this."
Course Instructor and University Context
Professor Dina Borzekowski, who is listed as the course instructor despite its description as student-facilitated, serves as the Director of the Global Health Initiative at the University of Maryland. Her professional background includes several notable achievements, including receiving the American Public Health Association short film award in 2020 and the Gloria S. Friedgen School Spirit Award in May 2024.
The course is specifically designed for students pursuing careers in medicine, public health, or health policy, with the stated aim of challenging participants to rethink ethical and epistemological frameworks within healthcare. The university has positioned the module as part of broader efforts to address systemic inequities in medical education and practice.
As the controversy continues to develop, media outlets have reached out to both Professor Borzekowski and the University of Maryland administration for comment regarding the criticism and the educational objectives behind the contentious course. The debate highlights ongoing tensions within higher education between traditional medical training approaches and newer frameworks that emphasise historical and social context in healthcare delivery.
