The principle behind "decolonizing the curriculum" is to have a less eurocentric perspective on a given topic. Although there is no agreement about how this should be done, means often quoted are :

• Multiplying sources to include non-European perspectives
• Using alternate methodologies when scholarly work doesn't exist (oral history, involvement of students from a given group in telling their own story, etc.)
• Thinking about the cultural background asked from the students and how it could be used to wall them out of the institution (for example, an Indian student might not be as familiar with Plato as a Swedish student, so you try not to assume this passive knowledge, or you find a way to adapt your evaluations to these other backgrounds)

In the end, the goal is to make an effort to include and consider other perspectives. It can be a way to think about many questions differently and it can produce interesting results. Plus, it is a net gain for society as brilliant people who could have been excluded by the colonial structures of academia can potentially be more easily included and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

The problem with this is that "decolonizing" has become a buzzword and that, like many buzzwords, it sails away from its original purpose. In that case, the issue is double. First, it can be used as a moral hashtag without having a significant impact on colonial structures. Sometimes thinking too much about symbolic violence makes us forget about actual violence. For example, my Canadian university is on stolen land, a few kilometers from a First Nation reservation, yet we are "decolonizing" the shit out of our curriculums. I once made the reflection that paying overdue rent or moving back to Europe would probably be the most "decolonial" things we could do, but nobody thought it was funny (nor had the intention to do it). Secondly, the problem with using the "decolonial" branding was already covered by early theorizers of decolonization such as Albert Memmi : there's nothing that power likes more than performing its own magnanimity. In his view, the colonized is always used as a token of the colonizer's openness, and this purported openness in turns justify colonialism as a moral enterprise. That's what the Jesuits did in the XVIIth century, caring about foreign cultures and trying to include them in the great Catholic family, and what we are doing now in academia looks awfully similar, playing the good guys as the exploitation and expropriation goes on unchanged on the other side. That's why I think that, although a good thing in its intentions, we should be careful about what we mean by "decolonizing the curriculum", and not forget the colonial struggles that are still ongoing, which can't be solved by good intentions alone.