Healthcare watchdogs say Johns Hopkins University should get rid of its DEI department after the president apologized for calling all white people ‘privileged’ and erasing the word ‘woman’ from a glossary.
The elite Maryland university is the latest target for those opposed to DEI – diversity, equity and inclusion – for saying it goes against institutions that should be prioritizing talent over cultural activism.
Pressure increased on Chief Diversity Officer Dr. Sherita Hill after she apologized for sending a woke hit list email labeling all white people, Christians, men and English-speakers as ‘privileged.’
Kristina Rasmussen, executive director of the anti-identity politics medical watchdog group Do No Harm, is demanding Johns Hopkins drop the entire diversity office.
‘Johns Hopkins needs to completely eliminate their DEI department and channel those resources toward the primary objective of preparing the next generation of healthcare professionals to give the highest quality care to all patients,’ she said.
Healthcare watchdogs say Johns Hopkins University should get rid of its DEI department – including chief diversity officer Dr. Sherita Hill Golden (pictured) – after the president apologized for calling all white people ‘privileged’ and erasing the word ‘woman’ from a glossary
Rasmussen told the New York Post the apology was ’empty’ and shows a ‘toxic culture’ that ‘demonizes and indoctrinates the very students they’re tasked with training to become the next generation of medical professionals.’
‘Their weak apology is simply insufficient, and our campaign is focused on raising awareness about the discriminatory ideas being taught to students and the hostile workplace imposed on employees,’ she added.
The organization is driving a mobile billboard around both the school’s Baltimore campus and nearby Washington this week and distributing an saying ‘racism is still racism when a DEI officer says it.’
They add that Golden holds a second DEI chief position with the American Society of Clinical Investigation, which shows her ‘detrimental DEI influence influence is far-reaching in the medical community and deserves additional scrutiny.’
The email, first posted on Twitter by End Wokeness, was written by Golden, and was part of the ‘monthly diversity digest.’
In the initial email sent out, Dr. Golden explains that ‘privilege’ is the ‘diversity word of the month.’
To explain whom the phrase applies to, she offered a list. It reads: ‘Privilege is characteristically invisible to people who have it.
‘White people, able-bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people, males, Christians, middle or owning class people, middle-aged people and English-speaking people’ all fit the bill, according to Golden.
Kristina Rasmussen, executive director of the anti-identity politics medical watchdog group Do No Harm, is demanding Johns Hopkins drop the entire diversity office
The letter was sent to staff by Dr. Sherita Hill Golden for the ‘monthly diversity digest’
In a follow-up, after the email went viral on social media, she apologized for her ‘poorly worded’ definition
‘People in dominant groups often believe they have earned the privileges they enjoy or that everyone could have access to these privileges if only they worked to earn them.
‘In fact, privileges are unearned and are granted to people in the dominant groups whether they want those privileges or not, and regardless of their stated intent.’
After the post went viral on Twitter and drew the ire of the likes of Elon Musk and Donald Trump Jr., Golden issued an apology to staff.
‘The newsletter included a definition of the word privilege which, upon reflection, I deeply regret. The intent of the newsletter is to inform and support an inclusive community at Hopkins, but the language of this definition clearly did not meet that goal.
‘In fact, because it was overly simplistic and poorly worded, it had the opposite effect.’
‘I retract and disavow the definition I shared and I am sorry.’
In a statement to DailyMail.com, a Johns Hopkins Medicine spokesperson said: ‘The January edition of the monthly newsletter from the Johns Hopkins Medicine Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity used language that contradicts the values of Johns Hopkins as an institution.
‘Dr. Sherita Golden, Johns Hopkins Medicine’s Chief Diversity Officer, has sincerely acknowledged this mistake and retracted the language used in the message.’
Johns Hopkins University had been known for its rigorous academics, commitment to research and innovation, and its contributions to advancing knowledge and solving complex problems in a wide range of fields
It’s far from the first time the previously well-respected research university has come under fire in recent times.
In June, it was discovered the school erased the word ‘women’ from a newly produced ‘inclusive language guide’ in its definition of the term ‘lesbian’.
The extensive glossary is filled with definitions that aim to be inclusive, reflecting an evolving understanding of gender and sexual identity.
But the current definition of ‘lesbian’ describes it as ‘a non-man attracted to non-men’. Many feminists were particularly infuriated that the word ‘woman’ was vanquished – while their gay male counterparts were still referred to as ‘men.’
The glossary is emblematic of the current struggle being faced by supporters of transgender rights who none the less claim that the word ‘women’ is ‘being erased’ in favor of woke terms such as ‘birthing people’ and ‘menstruators’.
In some cases, lesbian women have also complained of being bullied and shamed if they refused to have sex with transgender women who still have penises.
JHU’s definition has been green-lighted by Paula Neira, the program director of LGBTQ+ Equity and Education at the university – who is herself transgender.
She works within the school’s Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity.
Johns Hopkins University has excluded the word ‘women’ in the definition of ‘lesbian’ within its newly created inclusive language guide
JHU’s definition has been approved by Paula Neira, the program director of LGBTQ+ Equity and Education at the university who is herself transgender.
The extensive glossary is filled with definitions that aim to be inclusive, reflecting an evolving understanding of gender and sexual identity
Neira chairs the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity workgroup at the university.
She was one of the nation’s leading experts on transgender military service, instrumental in the repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy in the military which allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve openly in the Armed Forces.
It has led some to accuse the university of erasing women noting how there is an absence of non-binary-inclusive language when it comes to the definition of ‘gay man’ – who are still referred to as ‘men.’
Historically, ‘gay’ has been used specifically for both men and women – and more broadly for all homosexual or bisexual individuals, while ‘lesbian’ had always been a term specific to the female gender.
The current definition of ‘lesbian’ in the Johns Hopkins glossary explicitly acknowledges such a shift from previous definitions aiming to be inclusive of non-binary individuals who identify as lesbian.
The university released another statement to DailyMail.com explaining how the glossary was not compiled under the auspices of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion.
‘The LGBTQ Glossary is a resource posted on the website of the Johns Hopkins University Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI); the definitions were not reviewed or approved by ODI leadership and the language in question has been removed pending review. Paula Neira and Sherita Golden are leaders at Johns Hopkins Medicine and have no involvement in this university matter.’
This past October, Johns Hopkins made headlines when it renamed one of its programs, the Caroline Donovan Professorship in English Literature due to the Donovan’s family owning of slaves in the 19th century.
According to a 2020 announcement from the school, founder Johns Hopkins too was a slaveowner, despite being a Quaker, a group who was largely abolitionist.
‘Weighing the prime legacy of any name is a subjective and imprecise process, but in taking up this work, the university seeks to reconcile history with the values it strives to protect and uphold,’ vice chair of the university’s board of trustees, Sarah O’Hagan, said in a statement at the time.