MD & DO What are your thoughts about Social justice in the curriculum?

[Lem0nz]

I think medical school should teach social justice in every block using cat memes.

Or actual cats.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lawpy]

I think medical school should teach social justice in every block using cat memes.

Or actual cats.

Now i'm all for this 🐈

 

[sloop]

Then I don't see why that should be in the curriculum. Unless the argument was made that the gender pay gap somehow plays into health outcomes. Rape is something different, which you're conflating with the gender pay gap here. You start off with the pay gap then somehow veer off into rape as though that's a coherent argument. If the gender pay gap doesn't play into health outcomes (and I don't see how it does except in a very indirect way), then it has no place in a medical school curriculum. That's not a problem with including social justice in curricula - it's got to do with including completely irrelevant stuff in the curricula that have no connection with health whatsoever except through a very tortuous path.

You’re invoking a No True Scotsman fallacy here. These claims (both about the gender pay gap and about rape) definitely get made by people under the auspices of social justice. They have been made in classes I have been in under the auspices of social justice! You’re narrowing the scope of what social justice can philosophically and ideologically entail because it is inconvenient for your argument that, in the course of championing the cause of social justice, it is common for people to make a variety of poorly supported claims.

Do they make the assertion that the differences are due to racism? It sounds from your statement that this is your inference, not what was said. If they present it as a finding and then hypothesize ways in which racial challenges might play into that, then I don't see a problem with that. I think that you're smart enough to know when something is presented as a potential explanation and when something is presented as a link in the causal pathway. All data is biased, some more so than others.

Oh, come on. This is not me drawing an inference out of nowhere. The data were presented which showed a disparity. There was no actual discussion about different hypothetical causes of the disparity. The lecture immediately went on to describe a variety of purported effects around racism and the challenges of being a minority. Any reasonable person would identify that, given such a framing, the intention of the presenter was to imply an answer for the cause of the disparity. I really do think it’s well-accepted that you can legitimately infer things from framing. The fact that you are fighting me so hard on this point really just shows how strong a stake you have in this argument. I can’t figure out why else you would want to gaslight me over the type of legitimate inferences that people make all the time.

If you’re going to pose something as a hypothetical explanation among others, you should start with a recognition of some of the other explanations. At the very least, it should start with an explicit recognition that the ensuing theoretical discussion is not meant as a full explanation for the entire phenomenon. To do otherwise is misleading. People get grilled for this sort of thing in peer review all the time. I don’t understand why it’s unreasonable to expect higher standards for the presentation of this sort of information.

That's the point. That's why, in my opinion, most reasonable people don't go around thinking that equality of outcomes is the goal. The goal is equity in starting point and lifting those who are disadvantaged to a starting point that levels the playing field. What people do is measure comparative outcomes and draw inferences about starting points. I think most reasonable people are okay that people end up in different places as long as they started on a similar footing. So measure things like access and measures that get at access. If you're measuring things like heart failure exacerbations, you can look at that in one of two ways - the simplistic view is that this is an outcome. If that's the case, then you reach the conclusion that people want equality of outcomes which is not really appealing. The other way, which is the way I think most reasonable people think about it, is that this is an indicator of access and thus starting point. It's an indicator that people don't have equal access to care and therefore that results in different outcomes. Then the conclusion is that we need to work on leveling the playing field, provided that access is actually the issue.

I get that there are disparities and that some of these are the legacy of some horrible things in the past. I just don’t know that there’s a solution to this.

As you say, it’s okay that people wind up in different places. However, you also say that it’s not okay if people start in different places. How on earth do I you reconcile this? If people end up in different places, they are obviously also going to be starting in different places in iterative generational process that exacerbates inter-group differences. This is not a track race. You can’t just reset everybody back to the starting line with every generation. As far as I can tell, there’s no consistent way to support a hierarchy while also maintaining that people need to have the same “starting point.”

I suppose one could say that people don’t need to have the same starting point but there’s a degree of unfairness that is within acceptable tolerances and certain disparities that fall beyond these tolerances demand amelioration. That point of view seems fair enough. However, the obvious question bred by this point of view is “what degree of unfairness is fair enough?” The main criticism I would level against this view is that any answer to that question is undoubtedly going to be rather arbitrary and based on gestalt feeling. A common sentiment might be “well, I know when something’s excessively unfair when I see it.” Again, fair enough, but that criterion lacks the requisite specificity to inform any sort of policy.

 

[vancoremed]

Social determinants of health are pretty well established. I don't think this is some controversial "woke ideology" and they have been incorporated into medical school coursework when relevant. It would be foolish to ignore it, and even moreso to frame it as liberal vs. conservative and further politicize it.

Social determinants of health are extremely important and I think we should have discussions on how to best address them. I'm happy to hear both sides of the discussion (i.e discussions like should we have universal healthcare) but I think shutting down one side completely and it being taught as being the "wrong answer" isn't productive or fair.

 

[aldol16]

You’re invoking a No True Scotsman fallacy here. These claims (both about the gender pay gap and about rape) definitely get made by people under the auspices of social justice. They have been made in classes I have been in under the auspices of social justice! You’re narrowing the scope of what social justice can philosophically and ideologically entail because it is inconvenient for your argument that, in the course of championing the cause of social justice, it is common for people to make a variety of poorly supported claims.

I'm sure these are things that social justice warriors bring up all the time. But again, this is a thread about teaching social justice in medical school curricula and I will again say that if these are not related to medicine or healthcare, then they have no place in the curriculum. I don't think it's unfairly narrowing the scope when the entire damn thread is premised on social justice in the medical curriculum and not social justice in society writ large.

Oh, come on. This is not me creating an implication out of nowhere. The data was presented which showed a disparity. There was no actual discussion about different hypothetical causes of the disparity. The lecture immediately went on to describe a variety of purported effects around racism and the challenges of being a minority. Any reasonable person would identify that, given such a framing, the intention of the presenter was to imply an answer for the cause of the disparity. I really do think it’s well-accepted that you can legitimately infer things from framing. The fact that you are fighting me so hard on this point really just shows how strong a stake you have in this argument. I can’t figure out why else you would want to gaslight me over the type of legitimate inferences that people make all the time.

If you’re going to pose something as a hypothetical explanation among others, you should start with a recognition of some of the other explanations. At the very least, it should start with an explicit recognition that the ensuing theoretical discussion is not meant as a full explanation for the entire phenomenon. To do otherwise is misleading.eople get grilled for this sort of thing in peer review all the time. I don’t understand why it’s not reasonable to expect higher standards for the presentation of this sort of information.

I don't think it's unfair for you to to make that inference at all - but again, the very fact that you realize you're making an inference proves that you're smart enough to understand that the speaker is presenting a point of view, not a statement of fact. Fact: disparity exists. Point of view: here's why I think it exists. Clearly you're smart enough to pick that out. Give the other people attending the lecture the benefit of the doubt. They're probably just as smart as you.

And don't even bring up peer review. Sure, you're pressed to present limitations to your study all the time. But in the end, that's not the message that people take away after reading your paper. Most people will just browse the abstract and skim through your data. The literature as a whole is biased. I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that as well. Positive result get published - and they get published because of good framing.

Since you're going to make the argument, sure I agree that people in general should acknowledge that there are other interpretations to data that they present. But I also think that the audience is smart enough to realize when I'm interpreting, as opposed to presenting, data.

I get that there are disparities and that some of these are the legacy of some horrible things in the past. I just don’t know that there’s a solution to this.

As you say, it’s okay that people wind up in different places. However you also say that it’s not okay if people start in different places. How on earth do I you reconcile this? If people end up in different places, they are obviously also going to be starting in different places in iterative generational process that exacerbates inter-group differences. This is not a track race. You can’t just reset everybody back to the starting line with every generation. As far as I can tell, there’s no consistent way to support a hierarchy while also maintaining that people need to have the same “starting point.”

Let's use a concrete example, shall we? We know that low SES predisposes you to do less well academically in the medical school pipeline. Those of low SES status are less likely to go to your Harvards of the world. They're less likely to score in the 99th percentile on the MCAT because they couldn't afford that $2000 tutoring program. They can barely afford the registration fee for the MCAT, much less DIY study books. So they suffer worse scores, which is even worse given that they're coming from schools they were locked into because of disparities at the high school stage.

So how do you address that? AAMC fee waivers. Waives the MCAT fee, provides free practice material, and waives med school app fees to an extent. Now this person can have some MCAT prep material and they can use the money they would have spent on this stuff on MCAT prep books. You've improved their starting position vis-a-vis the rich kid whose daddy paid for the $2000 course.

Are they going to end up the same place? No. It could still be the case that the rich kid is just smarter than the poor kid. The rich kid would end up with a better score even with the intervention for the poor kid and go off to Harvard while the poor kid goes somewhere else. The outcomes aren't the same but I'm more willing to accept the disparity in outcomes there than without the intervention.

 

[aldol16]

Social determinants of health are extremely important and I think we should have discussions on how to best address them. I'm happy to hear both sides of the discussion (i.e discussions like should we have universal healthcare) but I think shutting down one side completely and it being taught as being the "wrong answer" isn't productive or fair.

Can you give me an example of such a wrong answer?

 

[vancoremed]

Can you give me an example of such a wrong answer?

Giving any argument against universal healthcare would be highly frowned upon both by the professors and my peers in my university at least. Not that I hold those viewpoints but I feel it is counter productive to silence anyone without the same viewpoint.

 

[Burnermed]

Our job is to diagnose and treat. If someone wants to immerse themselves in social justice whatevers, they should do it on their own time. Not in addition to a 240 credit hour 2 year preclinical curriculum.

 

[aldol16]

Giving any argument against universal healthcare would be highly frowned upon both by the professors and my peers in my university at least. Not that I hold those viewpoints but I feel it is counter productive to silence anyone without the same viewpoint.

Hmmm, interesting. We've done an activity before where we silent vote / virtual vote on that specific question and a non-trivial proportion of my class (myself included) were against single-payer (universal healthcare is really broad and what I think you mean is single payer). I never felt like I was being silenced.

There was a similar discussion about physician roles in abortion, which did evoke some strong emotions from classmates but again, I don't think anybody felt silenced.

 

[Lawpy]

Our job is to diagnose and treat. If someone wants to immerse themselves in social justice whatevers, they should do it on their own time. Not in addition to a 240 credit hour 2 year preclinical curriculum.

I think 2 year preclinical is a load of crap. Reduce preclinical to 1 year and have social justice electives.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I think 2 year preclinical is a load of crap. Reduce preclinical to 1 year and have social justice electives.

Certain topics that are thrown into the “social justice” category are important to discuss/learn about. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t have black and Hispanic patients being more likely to get zero pain meds for the same conditions as white patients.

 

[Tangerine123]

It's fun to say this, but prove it.

*Laughs in Psychiatry*

You don't know anything if you can't grasp the social aspects of a patient's life.

Bio-psycho-social bro.

 

[Dr.SPAC3MAN]

Certain topics that are thrown into the “social justice” category are important to discuss/learn about. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t have black and Hispanic patients being more likely to get zero pain meds for the same conditions as white patients.

So true. I think SJ name is a turn off for some people, but there are certainly instances where problems need to be addressed. The problem is the lack of nuance and people think that you are right or left and cannot deviate in any way. If we could drop the whole political division and just work on real problems we might actually see progress.

 

[underthesun]

I'm all for distinguishing biological sex from gender. I'm a member of the lgbtq+ community and while I'm not trans, I believe this language is much more inclusive to trans, nonbinary, agender and other gender non-conforming folks. These groups have historically had trouble accessing care and have a notably higher risk for suicide. It's no skin off my back to say "people who menstruate" instead of of "women" but it could make a big difference for a trans person to feel safer and more accepted when seeking care. It takes time to get used to and I have definitely shoved my foot in my mouth a couple times but that's part of the process. Just remember that while cis people might uncomfortable talking about these topics and saying the wrong thing from time to time, it's 10x harder for a trans person to feel comfortable going to the doctor not knowing if they'll be misunderstood, mocked, denied service or outwardly harassed on the basis of their gender identity. The uncomfortable conversations are worth it.

edited for grammar

I’m all for addressing people how they want to be addressed, but this is too far for me.

If a trans guy comes to me for vaginal bleeding, I’m going to treat them with the respect and sensitivity that I would want for a member of my family. That should go unsaid, every patient deserves that.

The problem is that people want to hijack the English language and come up with grammatically and medically incorrect terms to describe things. From a medical perspective, “People who menstruate” is simply inaccurate, since biological men do not menstruate.

Pretending that all trans people are suddenly going to be okay if we use their preferred pronouns and don’t offend them is a ridiculous, unproven, and unaccomplishable premise. These people usually have more going on in the background that you can’t fix with an absurd use of the English language.

 

[Lawpy]

Not sure where exactly @Goro is eyerolling that post

 

[Lawpy]

Certain topics that are thrown into the “social justice” category are important to discuss/learn about. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t have black and Hispanic patients being more likely to get zero pain meds for the same conditions as white patients.

Yep i agree and that can be done across 4 years in med school. And heavily emphasized in 2.5/3 years of clinicals where it matters most

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Yep i agree and that can be done across 4 years in med school. And heavily emphasized in 2.5/3 years of clinicals where it matters most

There is more time in preclinical, trust me. These things can be done in like 2-3 sessions total. 3 hours across 1.5 years of preclinical isn’t too burdensome. And it’s important to know about it before you’re seeing patients.

 

[Lawpy]

There is more time in preclinical, trust me. These things can be done in like 2-3 sessions total. 3 hours across 1.5 years of preclinical isn’t too burdensome. And it’s important to know about it before you’re seeing patients.

I think we need more than 3 hours, and stressed more heavily in clinical didactics

 

[Lawpy]

I'm also of opinion that preclinical should be stressed very heavily on the psychological and social aspects and leave much of the medical stuff to UFAPS/B&B/Anki. At least make 1 to 1.5 yr useful from a lecture perspective, and the social/psych stuff is important. Plus stats

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I think we need more than 3 hours, and stressed more heavily in clinical didactics

Have you done clinical rotations yet? I agree that it’s something that needs to be emphasized as we go through clerkships, but there is already so much to do and go over then. Front loading the info in preclinical and then maintaining it during clinical would be much easier and better.

 

[Lawpy]

Have you done clinical rotations yet? I agree that it’s something that needs to be emphasized as we go through clerkships, but there is already so much to do and go over then. Front loading the info in preclinical and then maintaining it during clinical would be much easier and better.

That would be ok as long as preclinicals are also heavily clinical skills based which many schools are. Yes i know clinicals are busy but i'm talking like a 1 hr for each rotation. There's too much crap in 2 yr preclinical that i'm trying to get rid off by reducing length and making it more useful

 

[ohmanwaddup]

"Social justice" is far too often used and seen as a boogey man word, just like "Antifa", "socialist", and "MAGA".

I have no problem with social factors being taught in medical school and think there should be more of it. I also think there should be adequate time spent on the racist and sexist medical ideologies and myths that have been perpetuated on various groups throughout US medical history.

 

[Goro]

Not sure where exactly @Goro is eyerolling that post

Triggered, were we?

 

[Lawpy]

Triggered, were we?

More like confused.

 

[Steve_Zissou]

"Social justice" is far too often used and seen as a boogey man word, just like "Antifa", "socialist", and "MAGA".

I have no problem with social factors being taught in medical school and think there should be more of it. I also think there should be adequate time spent on the racist and sexist medical ideologies and myths that have been perpetuated on various groups throughout US medical history.

I think most reasonable people could agree with this. However, the lines get blurred at some point. We had a 1 hour lecture on microaggressions, which I didn't feel was useful at all, but some saw as the way to address racism/sexism/ableism/etc in medicine.

 

[ohmanwaddup]

I think most reasonable people could agree with this. However, the lines get blurred at some point. We had a 1 hour lecture on microaggressions, which I didn't feel was useful at all, but some saw as the way to address racism/sexism/ableism/etc in medicine.

Which is why I think a lot of the time, in med school at least due to lack of time, this area should focus almost solely on history/past wrong doings. It makes understanding things such as microaggressions or institutional issues so much easier to discuss when there is background knowledge on how we even got here.

Otherwise it can just look like a mess of white savior "Triggered and offended liberal" nonsense.

 

[Steve_Zissou]

Which is why I think a lot of the time, in med school at least due to lack of time, this area should focus almost solely on history/past wrong doings. It makes understanding things such as microaggressions or institutional issues so much easier to discuss when there is background knowledge on how we even got here.

Otherwise it can just look like a mess of white savior "Triggered and offended liberal" nonsense.

I should clarify, I think the idea of microaggressions as a whole is SJW BS that generally makes human interactions worse. I don't think it should be the topic of discussion in medical school at all.

I'm fine with understanding racial history of medicine.

 

[ohmanwaddup]

I should clarify, I think the idea of microaggressions as a whole is SJW BS that is generally makes human interactions worse. I don't think it should be the topic of discussion in medical school at all.

I'm fine with understanding racial history of medicine.

A microaggression is just a fancy way of saying subtle racism or racism through ignorance . Respectfully I do not think it is BS and I've personally seen a ton of it in my 6 months of rotations.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

A microaggression is just a fancy way of saying subtle racism or racism through ignorance . Respectfully I do not think it is BS and I've personally seen a ton of it in my 6 months of rotations.

That’s not how microaggression is used by many, many people though, so it gets a bad rep.

 

[Steve_Zissou]

That’s not how microaggression is used by many, many people though, so it gets a bad rep.

This exactly. It is the same thing for intersectionality. Many people who believe in these ideas often utilize the Motte and Bailey tactic to defend the ideas. They use microaggressions to appeal to third parties and the general social media sphere to shame the perceived offender, but when microaggressions are questioned they drop back to the easily defensible "it is just a way to talk about subtle offensive phrases."

Jonathan Haidt has some really interesting thoughts on this.

Where microaggressions really come from: A sociological account

I just read the most extraordinary paper by two sociologists — Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning — explaining why concerns about microaggressions have erupted on many American college campuses in …

righteousmind.com

Also, this article shows how they've been playing out in the real world for years.

Microaggressions and the Rise of Victimhood Culture

A recent scholarly paper charts the ascendance of a new moral code in American life.

www.theatlantic.com

It's the same with intersectionality. It ends up being used as a bludgeon. "You are a white, cis-gender, male, you don't get to have an opinion on this."

 

[ohmanwaddup]

That’s not how microaggression is used by many, many people though, so it gets a bad rep.

Isn't that an argument for having it in curriculums and educating on it? So people can stop being misinformed and the term can stop being another boogey-man word?

 

[Steve_Zissou]

Isn't that an argument for having it in curriculums and educating on it? So people can stop being misinformed and the term can stop being another boogey-man word?

It is a culture war thing, not a medical thing.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Isn't that an argument for having it in curriculums and educating on it? So people can stop being misinformed and the term can stop being another boogey-man word?

Yes I agree.

 

[underthesun]

This exactly. It is the same thing for intersectionality. Many people who believe in these ideas often utilize the Motte and Bailey tactic to defend the ideas. They use microaggressions to appeal to third parties and the general social media sphere to shame the perceived offender, but when microaggressions are questioned they drop back to the easily defensible "it is just a way to talk about subtle offensive phrases."

Jonathan Haidt has some really interesting thoughts on this.

Where microaggressions really come from: A sociological account

I just read the most extraordinary paper by two sociologists — Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning — explaining why concerns about microaggressions have erupted on many American college campuses in …

righteousmind.com

Also, this article shows how they've been playing out in the real world for years.

Microaggressions and the Rise of Victimhood Culture

A recent scholarly paper charts the ascendance of a new moral code in American life.

www.theatlantic.com

It's the same with intersectionality. It ends up being used as a bludgeon. "You are a white, cis-gender, male, you don't get to have an opinion on this."

This is very true. Tons of people on medtwitter that will literally say that white people’s opinions don’t matter. Saw a post that said that yesterday

 

[Lawpy]

This is very true. Tons of people on medtwitter that will literally say that white people’s opinions don’t matter. Saw a post that said that yesterday

Twitter is a dumpster fire

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

This is very true. Tons of people on medtwitter that will literally say that white people’s opinions don’t matter. Saw a post that said that yesterday

I know some people who think that it’s impossible to be racist against white people. Fortunately that hasn’t made its way into my med school curriculum.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Twitter is a dumpster fire

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

 

[Steve_Zissou]

I know some people who think that it’s impossible to be racist against white people. Fortunately that hasn’t made its way into my med school curriculum.

I have heard this mantra repeated over and over by classmates. I challenged one classmate on it and got eye rolls and she said “you can’t be sexist against men either.” She justified the “can’t be racist to white people” thing by talking about historical and social power structures, and she was unwilling to differentiate systemic racism and racism. It was a perfect example of how intersectionality is weaponized by SJWs.

I really wanted to ask if I couldn’t be racist to Asian people in Asian countries, but I’m sure she would have done triple backflips to say that all Asian countries have always been oppressed by white people so it’s still only white people that are the issue.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I have heard this mantra repeated over and over by classmates. I challenged one classmate on it and got eye rolls and she said “you can’t be sexist against men either.” She justified the “can’t be racist to white people” thing by talking about historical and social power structures, and she was unwilling to differentiate systemic racism and racism. It was a perfect example of how intersectionality is weaponized by SJWs.

I really wanted to ask if I couldn’t be racist to Asian people in Asian countries, but I’m sure she would have done triple backflips to say that all Asian countries have always been oppressed by white people so it’s still only white people that are the issue.

Yep. I’ve used similar examples to that and experienced similar mental gymnastics. This kind of **** doesn’t belong in med schools.

 

[Steve_Zissou]

Yep. I’ve used similar examples to that and experienced similar mental gymnastics. This kind of **** doesn’t belong in med schools.

Fortunately, my school hasn’t been pushing it much. Unfortunately, a large and very vocal portion of my classmates push for these kinds of things all the time.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Fortunately, my school hasn’t been pushing it much. Unfortunately, a large and very vocal portion of my classmates push for these kinds of things all the time.

Someone I know goes to hms and told me some horrifying stories of stuff they discussed in class. Like versions of the trolley problem where it’s one black guy and five white guys, and the class all agreeing that you let the five white guys die because their lives are worth less than the black man—and the professor agreeing like it’s common sense.

Why is this being taught at a medical school?

 

[ohmanwaddup]

Someone I know goes to hms and told me some horrifying stories of stuff they discussed in class. Like versions of the trolley problem where it’s one black guy and five white guys, and the class all agreeing that you let the five white guys die because their lives are worth less than the black man—and the professor agreeing like it’s common sense.

Why is this being taught at a medical school?

That’s insane lol

i consider myself lucky I’ve never seen or experienced any of this. I’ve even had conversations where people can understand and discuss the difference between systemic racist and being racist to someone, which judging by the above comments might be a rarity.

white people in the US don’t experience systemic racism, but to say that an individual can’t be racist to an individual who is white is absurd.

 

[Lawpy]

Someone I know goes to hms and told me some horrifying stories of stuff they discussed in class. Like versions of the trolley problem where it’s one black guy and five white guys, and the class all agreeing that you let the five white guys die because their lives are worth less than the black man—and the professor agreeing like it’s common sense.

Why is this being taught at a medical school?

Why is a med school promoting ethnic cleansing and genocide

 

[Lawpy]

Like FFS that argument is a variation of what slave owners and Confederates were using for decades. Med schools were historically racist and bigoted institutions so why are they continuing to be that way in the other extreme?

 

[Steve_Zissou]

Like FFS that argument is a variation of what slave owners and Confederates were using for decades. Med schools were historically racist and bigoted institutions so why are they continuing to be that way in the other extreme?

You can’t be racist to white people, get with the times.

 

[Lawpy]

You can’t be racist to white people, get with the times.

Lol but for real. There's a very dangerous mindset these sociopathic schools are promoting. By their logic, the sociopaths will be urging med students to intentionally deprive white patients of pain meds when they're in deep pain because of mindset that white people have greater pain tolerance. History repeats itself as med schools continue to suffer from deep, horrible racism

 

[deleted393595]

Do you think the “Woke” ideology belongs in the medical curriculum?

I understand there are common issues people on all sides of the spectrum should work on, such as internal bias and that people are more than just a disease.
But my main concern are collectivist ideas creeping in. It reminds me of college, where we had diversity in race, SES, gender, etc., but not enough Political diversity of different viewpoints.

Where do you think a line should be drawn?

The problem with "Woke" ideology isn't the content that is discussed but rather the actions of its supporters. They engage in petty attention-seeking initiatives (eg protest marches in areas that already support them) and extreme identitarianism that tears groups of people apart.

We need to be discussing the social, economic and governmental determinants of health in the classroom. Preferably, these discussions need to be more rigorous and should include outside readings from a broad set of perspectives such as Foucault, Mises, etc. to help students come up with their own perspective on addressing these structural issues.

 

[Yakushima]

There is definitely room for social determinants of health in a medical school curriculum and I personally think it's a very worthwhile topic (half of my research is in this area), but like most research it's a very nuanced discussion and it's only just picking up imo. People who speak in absolutes are often wrong.

 

[Lawpy]

The problem with "Woke" ideology isn't the content that is discussed but rather the actions of its supporters. They engage in petty attention-seeking initiatives (eg protest marches in areas that already support them) and extreme identitarianism that tears groups of people apart.

We need to be discussing the social, economic and governmental determinants of health in the classroom. Preferably, these discussions need to be more rigorous and should include outside readings from a broad set of perspectives such as Foucault, Mises, etc. to help students come up with their own perspective on addressing these structural issues.

Uh... Lets not waste time in med school reading stuff from Foucault and Mises.

We need a general overview of sociology and how it relates to medicine. Everything else should be done at your own time