University of Maryland’s Med School Has a Strategic Plan: Go All In on ‘Health Equity’ and Anti-Racism.

Last year, the University of Maryland School of Medicine (UMSOM) unveiled its new strategic plan for 2025-2030.

But unfortunately, the plan is replete with commitments to promote identity politics in medical education.

Goal 4 of the school’s “Community” sub-plan is for the school to “[l]ead the city, state, and national conversation on mitigating health disparities and improving health equity.”

Perhaps in a vacuum, to a person unfamiliar with the “equity” jargon employed in medicine and medical education, this goal might not seem so troubling. But as Do No Harm has demonstrated, “health equity” is often interchangeable with efforts that seek to equalize outcomes between racial groups through discrimination.

Indeed, when the plan provides more granular detail on how UMSOM will achieve this goal, it’s clear that these efforts will encompass ideological indoctrination. 

For instance, the school aims to “[i]ntegrate concepts of health equity, anti-racism, population health, community care, and social determinants of health into curricula”; additionally, it will “[d]eliver training modules on antiracism, health equity, and social determinants of health to educate any UMB faculty, student, or staff member involved in a community project.”

To highlight just a few issues with these goals, “anti-racism” as understood by its most prolific proponent, Ibram X. Kendi, essentially seeks to address systemic racism in society through racial discrimination.

Social determinants of health, meanwhile, refer to the pseudoscientific concept that differences in social and economic conditions cause disparities in health outcomes between certain groups. Although there is certainly a correlation between these conditions and health outcomes, the “social determinants of health” theory is at best oversimplified and ignores other factors such as individual agency and health decisions that contribute to health outcomes.

If these goals seem like mere distractions that don’t reflect UMSOM’s core institutional commitments, think again.

Elsewhere in the strategic plan, UMSOM pledges to “[c]ommit resources to become a national leader in health equity research” and to “[e]xamine all current and emergent generational health challenges through the lens of health equity.”

UMSOM is about as clear as it can be that identity politics is the primary means by which it understands its role in medical education.

Additionally, UMSOM aims to engage in what can only be described as quasi-political activism.

For instance, the strategic plan includes pledges to “[e]ngage with community leaders, Baltimore City Fire Department, and the UMB Community Engagement Office to identify community priorities and barriers to care”; “[c]reate documentaries, educational videos, and media toolboxes in partnership with Baltimore’s emergent Black film makers to highlight the needs and successes, as well as to amplify the voices of the West Baltimore community”; and “[f]oster and grow a cohort of students, faculty, and staff committed to restorative justice and motivated to ensure health equity.” 

It intends to recruit students in these efforts as well; one pledge is to “[i]nvolve students in purposeful community outreach, clinical care, and partnered programs.”

Ethical considerations aside, this is simply not the role of a medical school; UMSOM’s goal should be to train the best physicians possible, not delve into local politics.

In summary, this strategic plan reveals a profound, institutional infatuation with identity politics and a willingness to inject these ideas into students’ learning experiences.

UMSOM should ditch these goals at once and affirm its commitment to providing the best medical education possible.