[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DIVISIVE, EXCESSIVE, INEFFECTIVE:
THE REAL IMPACT OF DEI ON
COLLEGE CAMPUSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 7, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-38
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-497 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia,
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
TIM WALBERG, Michigan RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia Northern Mariana Islands
JIM BANKS, Indiana FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JAMES COMER, Kentucky SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania MARK TAKANO, California
BURGESS OWENS, Utah ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
BOB GOOD, Virginia MARK DeSAULNIER, California
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MARY MILLER, Illinois PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
MICHELLE STEEL, California SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RON ESTES, Kansas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
KEVIN KILEY, California ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
AARON BEAN, Florida HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
JOHN JAMES, Michigan FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana
Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT
BURGESS, OWENS, UTAH, Chairman
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania FREDERICA WILSON, Florida,
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin Ranking Member
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana PRAMILA,JAYAPAL, Washington
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
BOB GOOD, Virginia KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JOHN JAMES, Michigan RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York Northern Mariana Islands
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 7, 2024.................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Owens, Hon. Burgess, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education and the Workforce Development.................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon:........................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
WITNESSES
Smith, Dr. Erec, Associate Professor of Rhetoric, York
College of Pennsylvania, Research Fellow, Cato Institute... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Murphy, Dr. James, Director, Career Pathways and
Postsecondary Policy, Education Reform Now................. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Goldfarb, Dr. Stanley, Chair, Do No Harm..................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Greene, Dr. Jay, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage
Foundation's Center for Education Policy................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Chairman Owens:
Statement of B'nai B'rith International dated March 7,
2024................................................... 88
Article dated December 10, 2023, by Danielle Allen....... 90
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon:
Article dated March 20, 2024, from diverseeducation.com.. 97
Multiple submitted statements dated March 2024........... 102
Testimony from the Legal Defense Fund.................... 159
Statement from the Southern Poverty Law Center........... 175
Fernandez Leger, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Mexico:
Article dated December 18, 2023, from insidehighered.com. 59
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina:
Article dated March 7, 2024, from the The Charlotte
Observer............................................... 79
DIVISIVE, EXCESSIVE, INEFFECTIVE:
THE REAL IMPACT OF DEI ON
COLLEGE CAMPUSES
----------
Thursday, March 7, 2024
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Development,
Committee on Education and The Workforce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 a.m.,
Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2175, Hon. Burgess Owens
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Owens, Grothman, Stefanik, Banks,
Good, Williams, Houchin, Foxx, Jayapal, Leger Fernandez,
Manning, McBath, Bonamici, and Scott.
Also present: Walberg, Miller, Kiley, and Bean.
Staff present: Nick Barley, Deputy Communications Director;
Mindy Barry, General Counsel; Hans Bjontegard, Legislative
Assistant; Solomon Chen, Professional Staff Member; Isabel
Foster, Press Assistant; Daniel Fuenzalida, Staff Assistant;
Sheila Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Amy Raaf
Jones, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Georgie
Littlefair, Clerk; Hannah Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; Audra
McGeorge, Communications Director; Rebecca Powell, Staff
Assistant; Mary Christina Riley, Professional Staff Member;
Brad Thomas, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Maura Williams, Director of Operations; Ni'Aisha Banks,
Minority Intern; Nekea Brown, Minority Director of Operations;
Rashage Green, Minority Director of Education Policy & Counsel;
Christian Haines, Minority General Counsel; Emanual Kimble,
Minority Professional Staff; Suyoung Kwon, Minority AAAS
Fellow; Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications Director;
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Olivia Sawyer,
Minority Intern; Maile Sit, Minority Intern; Clinton Spencer,
IV, Minority Staff Assistant; Jamar Tolbert, Minority Intern;
Adrianna Toma, Minority Intern; Banyon Vassar, Minority IT
Administrator.
Chairman Owens. The Subcommittee on Higher Education and
Workforce Development will come to order. I note that a quorum
is present. Without objection, the Chair is recognized to call
a recess at any time. I also welcome the Committee members who
are not members of the Subcommittee and are waving onto this
process, I welcome them to today's hearing.
Today's hearing addresses a long-growing cancer that
resides in the hearts of American and academic institutions.
Unfortunately, it is spread through foundational institutions
in the whole of western liberal society. It is called
diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI for short.
Most Americans over the last two or 3 years have heard the
term DEI, but may not know exactly what it is. There is no
better way to describe it than to quote from one of DEI's most
famous proponents, Ibram X. Kendi, and I quote. ``The remedy of
racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only
remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination. The
only remedy for present discrimination is future
discrimination.
I could summarize the definition--this definition in two
words, demeaning and racist. Demeaning due to total lack of
intellectual or moral common sense. Racist because anyone who
accepts this irrational mindset is guaranteed to become a
bigot. There are only two areas of measurement in which I
believe DEI can be considered really successful.
It is an industry that has created multimillionaires from
previously unknown and non-peer respected authors. It is also
an industry that has successfully steered hundreds of thousands
of our youth away from the visions of our founding fathers.
That vision was one of beginning a more perfect union, one in
which the citizenry improves with each generation to judge each
other based on our content of character, not by race, creed or
color.
The Marxist Center DEI on the other hand has a jaded view
of America and Americans. It views our Nation as a pyramid
composed of race oppressors and race oppressed. It attributes
all of America's ills and flaws to the white Judeo-Christian
male. To remedy all past perceived racism and injustice
perpetrated by this sect of Americans, DEI prescribes a healthy
injection of black racism, and black injustice.
The bureaucrats are hired not only to control
conversations, but also to stifle free speech and open
discourse, by asserting leverage on every aspect of university
management, personnel, curriculum, policy and college
admissions. It proceeds to attack the foundational pillars of
academic freedom.
DEI is not a concept, it is instead practical applications
used in almost every college campus throughout our country,
both public and private. It seems as universities use race as a
plus factor in admissions, instead of intellectual competition
and competency, it is skin color that is deemed the winner or
loser, pitting racists against each other.
The impact of DEI has seen an indoctrination of students as
they undergo mandatory racial bias education. Based on their
race, each student is deemed a redeemable oppressor, or a
member of hapless, hopeless, and weak oppressed. To my Jewish
friends, if you wonder about the surprising outgrowth of
antisemitism that is raging on college campuses, this is the
genesis.
The DEI teaches that at the very top of oppressor pyramid
is the Jewish race. There is no empathy in the DEI space once
identified as an oppressor, only disdain. At the core of DEI is
also the soft bigotry of low expectation. It teaches black
Americans as members of the oppressed race, we are weak and
incapable of standing and sitting independently.
That we must wait for the success wand to be waved over us
by white Americans. Or even better, we should wait for the
promise of slavery reparation. DEI reports that Black Americans
like myself, who can muster the tenacity and grit to succeed
are the exception, not the rule.
Once again, DEI is both demeaning and racist. DEI also is
heartless and unforgiving. Scholars who dare to publish
research that challenges the liberal orthodoxy are often
canceled or pushed out of the academic profession. From
professors who love teaching and seek to earn a tenure, they
are forced to take a loyalty oath in which they either promise
to adhere to the principles of DEI or find another profession.
DEI movement is at its core divisive. It judges others
based on our immutable characteristics like color, race and
past industry, which we have no control of. Instead of becoming
a more perfect union that turns our schools to cities and to
cesspools of the abyss of hate and intolerance.
I look forward to discussion on DEI today from its Marxist
roots to modern day DEI industry that siphons millions of
dollars from education and workforce budgets. For those who
want to know how much it costs us--costs the country, these are
a few examples here.
According to College Fix, University of Michigan, 30
million dollars a year. Texas A&M University, 11 million
dollars. Ohio State University, 20 million dollars. University
of Wisconsin, 16 million dollars. What is the result? More
hatred, more anger, and more racism.
I am looking forward to addressing this, and I want to
thank everybody again for joining us, and I want to yield now
to the Ranking Member for her closing statements--or opening
statements.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Owens follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
to the witnesses for being here today. Once again, instead of
having a productive conversation about addressing student's
mental health needs, ending campus hunger, protecting student's
civil rights, Committee republicans have determined it would be
a better use of our time to malign campus diversity, equity and
inclusion, or DEI programs.
Mr. Chairman, I am still processing that you are trying to
equate this with cancer, which to me is baffling, and pretty
offensive to anyone who has had cancer. As the population
grows, and access to higher education expands, college campuses
are becoming more reflective of our society.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics,
white students accounted for nearly 80 percent of college
undergraduates in 1980, and 54 percent in 2020. Hispanic and
Latino students increased from 4 percent of the undergraduate
population in 1980, to slightly more than 20 percent in 2020.
Thanks to Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, campuses are more accessible to women, to other racial
groups, as well as students who identify as LGBTQI+,
international students, students with disabilities. Although
this is to be celebrated, increases in campus population are
not necessarily indicative of change, attitudes or closely held
beliefs.
In 2020 the U.S. saw 517 reported hate crime instances on
college campuses with more than half of them motivated by race.
These are only the reported incidents. Discrimination is also
not limited to race, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation,
and even disabilities. Students face discrimination based on
their religion as well.
This is why DEI programs exist. No two programs are alike,
but DEI offices exist to address student needs, to give
strategic support to faculty, to institutional leaders, to
identify hurdles, and assist faculty and staff in serving,
educating, and meeting the needs of increasingly diverse
populations, many of whom are first generation college
students.
Regrettably, some republican led State legislatures have
decided that DEI offices are too costly, and yet these programs
barely affect many university budgets. As a result of this
legislation, significant cuts have been made to DEI programs.
For example, in 2023 Wisconsin State Legislature proposed
cutting 188 DEI jobs from the University of Wisconsin's 13
campus system, for a total of 32 million, but the DEI employees
account for less than 1 percent of the overall number of UW
employees, and they are employees that the university
determined were important to hire.
Last week the University of Florida fired 13 DEI officials
out of its 19,000 employees in accordance with an anti DEI
initiative championed by Governor DiSantis. Now I am sure our
colleagues will be able to provide some one off examples, or
anecdotes of instances at school, where DEI programming is not
fully living up to its mission, and not making all students
feel safe and welcome on campus.
To the extent that that is occurring at schools, by all
means we should challenge their DEI programs to improve and
change, but that's not a reason to end the DEI programs
entirely. Rather than condemning programs that are attempting
to rectify inequities, this Committee should be focused more on
the root causes that lead to inequities in the first place.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Bonamici
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. I just want to make a
quick comment. With all due respect, I am a cancer survivor,
and so when I equate to cancer it is the real deal. It is a
cancer to the soul of our Nation, as we will be seeing as we
talk through this process today. I am so thankful again that we
have an opportunity to bring this to the Americans attention.
That being said, pursuant to Committee Rule 8-C, all
members who wish to insert written statements into the record
may do so by submitting them to the Committee Clerk
electronically, and in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m., 14 days
after this hearing, which is March 21, 2023.
Without objection, the hearing records will remain open for
14 days to allow statements and other materials referenced
during this hearing to be submitted for the official record
hearing. I now turn to the introduction of our four
distinguished witnesses.
Our first witness is Dr. Erec Smith, who is Associate
Professor of Rhetoric at York College of Pennsylvania, and a
CATO Research Fellow. He is located in York, Pennsylvania.
Our next witness is Dr. James Murphy, who is Director of
Career Pathways and Postsecondary Policy at Education Reform
Now, located in Washington, DC.
Our third witness is Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, who is Chair of
the Do No Harm, and is located in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Our
final witness is Dr. Jay Greene, who is a Senior Research
Fellow at Heritage Foundation's Center for Education Policies.
It is located in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
Pursuant to Committee rules, I would ask that you each limit
your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary of your written
statement. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be
aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information
to the Subcommittee. I will first recognize Dr. Smith for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. EREC SMITH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
RHETORIC, YORK COLLEGE OF PENNSYLVANIA, RESEARCH
FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE, YORK, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Smith. Hello, thank you. Chairman Owens, Ranking and
distinguished members of the Higher Education and Workforce
Subcommittee, my name is Erec Smith, and I am a Research Fellow
at the CATO Institute. Thank you for giving me a platform to
speak on the issue of diversity, equity and inclusion in higher
education.
I have been faculty. I have been a writing program
administrator. I have even been a diversity officer.
Contemporary DEI is built upon a foundation whose very mission
is to perpetuate racism. Contemporary DEI is not an extension
of the Civil Rights movement. It is under rooted by a quasi-
Marxist ideology, called critical social justice.
The salient tenant of critical social justice is this. The
question is not, did racism take place, but rather, how did
racism manifest in this situation? According to clinical social
justice, racism is always already taking place. There is no
need to think for oneself. The narrative, one of perpetual
oppression does the thinking for you.
Another underlying concept of critical social justice is
prescriptive racism. The prescribing of certain values,
attitudes, and behaviors on to someone based on race. To shirk
these values, attitudes and behaviors is to be inauthentic, to
not be a true member of a particular racial group. Questioning
of this ideology is considered a form of racism.
I have many stories to tell, but I will share one, maybe
two, that illustrate these concepts and the general absurdity
of critical social justice back at DEI. A prominent figure in
my field, which is rhetoric and composition, wrote a mass email
requesting that people boycott an academic organization because
he and others experienced racism during a committee meeting.
However, neither he nor anyone else would actually explain
what happened. I was not going to boycott an influential
organization based on incomplete information, so I asked a
simple question, what happened? For this, I was vilified by my
colleagues, and colleagues of all colors, and accused of
perpetuating white supremacy, merely asking the question what
happened was considered a form of racism.
You have seen here that an accusation of racism cannot be
questioned. Remember, the question is not, did racism take
place, but rather how did racism manifest in that situation?
Another story involves two professors who always allow their
black students to write in black vernacular, African American
vernacular, some people say Ebonics.
However, the student's refusal to do so because they were
there to learn standard English, was seen by the professors as
a form of self-hatred, and internalized racism. A prominent
figure in the field, one who is self-proclaimed as a Marxist,
went as far as to say these students were being selfish and
immature, his words, for wanting to write in standardized
English because that would just perpetuate the status quo of
whiteness.
As black students who wanted to write in standard English,
they shirked the attitudes or values these professors
prescribed to them as black students. Their desire to write in
a standard English was treated like a kind of pathology.
Whenever I hear stories like this, I always say the same thing
to myself, thank God these were not my professors when I was in
college.
I would be steeped in negative emotionality, and learning
helplessness. If I had hopes and dreams, I would not have the
courage to chase them. I know some people out there are trying
to do DEI in a way that does not assume racism at all times,
does not prescribe behavior based on race. It does not shirk
critical thinking to abide by a narrative.
Those doing DEI created by critical social justice, and
there are many, are not fighting racism, they are perpetuating
racism. I do not know if you have all noticed yet, but I am
black. I am against this DEI. Why? Because I really like being
black. This ideology is infantilizing, it is anti-intellectual,
and since I am a mature, intellectual person, it does not align
with me.
I am too good for contemporary DEI, and so are many others.
I hope we can have a good conversation today. Thank you.
[The Statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. Thank you. Thank you so much, Dr. Smith. I
would now like to recognize Dr. Murphy.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES MURPHY, DIRECTOR OF CAREER
PATHWAYS AND POSTSECONDARY POLICY, EDUCATION RE-
FORM NOW, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Murphy. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Bonamici, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on diversity, equity and inclusion
programs today, and the valuable contribution they make to
institutions of higher education and the students who attend
them.
My name is James Murphy, and I am the Director of
Postsecondary Policy and Education Reform now, where I work on,
among other things, improving college access for under-
represented students. It is an honor to be given the
opportunity to clear up some myths about DEI, and to talk about
some of the actual work that DEI staff members do.
I should be clear that I have never worked in a DEI office,
and my comments today are based on research, facts and
conversations with people who work in the field. It is an
approach I strongly recommend. DEI offices may feel new or
confusing to some, but they are a natural development of the
need to serve the changing demographics of higher education
going back to the 1960's.
As time went by, ad hoc practices became more formalized
and professionalized, but even as that happened, DEI never
cohered into a monolithic institution built around an
ideological consensus. Any attempt to define the real impact of
DEI must begin with an acknowledgement that there are hundreds
of colleges and universities that employ staff working to make
their campuses more welcoming, fair and inclusive.
Unsurprisingly one finds considerable variation in the
scope, mission, practices and authority of those offices. That
alone should give us pause in speaking about DEI as if it were
a single thing, let alone an ideology, and remind us to be
very, very careful not to let anecdotes masquerade as analysis.
At some institutions DEI work is carried out by fostering
community engagement and dialog, at others it entails the
creation and transmission of guidance or recommendations on
putting fairness and diversity at the center of the range of
practices from admissions and instruction to recruitment and
hiring.
At some institutions DEI offices play a central role, a
role demanded by law in ensuring that their college is in
compliance with Title VI, Title IX in the Americans with
Disability Act. What few, if any DEI offices, actually do is
provide direct instruction to students, let alone indoctrinate
them into any set of beliefs.
As Mitchell Chang, interim Chief Diversity Officer at UCLA
recently wrote, Chief Diversity Officers spend their days on
administrative duties and functions, not advocating their own
political views. If anyone is trying to tell students what to
think, it is legislators who want to ban these offices
wholesale or write bills to make it illegal for university
employees to say phrases like unconscious bias, or cultural
appropriation.
College, we are all doctors here, is for debating ideas. It
is not for protecting students from words. I want to spend the
remainder of my time talking about a few words. Let us start
with diversity. The educational benefits of campus diversity
include the following: Training future leaders, preparing
graduates to adapt to an increasingly pluralistic society,
promoting the robust exchange of ideas, and producing new
knowledge stemming from diverse outlooks.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that list, and he called those
benefits I quote, ``commendable goals, and plainly worthy,'' in
the majority opinion in the student's admission's decision last
June, a decision I did not agree with, but was glad to see the
Chief Justice call out the importance of diversity on campus.
When I think of diversity, I am reminded of something, of a
conversation I had years ago with a friend, a lifelong
Republican by the way. He had just graduated from West Point,
or he had graduated from West Point. After serving in the Gulf
War, he earned an MBA at Emery University, and just completed
it.
When I asked him skeptically like what on earth could a
business school teach him about leadership after he led a
combat unit in Iraq? He told me that getting an MBA was
incredibly useful for him because it was the first time he had
ever worked with women in his life.
That is the value of diversity. Learning with people who
come from different racial, ethnic, religious and ideological
backgrounds not only lets us all share in the richness of the
American experience, but also prepares today's young people for
the 21st Century workplace.
Let us talk about equity. A much used word, very little
understood. Here is what it does not mean. Equity does not mean
pursuing equality of outcomes. That is a ridiculous idea, that
has been repeatedly cited by opponents of DEI offices. No one
can promise equal outcomes.
Equity is about the quality of opportunity and fairness.
Equity does not mean treating everyone like they're the same.
It means treating everyone with the same level of respect and
dignity, which brings us to inclusion. When DEI staff talked
about inclusion, they are talking about removing unnecessary
and unfair barriers to success on campus for students of color,
for students with disabilities, for veterans, for adult--for
returning students with children, for a range of students.
We all perform at a higher level after all when we feel
like we are working in an environment that values us for who we
are and treats us all fairly. That means things like providing
winter jackets to students with Pell Grants who come from the
south. That means providing avenues for students from a rural
background, or students of color to meet with other students of
a similar background.
Or it might mean helping professors to identify their own
biases in faculty hiring. I will close by saying that the
current wave of attacks on DEI offices should be understood for
what they are, excessive, divisive, ideological assaults on
some of the basic principles of our democracy and of academic
freedom.
I am confident they will ultimately prove to be
ineffective. Thank you.
[The Statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. Thank you, Dr. Murphy. I would like to now
recognize Dr. Goldfarb.
STATEMENT OF DR. STANLEY GOLDFARB, CHAIR, DO NO
HARM, BRYN MAWR, PENNSYLVANIA
Dr. Goldfarb. Thank you, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member
Bonamici, and members of the Committee for the invitation to
address this Committee. My name is Stanley Goldfarb. I am a
board-certified nephrologist, former Associated Dean of
Curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of
Medicine, and Chair of the medical nonprofit Do No Harm.
I have practiced medicine for over 50 years, and I care
deeply about the State of American medicine. My message today
is simple. DEI is dangerous everywhere, but it is most
dangerous in medical school. Americans need to know exactly
what is happening. Your future doctors are learning about
divisive politics at the expense of lifesaving care.
They are being taught to discriminate by race, not treat
patients equally. Ultimately, your future doctors are being
trained to be an activist, but you do not need an activist when
you are sick, or suffering from a life-threatening disease. You
need a doctor. If we do not restore medical school to its real
mission, Americans will inevitably suffer a diminished quality
of healthcare.
I have had a front row seat to the corruption of medical
education. Precious classroom and clinical time is now devoted
to issues such as climate change, homelessness, policing, and
other social issues that doctors cannot change. The idealogues
behind this trend know it, but they do not care. They want
doctors who will march into hearing rooms like this one, to
support political causes.
They do not want doctors. They want lobbyists in white
coats. Consider what every medical student is now required to
learn. The Association of American Medical Colleges, which
effectively controls medical education, now forces medical
schools to teacher intersectionality, oppression, colonization
and white supremacy among other core DEI topics.
These are not throw-away lines in a 1-day seminar. They
infuse everything from the first year of medical school to the
last year of residency. Every minute students spend on
colonialism is one they do not spend on cancer. When they study
global warming, they do not study geriatric care.
One medical student recently told my organization I have
learned more about pronouns than I have about how the kidney
functions. Patients should be concerned. DEI dominates far
beyond the classroom. The Association of American Medical
Colleges has compiled a list of 89 DEI policies that it wants
to see in medical schools.
Through Freedom of Information requests, my organization
has found that most have implemented at least 81 percent of
these demands. Many are close to 100 percent. For instance,
medical schools routinely demand that faculty and staff sign
DEI loyalty oaths. The goal is to weed out anyone who opposes
DEI. To see where that leads, look at Washington University's
Medical School, where a lecturer threatened students not to
debate her on critical race theory.
This is the essence of compelled speech. Medical schools
are lowering admission standards in the name of diversity too,
some have abandoned requiring the MCAT for all applicants, even
though the MCAT is the best predictor of a student's ability to
become a doctor.
By recruiting, excuse me, less qualified students, medical
schools are producing less qualified physicians. Medical
schools openly discriminate by race. We found numerous medical
scholarships and fellowships that bar white and Asian students
from applying, and we recently blew the whistle on UCLA Medical
School's requiring students to segregate by race. nationwide
schools are dividing students into race-based classes and
groups. They are violating Federal civil rights laws, and they
do not care unless called out. Worst of all, medical schools
now support the resegregation of healthcare itself. DEI holds
that patients should see physicians with the same skin color.
Over 60 studies have shown that segregated medicine has no
benefits, yet medical schools are pushing it anyway.
Everything I have described is happening in red and blue
State medical schools alike, Missouri, South Carolina and
Indiana as well. Medical students deserve better. Having
educated thousands, I know that young people become doctors
because they want to save lives. They deserve an education that
empowers them, not indoctrination that corrupts them.
Most of all, patients deserve better. They need doctors who
will treat their illnesses, and cure their diseases, not
discriminate by race and advocate for divisive political
demands. DEI puts American's lives at risk. The best way to
save lives is to get DEI out of medicine now.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions and hope to see
congressional action in the days ahead.
[The Statement of Dr. Goldfarb follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. Thank you, Dr. Goldfarb. I appreciate that.
Last, but not least, I would like to recognize Dr. Greene.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAY GREENE, SENIOR RESEARCH FEL-
LOW, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION'S CENTER FOR EDU-
CATION POLICY, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Mr. Greene. Thank you, Chairman Owens, for inviting me to
address this Committee. My name is Jay Greene. I am a Senior
Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Before joining
Heritage, I was a Distinguished Professor of Education Policy
at the University of Arkansas.
Diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, may sound like a
set of benign values. In practice, DEI bureaucracies advance a
world view that undermines diversity, promotes exclusion, and
opposes the equal treatment of individuals based on merit.
These DEI bureaucracies have grown quite large and powerful.
In a recent report, my co-author, James Paul, and I
analyzed a number of DEI staff at 65 universities that were
members of the Power Five Athletic Conferences. We found that
the average university had 45 DEI bureaucrats, or more than one
for every 33 tenured track faculty members.
DEI bureaucrats are not professors engaged in the primary
academic functions of teaching or research. Instead, they
articulate and enforce an ideological orthodoxy on contested
matters of race and sex. Rather than foster inquiry and debate
in search of the truth, as universities have traditionally
done, DEI bureaucracies are designed to stifle inquiry, and end
debate with the ostensible purpose of protecting marginalized
populations.
As the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher
Education describes their own goals, they seek to build ``a
system of shared beliefs, values, norms, habits and
assumptions'' to advance DEI efforts. Bureaucratically enforced
ideological orthodoxies like these shared beliefs, may be
desirable for religious organizations, or political parties,
but they are not appropriate for universities.
Even worse, the radicalism of DEI orthodoxies makes them
more like those of cults than religious organizations, or more
like revolutionary movements than those of political parties.
DEI orthodoxies are informed by critical race theory and tend
to divide people into oppressor and oppressed categories, based
on their group identities.
According to this world view, oppressors deserve to have
their privilege taken away, while the oppressed deserve
restitution for collective or historic wrongs. Justifying
unequal treatment based on group identity can yield horrific
results. We have particularly seen this in the recent spike of
antisemitism on college campuses.
If classification of a group as oppressor or oppressed is
determined by its over or under representation, the relatively
high rate of Jews in universities supports the classification
as oppressors. This is then used to justify imposing limits on
opportunities for Jews in the name of equity. Harsh treatment
of Jews can be justified as tripping them of privilege.
Protestors on college campuses chanting antisemitic slogans
are not just using the language promoted by DEI. We have also
unfortunately seen DEI officials actively involved in promoting
hatred toward Jews. Their professional commitment to inclusion
apparently does not extend to Jews.
These are not isolated incidents. James Paul and I analyzed
the Twitter accounts of 741 university DEI staff to gauge their
attitudes toward Israel, and for comparison, toward China. We
found that university DEI staff are obsessed with Israel and
display such vehement hostility toward the Jewish State that it
clearly crosses the line into serious antisemitism.
DEI staff tweet almost three times as often about Israel as
they do about China. When DEI staff tweet about Israel, 96
percent of those tweets were critical of the Jewish State,
which 62 percent of their tweets regarding China, were actually
favorable toward that Communist country.
That obsessive hatred toward Israel was evident not only in
the disproportionate hostility DEI staff displayed toward
Israel, but also in the excessive language typically used to
criticize the Jewish State. DEI staff often used terms like
Apartheid, colonialism, genocide and ethnic cleansing when
discussing Israel.
DEI has not only exacerbated hostility toward Jews, it has
also generally inflamed racial tensions on campus. According to
surveys of news at several universities, students report that
campus climate is worse at universities with larger DEI
bureaucracies, for example, the students at the University of
Michigan, with 163 DEI staff report being less satisfied with
campus conduct than those in Mississippi State with only 12 DEI
staff.
Compliance with the civil rights obligations of
universities can be done without gigantic DEI bureaucracies.
Given that DEI has no legitimate purpose, and serves to inflame
intergroup tensions, we need to dismantle it. At a minimum, we
need to starve universities of the funds that they use to build
DEI bureaucracies. Thank you, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greene follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. Thank you, Dr. Greene. Appreciate that.
Under Committee Rule 9, well now question witnesses under the
5-minute rule, and I will begin the process. Dr. Goldfarb, 1
year ago an article caught my attention that showed that new
dimensions of critical race theory and DEI had not yet been
seen.
Columbia University received incident backlash when a video
surfaced from 2021 showing medical students reciting an altered
version of the Hippocratic oath during a white coat ceremony.
In the video students chanted. We also recognize the acts
in the systems of oppression effected in the name of medicine.
We take this oath of service to begin building a future guarded
in truth with restoration. Equity to fuel medicine's capacity
to liberate. Dr. Goldfarb, this Hippocratic oath is a
foundational statement for every student. Am I correct on that?
Is that they take this at the beginning of this journey?
Dr. Goldfarb. Yes, that is correct.
Chairman Owens. Is there anything about the standard oath
that has mentioned systems of oppressed in medicine before now?
Dr. Goldfarb. No, sir.
Chairman Owens. Is it an important part of education--is to
learn about medicine to liberate?
Dr. Goldfarb. No, sir.
Chairman Owens. I think this is interesting, and just a
little quick background. I majored in biology and chemistry. In
my last course, they were two of the hardest in my life, was
something called organic chemistry. I did a pass/fail because I
wanted to not get a grade on that one. At the end of the day
what I realized was those who truly mastered it were able to
predict certain things. There is a math that is predictable.
There is a science based on God's laws that is very
predictable.
This is hypothetical, but as a physician, do you think that
if some point if a patient is seriously injured, or dies due to
this practice of DEI liberation sciences instead of clinical
science, that there will be possibly malpractice lawsuits, not
only for the physician but for the med schools that trained
them?
Dr. Goldfeld. Yes, sir, that is quite hypothetical, and
certainly beyond my pen. I do think that it is really important
that it be viewed as a profoundly academic activity, medical
school. That the treatment of patients is really an academic
activity that as you say, physicians must keep a lot of
information in their head, sort through it, understand human
variability, and be able to apply it to that individual patient
with that individual patient's problems.
This is a very academic kind of activity. That is why I
feel so strongly that it is academic achievement that ought to
be the basis for acceptance into medical school, and for the
ability for physicians--for applicants to become physicians. It
really is a profoundly intellectual process that really needs
to be done in the best way possible for the patient's well-
being.
Chairman Owens. I think we can all agree that this is one
profession that meritocracy should be the primary focus. I will
say this, advice to any personal injury lawyers that are
listening in, please pay attention to words like DEI in
medicine, if they are ever in the same sentence, same
paragraph, or the same book when it comes to medicine, I think
you might have a good professional movement if that is the
case.
Dr. Greene, first of all I appreciated your comments about
the oppressor and oppressed. Help me understand, just real
quickly, the impact it is having on the Jewish community that
we are now beginning to see across the country when you have
this idea, this indoctrination that there is a race that is
truly oppressed, the oppressor of everybody else?
Mr. Greene. Well, thank you for the question. Once we
deviate from the principle that we are going to treat everyone
equally as individuals, and start treating people differently
based on their group identification, it is then a question of
which group do the Jews get placed in.
Are they placed in a group of oppressors or oppressed? The
determination of which group people are placed in is largely
based on their over or under representation, so any group that
is considered overrepresented is considered an oppressor, and
the group considered underrepresented is considered oppressed.
Jews, because they have thrived despite oppression, are
overrepresented in many of these instances, and therefore are
treated roughly as oppressors.
It is an intellectual justification of their rough
treatment in academic environments.
Chairman Owens. Okay, thanks. Dr. Smith, real quickly, I
read something you said here. DEI is harmful to the very people
it claims to help. It is--and it is certainly anti-black. As a
black academic I have been called a white supremacist by whites
and blacks alike.
By the way, welcome to the crowd. I have been called a KKK
member by the Salt Lake Tribune in Utah, believe it or not, for
trying to empower black students. Can you expound on that a
little bit in the last few seconds we have.
Mr. Smith. Yes, I can. That speaks to the prescriptive
racism, something I talked about during my original testimony.
Prescriptive racism basically says that there is a list of
characteristics that you have to abide by if you are going to
be an authentic member of a group, let us say black Americans.
If you do not abide by that script, then you are called
inauthentically black. I had the misfortunate of hearing a
keynote address at a conference a few years ago that really
started this journey. The speaker had the argument that it was
inherently racist----
Chairman Owens. We have to kind of wrap it up because we
just have the last few seconds if you can tie it down.
Mr. Smith. Oh, okay. It is not inherently racist to teach
standardized English.
Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. Now I would like to turn
it over to the Ranking Member.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I am
disappointed to see the DEI programs are the newest target in
my republican colleagues politicized culture war. Mr. Chairman,
I am grateful that you were able to overcome cancer, I am just
baffled to think that a program that is intended to help
students would be equated with such a dreadful disease.
Diversity, equity and inclusion offices at colleges and
universities are intended to support and encourage students
from all backgrounds and help them to be and stay safe as they
come together on campus to learn and grow.
Certainly, we could have, and should have a conversation
about how these offices could better serve their students, but
villainizing the entire concept and the dedicated individuals
who are doing this work to advance a political narrative, which
feels like is happening today, is an unacceptable use of our
time here.
We have been told that DEI offices are malevolent
bureaucracies intent on indoctrinating students in
controversial political ideologies. Dr. Murphy, what are the
actual functions that DEI offices perform, and why are they so
important for college students' academic success?
Mr. Murphy. Thank you for the question. It is almost hard
for me to say what the actual functions are that DEI offices
perform because there is such variety in the field, right. I
alluded to one of the functions as sort of in the UC system.
Most of the equity of the DEI offices there handle compliance,
right? They are required by law to exist.
They are making sure that the university is in compliance
with Title IV, Title IX and the Americans with Disabilities
Act. They make sure that students who feel threatened, or have
been threatened based on race, color, religion, importantly,
disability, have recourse, right? Have essentially an office
they can go to, to make, you know, to file a complaint.
It is an important part of some DEI work. That is not true
at all institutions. At some institutions it is a much smaller
unit at the university, and they will handle things like
freshman orientations, right, recruitment practices and
admission's offices, creating infinity groups. It is not that
infinity groups are all race-based infinity groups.
Like an important infinity group on many campuses. A
growing one is first generation, low-income students, right.
Very often that is through the DEI office because these
students often feel isolated on campus. They are not showing up
with a cohort of their friends from Harvard Westlake, they are
showing up as the only kid in their school to ever go to a
place like this.
They perform a range of functions, which makes the attack
on them, I think sort of nonsensical.
Ms. Bonamici. Dr. Murphy, are DEI programs a threat to the
civil rights of students on college campuses, and are there
issues that are real threats to the civil rights of students on
campuses?
Mr. Murphy. DEI offices, it is hard for me again to say.
Like are DEI office is a threat? No. Could it be possible that
somebody working in a DEI office does something that is illegal
or wrong? Yes. The same is true in medical school. The same is
true in the rhetoric department.
If some individual, or an individual department is in
violation of the law, then yes indeed, that person should face
the consequences. You know the more realistic threats to the
civil rights on campus is shutting down student's voices,
right? Shutting down faculty or trying to serve them.
Ms. Bonamici. Right. I absolutely agree with that. I want
to urge my republican colleagues to consider constructive ways
that we as policymakers can protect students from
discrimination and hostile learning environments, and that
includes students who have been victims of antisemitism on
college campuses, and we have had really several discussions
about that, and I wish we were working together to find a way
to address that in a constructive way.
Specifically, we should be focusing on increasing funding
for the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights,
because as we know they have the responsibility to enforce the
law. They investigate and intervene in instances of
discrimination, and I want to note that we should all be
standing together against the 25 percent proposed cut to the
Office of Civil Rights Budget, and instead provide the office
with the funding they need to protect and serve our Nation's
students.
We should reject political narratives that focus more on
stoking culture wars than assuring student success and safety.
Dr. Murphy, you are talking about how DEI programs are
different on different campuses, why is that? Should those
colleges be able--and universities, be able to design their own
DEI programs, and not have the government telling them what
their DEI program should look like?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, they are different for the same reason
that English departments are different from campus to campus.
They are different for the reason that student services are
different from campus to campus. Sometimes I find myself
annoyed with the autonomy that we give to universities, and I
wish I could have all the universities behave in a way that I
would like them to.
That is not how we designed American education. Our higher
education system is the best in the world in part because we
grant universities the autonomy to determine what is the best
way to deliver a powerful, strong, transformative education to
students. Yes, that is essentially the sorts of the
differences.
Ms. Bonamici. Would there be a logical reason, Dr. Murphy,
why the DEI office, say for example, at the University of
Michigan might look different from the DEI office of the
University of Mississippi?
Mr. Murphy. Oh, absolutely right. I mean a whole sorts of
reasons. One would be State funding, right? How much money does
an institution have? Who are the students they serve is a
crucial question of course here. What are the priorities of
administration? Looking simply at the size of the faculty does
not really tell us that much.
I mean I would note that, you know, the report that we
heard about earlier, suggested that there were 29 University of
Florida students who--or DEI employees or work, 29 people who
work in DEI at the University of Florida. Well, 13 people got
fired. It is hard to sometimes put your finger on this, right?
How many people.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Thank you. As I yield back, I just
want to say I wish we had time to talk with Dr. Greene, your
interesting research about taking students on field trips to
museums, which I think would be much more constructive than
this conversation. I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my
friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. Dr.--I cannot read your name, Goldfarb,
okay. I have heard two physicians tell me that they feel
American medicine peaked out about 7 years ago because of this.
In part because of the issues, we are talking about today. Do
you think that is true? Are we seeing a decline in the quality
of medicine?
Dr. Goldfarb. Thank you for the question. You know I think
what we are definitely seeing is a dramatic change in the
character of medical education, which if it has not played out
yet in demonstrating a change in the quality of healthcare, it
will in the very, very near future. I think, you know, I think
the issue is here to make sure that we have the highest quality
medical workforce that we possibly could have.
Mr. Grothman. That is no longer what we are emphasizing.
Did you say that there is an ideology out there that it is
important that like people of Asian ancestry have Asian
doctors, and Native American ancestry have Native American
doctors, and that is superior?
Dr. Goldfarb. Yes. Thank you for the question. This is the
concept of racial concordance, and what this is really all
about is the fact that there are real healthcare disparities in
healthcare outcomes.
Because of this medicine, like any field that is
enlightened, would seek to improve those kinds of disparities
and outcomes. I am sorry, that is not a solution to the problem
of disparities because that is not the basis of healthcare
disparities.
Dr. Greene here next to me has conducted a study that is
clearly shown that racial concordance, there is no evidence in
the medical literature about benefits.
Mr. Grothman. Well, I would think not. I want to read, and
I am sorry for talking over you, but they only give us 5
minutes. In other words, there is an ideology that says if I am
a Native American, I would rather have a doctor who maybe got
30 or 40 points lower on the MCATs, but it was a Native
American, rather than an Asian doctor, who did superior on the
MCATS because--is that what that ideology lives to?
Dr. Goldfarb. Yes. That is basically.
Mr. Grothman. You would have to really be a sicko to really
think that that is the way we should operate our medical
schools. That we would want a doctor who has not done, and
performed as well, but just because of racial reasons. I would
like to meet that person who would say I would rather have
somebody with lower MCATs treat me because they look like me.
That just--I assume there are a couple people out there
like that, but that is just beyond belief. Next question. Dr.
Smith, there is--I want you to comment on this. There is an
ideology here that what you bring to a job, today we have new
Taiwan Medical School, or education, but it could be anywhere,
is colored by where your ancestors come from, right?
If some guy has got a grandmother who was born in Norway,
and somebody else has a grandmother that was born in Honduras,
that that colors their world view of being different, better or
worse, or bring something different to the engineering firm or
what not. What do you think about this idea that the way you
think is determined by ancestors who you may never had met.
Maybe their grandmother died before I was born, but still
these DEI professionals want to break you out and say you are
different.
Mr. Smith. DEI undergirded by critical social justice
skirts individuality. It is all about group consciousness.
Group consciousness is necessary for this ideology, because if
you have individuals, then we have individual people with their
own individual lives and histories that cannot be predetermined
based on their skin color.
We have to look at somebody as a member of a group, an not
an individual. That is necessary for this to work. Your example
is about race. Other examples are about sexual orientation,
with other samples it is about ability. Everybody is a group
member, and not an individual, and that is the issue.
Mr. Grothman. Right. You must hang around with these people
or talk to them. What goes on in their mind? How, for example,
they think somebody who has spent their whole live in the
United States but had a grandmother from Honduras thinks
differently apparently than--and I do not know what they do
with people who are adopted, because they might not even know
where they are from.
I guess it is purely a genetic thing. How do they justify
that? Do they really believe that if I have a grandmother from
Honduras, I view the whole world differently? Somebody who I
have never met, have never spoken to? Sorry?
Chairman Owens. A quick answer.
Mr. Smith. Okay. It is a fabricated ideology based on
standpoint epistemology, meaning that based on your race and
your experience, you see the world differently than somebody
else. Even about objective reality.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my
friend Ms. Leger Fernandez from New Mexico.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and
Ranking Member, and thank you witnesses for being here today.
Once again we are here, and the Education Committee is looking
backward, not forwards. They are stoking the fear and
divisiveness of the culture wars. Thankfully, we just saw the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals with two Trump appointees drag
down Ron DeSantis's so called Stop Woke Act.
These attacks against diversity are looking back to a time
when white males dominated our institutions. We simply cannot
go back. We need our institutions to reflect the strength of
our country, diversity is our strength, and can and should be
celebrated.
To those who think our Nation has moved beyond to a
colorblind society, I am going to quote Kevin McCarthy, Speaker
Kevin McCarthy at the time, who said--no, not at the time, but
who said in regard to the 2019 State of the Union, ``I look
over at the democrats and they stand up. They look like
America. We stand up, we look like the most restrictive country
club in America.''
Check out the State of the Union tonight and see if things
have changed. My own story as the first Latino to represent my
district is indeed a DEI story.
As a Latina from rural New Mexico, at a small school that
didn't have AP classes, or normally send students to the Ivy
Leagues, I was recruited to attend Yale by someone who saw my
promise and my SAT scores. Besides the few Latinos and black
students similarly recruited to diverse by the student body, it
was generally wealthy, white and still mostly male.
In my study spot in the library, I received notes telling
me that I did not belong there. If I ate lunch with my Latino
and black classmates, my white classmates would complain about
the mere fact that we were eating together. The University did
not at that time provide the range of DEI programs that so many
students benefit from today.
I worked hard to create opportunities for my classmates to
learn more about my community and broaden their perspectives. I
invited Cesar Chavez to speak on campus, and we packed the
halls. It was white students who were there with the Latinos.
They wanted to know more about what was happening with the farm
workers. What was happening in my Latino communities.
Research shows that all students perform better when
classrooms are more diverse. Mr. Chair, I would like unanimous
consent to enter into the record the article, Report Stem
Classes with Racial Socioeconomic Representation Boost Student
GPA.
Chairman Owens. No objections.
[The information of Ms. Leger Fernandez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Dr. Murphy, I really want to thank you
for your emphasis on facts and research, not just anecdotal. I
want to thank you for your emphasis on respect and opportunity
and dignity. Could you share with us how DEI initiatives
actually strengthen student bodies, rather than divide them?
Mr. Murphy. Yes. I think it comes back to again that
feeling that research shows, but everyone's human experience
shows as well. When you are in a place where you feel
respected, and as good as everybody else, you perform at a
higher level.
When we are looking at highly selective colleges, the
colleges some people now call highly rejective colleges because
there are so few students that can get into them, a lot of the
success that students get from that experience is being around
other students, right?
Being around students who are not like them, right?
Learning about sort of the richer American experience and
gaining from those different perspectives. In fact the emphasis
on simply inclusion, just that one element there, is a crucial
part of how DEI actually drives success, right? Retention and
completion onward into a career.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. The idea that we would want our
leaders, because if you are going to a university, you are
going to be a leader, whether it be in business, or here in
Congress. Do we want them to be curious about, and know more
about their diverse communities?
Mr. Murphy. Absolutely. If you look at private industry you
will see diversity officers, or DEI officers in a huge portion
of private industry, right. These are private corporations that
are choosing to hire somebody because they are recognizing the
value of having somebody essentially there who can make sure
that these issues are always at the table. Not running the
table, but at the table.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. When we all are at the table, we can
be more respective of each other. I think I have 6 seconds
left, and I will end on that. Respect and dignity include all
of us. Thank you very much.
Chairman Owens. Okay. Thank you so much. I would like now
to recognize my friend from Indiana, Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Goldfarb, the
Association of American Medical Colleges has called for
advancing diversity, equity and inclusion in medical education.
How does DEI help medical students become better physicians?
Dr. Goldfarb. I do not think it does and thank you for that
question. Again, the problem that medicine is trying to correct
is this problem of disparate outcomes in healthcare. The
question is what is the basis for it, rather than decide that
it is an ideological problem, and that there is bias on the
part of physicians treating patients.
The real issue is access to care, and patients getting
access to care, and patients accessing care appropriately. Once
you decide that the problem is because physicians are biased,
then all of this DEI regimen flows from that, and it is very
unfortunate because it is wrong, and it is wasteful of time,
which is one of the arguments that I tried to portray in my
testimony that we are wasting time in medical school, teaching
more and more about these issues for which physicians have no
agency whatsoever.
It also does not benefit the communities whose disparities
we are trying to improve. Those communities need better access
to care. They do not need the faculty of a medical school going
to anti-bias training.
Mr. Banks. This seems real dangerous. Harvard's Medical
School's diversity statement says, ``We celebrate the multiple
dimensions of diversity that each member of our community
offers, including, but not limited to, gender identity. Do you
think, Dr., that celebrating gender dysphoria violates the
Hippocratic oath?
Dr. Goldfarb. I think general dysphoria and its treatment
has been a terrible problem in this country. In the face of
European nations that have now all--almost as a bloc have
decided that so-called gender affirming care has turned out to
be more harmful than beneficial and have restricted it
substantially.
In this country, it is continued to be advocated at the
highest levels of American medicine, and I think my
organization has been pushing very hard against children
having--being put through these programs. We make no position
about adults. That is not our concern. Our concern is saving
children who cannot possibly consent to this kind of treatment
with irreversible outcomes that will influence the rest of
their lives.
We feel very much that that should not be part of medical
education and should not be part of the medical care of
children.
Mr. Banks. Would you say that gender mutilation of children
violates the Hippocratic oath?
Dr. Goldfarb. Yes, it does.
Mr. Banks. Yes. I would agree. Transgender surgeries and
related medical treatments can cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Do you think there are--could we talk about the
financial incentives to the medical industry to perform those
types of surgeries?
Dr. Goldfarb. Yes. You know, the insurance has been--
insurance companies have been paying for this kind of care. The
military insurance system has been paying for this sort of
care. Our organization has a bill that we're promoting that
will help those many children who have decided to detransition,
and seek medical care for that, and that unfortunately there
are no billing codes, for example, for that kind of care.
This has become an economic issue as well as a moral and a
medical issue as well.
Mr. Banks. Yes. I mean to sum it up since medical
professionals are told not to believe in biological sex, what
kind of impact does that have on the medical practice at large?
Dr. Goldfarb. Well, again this has been a very contentious,
and I know, very unfortunate area of contention. Our
organization again focuses very much on the issue about gender
care for children. Children cannot possibly understand what
they are getting into when they agree to these kinds of
treatments. Their parents, unfortunately, have been sort of
coerced into this by being told that suicide is the outcome if
they do not support their children in their gender transitions.
Literature now shows that none of that is correct, and that
in fact these children should be treated with psychological
care, and I know there have been hearings in this building
before about this. These children need psychotherapy, they do
not need surgery.
Mr. Banks. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate what you do. I yield
back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would now like to recognize my
friend from North Carolina, Ms. Manning.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses. I want to focus today on a pernicious form of
discrimination that this Committee has recently focused on, and
that is antisemitism. This Committee's previous hearings, and
roundtables have highlighted the fact that antisemitism is a
major problem on college campuses, and frankly across the
country.
Just last week we had nine very brave Jewish students from
nine different universities come forward and describe to us,
really unbelievable instances of antisemitism that are taking
place in their schools by students, by faculty, by
administrators. If DEI is the right place to address
antisemitism, then those DEI programs have been failing the
Jewish students.
We know from the ADL's findings that while 55 percent of
university students have previously completed DEI training,
only 18 percent of them say they have had any training that is
specific to anti-Jewish prejudice. There are lots of reasons
for the antisemitism that we see rising.
Antisemitic conspiracy theories promote the idea that all
Jews are powerful, that they do not need or deserve protection
as a minority. Some might not understand, in fact most do not
understand the origins of antisemitism, or how pervasive it is,
or frankly, how unique a form of discrimination it is. Many
people do not understand that Jews are a diverse and
multiracial community, that there is no one way to look Jewish
or practice Judaism or live as a Jewish person.
I am concerned, however, that the failure of DEI or
universities in general to protect Jewish students, is being
exploited to denigrate the value of diversity, and the value of
DEI programs on campuses that are doing the right thing to make
minority students feel welcome and included.
I am wondering in fact whether DEI needs to be fixed
instead of thrown out, so that it does make all students, all
minorities feel protected, and that would include Jewish
students, and minority students and LGBTQ students. I want to
start, Dr. Murphy, with you.
Do you believe the DEI programs are capable of including
segments to educate students and faculty members about the
origins, the long history and the dangers of antisemitism?
Mr. Murphy. Yes.
Ms. Manning. To your knowledge, do most DEI programs
address antisemitism?
Mr. Murphy. I do not have enough knowledge to say. I do not
have enough knowledge to say whether or not they do.
Ms. Manning. Do you know whether there has been any studies
to determine whether DEI programs include antisemitism?
Mr. Murphy. I am not personally familiar with them.
Ms. Manning. I went on the websites of some of the schools
whose students spoke at our roundtable, and I was unable to
find anything in their DEI programs that addressed
antisemitism. Dr. Murphy, is there anything structural about
DEI programs that would prevent or impair those programs from
addressing antisemitism?
Mr. Murphy. To the contrary, right, these programs are
intended to respect the rights and dignity of all students, and
to ensure typically to ensure that they are not discriminated
based on race, color, religion, disability, national origin, so
no. There is nothing structurally in DEI programs.
I guess, I do want to return to the idea of like we need to
be careful about talking about DEI as if it is this monolithic
structure. It is not.
Ms. Manning. It seems that if we had some structure, and
some standards for what DEI programs included, that might be a
better use of DEI?
Mr. Murphy. I think addressing the institutions that are
failing on this front is a very important task to take on.
Ms. Manning. Thank you. I have found throughout my
education and my career, that I can learn an enormous amount
from colleagues whose backgrounds and life experiences are
different from my own, and what I learn has impacted the way I
behave, the way I make decisions in my own life, and in the
work I do.
I would just like to ask Dr. Greene, because you addressed
this issue as well. Do you believe the DEI programs properly
done could address antisemitism?
Mr. Greene. I think inherent--thank you for the question.
Thank you for your statements about the problems with
antisemitism and the neglect of Jews and the bureaucracies, but
this is not an accident. It is a feature of the world view of
DEI bureaucracies.
They are informed by the belief that people should be
treated as members of groups and treated differently by their
group membership based on oppressor or oppressed status, that
it inevitably puts Jews in contests for actually being
considered oppressed, and I think it is bad for Jews to enter
the oppression Olympics and attempt to be served by the
bureaucracies.
Ms. Manning. Sadly, my time has expired, and I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Owens. Thank you, I appreciate that. I would like
now to recognize my friend from Virginia, Mr. Good.
Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with what Dr.
Murphy said a few moments ago. He said it is hard to say why
DEI offices exist. I certainly agree with that, and yet in his
2021 report, Diversity University, DEI Bloat in the Academy,
Dr. Greene found that large public universities average about
45 DEI personnel, ranging from Stanford University with 80,
Virginia Tech with 83, Ohio State with 94, University of
Virginia in my district 94, and then the biggest one that I
noted Michigan, the University of Michigan with 163.
Dr. Green, in your testimony, you site the millions of
dollars that various universities spend on DEI offices, and you
State that there is indeed ``nothing to show for these
expenditures.'' Can you elaborate on that? What do you mean by
there is nothing to show for these expenditures?
Mr. Green. Sure. We have heard claims that DEI is meant to
make students feel included, improve retention and graduation.
We have not heard any evidence of that, and there is a reason
for it. I do not believe that evidence exists, and in fact the
systematic evidence that I have collected is that campus
climate is no better on campuses, and in fact is worst,
according to student surveys, at universities with larger DEI
bureaucracies, and the antisemitism is associated with DEI
bureaucracies as well.
Millions of dollars are being spent, and it is actually
exacerbating group tension, not helping.
Mr. Good. Yes. If you had a--let us say an average of 100
on the college campuses for round numbers, and the average
cost, full benefit back is 200,000, that is 20 million dollars
a year. Where is all that money? You do not find any evidence
that it is actually benefiting in any measurable way is what
you are saying?
Mr. Greene. That is exactly right, yes.
Mr. Good. Well, the DEI offices do serve to divide,
discriminate, differentiate how people are treated based on
race, and this is 60 years after the Civil Rights Act, 57 years
after the first black Supreme Court Justice, with two others
who followed behind are still on the Court today.
Sixteen years after our country elected the first black
President, and now 3 years after our Nation elected our first
minority Vice President. As you noted, the DEI jobs on college
campuses are not low-paying jobs, are they? As a matter of
fact, at the University of Virginia in my district, the Vice
President for DEI and community partnerships makes $340,000.00
at University of Virginia.
$340,000.00. Double that of a Member of Congress, and I
realize most people think that we are overpaid, but it is also
double the average of a university professor at UVA, which is
about $175,000.00. Is there anyway you could justify that, or
explain why we would pay the head of DEI double what we pay a
college professor at UVA, or a school like that?
Mr. Greene. No. I do not think there is any justification
for it. This is money being wasted, and in fact money that is
hurting the legitimate purposes of higher education.
Mr. Good. You have already noted that you have seen no
measurable performance metrics that demonstrate the difference
that it is making, other than perhaps the jobs program for the
individuals that are in those DEI offices?
Mr. Greene. I think that is right. Yes.
Mr. Good. Again, DEI offices, they do create and perpetuate
high paying job opportunities with little in the way of
meaningful performance measurements, other than to continue to
perpetuate racial division for woke liberals who believe our
country's irretrievably and systemically racist, and I would
again argue that a job's program for these individuals does not
justify their existence.
To make matters worse by the way, on who is hiring to these
jobs, the Assistant VP for Equity Inclusion Excellence at
again, University of Virginia in my district, was recently seen
on a video discussing how people, including white people, are
``Dying of whiteness, and dying prematurely in their 20's.''
Clearly, that sentiment I guess justifies her exorbitant
salary.
Thankfully, Mr. Chairman, we have a Supreme Court that is
beginning to dismantle the mythical need to continue to treat
people differently based on race, and I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my
friend my Georgia, Ms. McBath.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Chairman Owens and Ranking Member
Wilson. I have read your testimoneys today, so thank you so
much to our witnesses. Five months to the day of the deadliest
attack on Jewish civilians since the Holocaust, Jewish students
across the country and across the world continue to face hate,
and vitriol, and our somehow being considered collectively
responsible for the actions of the State of Israel, a country
they may have never lived in, or possibly even visited.
This is textbook antisemitism, and it simply cannot be
allowed to continue unchallenged, or at our universities.
However, it is wrong to use the very real threat of
antisemitism as a political tool to oppose policies that you
simply don't agree with. It is disappointing to see the
majority today, attempt to use the very real pain that is
caused by this conflict and the scourge of antisemitism as a
vehicle to push an extreme political agenda, that is determined
to erase any mention of the words, diversity, or equity on
campus.
Instead of dismantling these programs, we should commit
ourselves to improving them, to ensuring that every student
feels welcome on campus, and that all of the stories that we've
heard from, from these students, are being treated with the
care and the respect and dignity that they deserve, but that
cannot come at the cost of dragging us backward, and undoing
the important progress that we have made as a Nation.
The fact of the matter is that black Americans and students
of color have historically been denied access to universities,
despite being just as qualified and willing to learn as their
white peers. As much as my colleagues would like to say
otherwise, this is the reality, and it is one that occurred
relative recently during my lifetime, and many other members of
this Committee's lifetimes as well.
One whose impact cannot simply be forgotten about or
corrected overnight. It is the reality for people that look
like me every single day, and the reality that continues to
spur the need for policies like this in the very first place.
My republican colleagues cannot have it both ways. You cannot
claim to be protecting free speech and diversity of thought,
while simultaneously trying to deny our history, which is the
history of America, and it is the inclusive history of America,
and dismiss the stories that make us who we are as a Nation.
Stories like my father's who was the Branch President of
NAACP in Illinois at the height of the civil rights movement.
This refusal to have difficult conversations to just sweep what
makes you uncomfortable under the rug, and act like it is not
there, or did not happen, is a disservice to our students, and
to our Nation. It is a disservice to those who lived these
realities, and to the heroes like my dad and John Lewis, and so
many countless others who put their lives and reputations on
the line to help this country live up to its promise of liberty
and justice for not just a few people, but for all people.
Dr. Murphy, could you please use the time that we have left
to discuss the importance of ensuring that students from groups
such as racial and ethnic minority students, the LGBTQ+
students, or first-generation college students have equitable
access to colleges and to universities?
Mr. Murphy. It is tremendously important. I mean we have
made great strides. I do not want to take, to diminish that in
any way whatsoever, but the diversity on campuses, particularly
more selective campuses, still lags far behind the country. I
believe that some Ivy League institutions, if you look at the
percentage of black students on campus now, it is lower than it
was in the 1990's.
Progress needs to be made there. An emphasis needs to be
put on the importance of diversity on campus. In part because I
guess what I am hearing a lot in the criticism of DEI programs,
is a viewpoint that I reject wholeheartedly, which is that
there is a dearth of talent out there, right, that there just
are not that many talented people.
Every single one of the most talented people is going to
rise to the top and be seen for their talent. The reality is
all of us who have succeeded in life can point to numerous
people on the pathway who have lifted us, right? I think DEI
helps us keep that in mind, right, to keep in mind who has had
the opportunity, who has had the resources, and how that has
impacted their experiences.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much, and I am out of time.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize my
good friend from New York, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first would like
to associate myself with the comments and concerns of my
colleague across the aisle, Representative Manning,
particularly in the correlation between antisemitism that is
rising on our university campuses, and the chilling
participation of the DEI offices in their failure to look out
for all students, and often seem to be a facilitator, or a
protector of antisemitism as it grows and expands on our
campuses.
Dr. Goldfarb, are you still at the University of
Pennsylvania?
Dr. Goldfarb. No. I am retired now, sir.
Mr. Williams. Was your decision to retire from UPenn
related at all to perhaps the reaction of your being outspoken
on this topic? Would you say that that created an environment
that made retirement a bit more attractive?
Dr. Goldfarb. Well, it was time to retire. However, I
certainly did receive an unfortunate sort of canceling. My name
was taken off the website by the University of Pennsylvania. My
name was taken from the history of one of the kidney divisions,
of which I was once the co-director.
I did receive the opprobrium of my colleagues over my
activities.
Mr. Williams. Then this was because of medical malpractice,
I mean because of something you did wrong in the practice, or
teaching of medicine?
Dr. Goldfarb. No, sir. This was because of my political
ideas, or my general ideas about medicine and healthcare and
medical education.
Mr. Williams. That is disappointing and shocking to hear. I
am sorry that you had that conclusion to a very distinguished
career. You comment pretty broadly about medical schools, and
the application process. I want to expand that a little bit.
Would you say that the effects of DEI, as you described, the
harmful effects of DEI are limited just to medical school
application boards, or admission boards?
Or is there a broader issue, you know, with you know, maybe
it is accreditation, maybe it is you know, medical associations
or other interest groups, and professional groups around
medicine. Is DEI just on the campus, or does it have a broader
impact?
Dr. Goldfarb. No. Certainly, it has had a very broad
impact. American medicine, for reasons that are peculiar at
best has decided that it is been a profoundly racist activity,
without evidence really for that. I think this all started in
earnest when George Floyd was killed, and it has really
blossomed, if you will, since then, and more and more
organizations have taken up this cry that they need to purge
themselves of what has been a traditional focus on meritocracy
and focus very much on the issue of diversity.
Diversity is fine, it is just that we have to worry about
patient welfare. That is our main concern as physicians, and
not the benefit of the practice of medicine, and the benefit of
people who practice medicine, but on patients. Unfortunately,
that requires focusing on allowing the best and brightest
individuals to be the ones who practice medicine.
Mr. Williams. Have you had other doctors, you know, talk to
you about your experience, you know, being shown the door, or
at least being erased from the history of UPenn? Has it chilled
other people in the medical practice, the medical profession,
from speaking out on this meritocracy, or speaking in defense
or support of meritocracy?
Have you had--you do not have to name names, but have you
had private conversations that this has had a ripple effect,
even for people not brave enough like yourself to speak out?
Dr. Goldfarb. I do not know how brave I am, but I must say
that we have 7,000 members in our organization, and every day
we are hearing from individuals who have expressed their
concerns about what they've seen happening in medicine. There
are concerns about the quality of the individuals coming into
medicine, and the quality of education that's going on in
medicine.
This is an ongoing real phenomenon in medicine.
Mr. Williams. Do you know of anyone that got into medicine
because they were more concerned about equity than they were
about helping people? Do you find that a common theme? It seems
like most doctors I know want to help people, but maybe this
has blossomed into something other, another reason to enter the
medical profession?
Dr. Goldfarb. No. I think there is a desire, and it has
been an over desire to train medical students as social
workers, and to have that aspect of their work. Those issues
are very important, but we have social workers who actually
perform those tasks, and they are the ones who should be
performing those very important tasks, not the physicians who
need to focus on the care of the patients and their medical
problems.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my
friend from Washington, Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Every student
deserves a welcoming and supportive learning environment, and
that's particularly important for students from backgrounds
that have faced decades of exclusionary practices and policies,
limiting access, and the completion of degree programs.
Diversity, equity and inclusion programs play a necessary
role in fulfilling that promise of a postsecondary education by
connecting students with support. Unfortunately, right winged
pundits have targeted these programs over claims that these
programs are racist.
This misguided discourse has devolved into bills being
proposed throughout State houses, and eight that have become
law, seeking to eliminate supporting students who are
historically unrepresented, or under-represented on campuses.
Dr. Murphy, following the Supreme Court decision to end race
conscience submissions, this diluted thinking found its way
into State policies that discouraged institutions from
supporting students of color.
That includes Missouri, whose Attorney General directed all
colleges to immediately stop considering race and scholarships.
Is this required by the SCOTUS decision, and how does the
Supreme Court decision affect financial aid, or other supports
that are targeted to students of color?
Mr. Murphy. Yes. Thank you for the question. This is
incredibly important. The first thing to say about the majority
opinion, in SFFA was that the phrase affirmative action, in
fact does not appear in it anywhere. They use race-based
admissions. I prefer race conscious admissions.
That is all they talked about was the admissions process. I
mean if we want to be real sticklers, they really talked about
the admission process at two colleges in America, but you know,
we have interpreted as you know, this certainly does apply to
the admission's decision, right colleges make.
Every university in the country has reacted appropriately.
Many, many politicians have not reacted appropriately. The
Attorney General of Missouri issued that decision, or issued
his, I should say direction, in about I think the number was
27, maybe 29 minutes after the decision came out.
I read the entire decision as soon as it came out. It has
hundreds of pages. I am not a speed reader, I guess, but within
30 minutes they were prepared to say that the decision extended
to all these things. There was no mention of financial aid, no
mention of recruiting processes, no mention of DEI anywhere in
that Supreme Court decision.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. They clearly overreached. I find it
concerning that the race conscious admissions decision is being
misapplied to prevent schools from helping students of color
because, as you spoke about, and as my colleague, Ms. McBath
spoke about, students of color have real challenges. The
average percentage of students who returned to college in 2022
was 76 percent.
When you disaggregate it by race, students of color fall
below that average, 71 percent of Latino students, 66 percent
of black, and 62 percent of Native American students. This is
not about personal failings for this group of people. It is
about lack of access, lack of opportunities. Reducing financial
aid opportunities also contributes dramatically to these gaps.
Black students, for example, owe an average of 188 percent
more than white students 4 years after graduation. What should
be done to hold institutions accountable for withholding
support and exacerbating these gaps in admissions?
Mr. Murphy. I think two things are really important. One is
what I think a lot of institutions are doing is over
correcting, and eliminating financial aid programs, which
again, the law did not. The decision did not address in any way
whatsoever. We are seeing scholarships that are connected to
race being eliminated in red and blue states.
I think this is a fear of legal complaint. What also has to
happen, so schools need better instruction on what the decision
said. The other thing I think that we need, is we need a lot
more transparency in the entire admissions process, right? We
need for the first time to get disaggregated data on race and
ethnicity at every step of the admission process.
This will be important for accountability, but it will also
be important to I think improved practices in higher ed as
well.
Ms. Jayapal. Yes. Incredibly important. At the University
of Washington, for example, we have an array of historically
underrepresented groups that have really addressed this issue
of gaps. How can institutions use that disaggregated admissions
data that you are talking about to improve the impact on under-
represented students?
Mr. Murphy. Yes. One good example is that right now we can
only see who is enrolled in an institution by race. It is
really important to be able to see who applied, right?
Ms. Jayapal. That is right.
Mr. Murphy. Right. That is a recruiting question. Then who
also enrolled. That is a yield question. It would be helpful
for other institutions to see what is going on, not just with
their immediate peers, but across the Nation to find
essentially, the best practices.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize
Ms. Houchin from Indiana.
Ms. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the
witnesses for being here to testify before us today. I am
especially interested in the testimony provided by Dr. Goldfarb
on the impact you have seen at medical schools. As you probably
know, or may know, Indiana University in my State has the
largest medical school in the country.
This issue is particularly close to home for me. Dr.
Goldfarb, you described how DEI has caused medical schools to
focus on political advocacy instead of healthcare outcomes. Are
there specific examples you could give us from your time at
UPenn that illustrates that point?
Dr. Goldfarb. I am now out of UPenn for several years, and
so I cannot really speak to exactly what is going on there, but
what we have seen is just around the Nation. Increasingly
detailed kinds of programs, courses, courses in advocacy for
example. This is one of my favorite topics is training
physicians to be advocates for all of these political
activities.
There's no question that the point of this is to create
individuals who use the authoritative aspects of being
physicians to argue for political causes, and political
approaches. Our organization has gathered lists, and I have
lists here that I can provide you of multiple kinds of examples
of courses, seminars, you know, letters and applications that
require students to explain how they are going to implement
these kinds of political activities in their careers as medical
students, and then as physicians.
Ms. Houchin. I want to focus on a little bit of your
comments. You said what had been a traditional approach focused
on clinical science, and aimed at developing medical leaders
was being readied for transformation into a far greater
emphasis on community involvement and concern for social
issues.
You had said that American academic medical centers have
been the engines of advances in the treatment and cares of
diseases. What will this new emphasis on social issues do to
research and science in the treatment and care of diseases?
Dr. Goldfarb. Yes, I think one of the most peculiar, and
really unfortunate developments in all this has been the idea
that diversity in research labs is a requirement for successful
performance of scientific research. This is just absurd,
really.
What we need in the scientific laboratories are the most
qualified, the most creative, the most talented individuals,
and incredibly--it is an incredibly competitive area. The NIH
funds something on the order of 15 percent of the initiated,
investigator initiated grants.
To say that labs need to then demonstrate that they are
diverse is without real merit, without evidence that that will
do anything to improve the scientific quality, and much more
likely to reduce the scientific quality because the expenditure
of energy funds and time in order to create some sort of
diverse environment in the laboratory.
Ms. Houchin. Thank you. A couple of things I want to note
too. You have said medical schools around the country are
adopting an approach that seems to echo the curriculum of
schools of social work. In the K through 12 education in the
judiciary, all of these places we are really, and including in
medical academia, we are really trending into an area where in
your own words, physicians have not the agency to address some
of these issues.
We see social and emotional learning, diversity, equity and
inclusion, critical race theory. You wrote a significant op ed
to take two aspiring and call me by my pronouns, and that has
turned to some calling you an activist. When you were in
medical school did you ever think you would be considering
yourself an activist for advocating for things like rigor in
science?
Dr. Goldfarb. No. This has been surprising to me, and
certainly to my family, and my friends, and I have ended up
doing this. As I said in my testimony, I really care deeply
about medicine and about medical care, and about the care
patients receive. I think in my career I thought it to be a
wonderful experience and patients were treated wonderfully,
irrespective of what they looked like.
My great concern is that that is going to change. That is
starting to change now, and that is really why I have decided
to pursue this course.
Ms. Houchin. You note finally too, that there are concerns
that you share that this type of political and philosophical
theory really will drive division and poison the American
experience. You quote Ibram Kendi saying, ``Past discrimination
can only be remedied by present discrimination. Present
discrimination can only be remedied by future discrimination.''
I do not want to see us in a world where we are driven by
discrimination and that, unfortunately, feels like that is the
direction the left wants to take us. Mr. Chairman, with that I
yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Owens. Thank you very much. I would like now to
recognize my friend from New York, Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you very much, Congressman Owens. Dr.
Goldfarb, in our ongoing investigation of higher ed
institutions and the increase of antisemitism that is on
display at Harvard, Penn MIT, the three schools we have here,
but beyond that, throughout colleges and universities, one
theme that is very concerning to me is the offices of DEI on
these college campuses are inherently antisemitic.
I will give you an example from my alma mater, Harvard.
Even prior to the October 7th Hamas attacks against Israel, and
the failure of Harvard's leadership to protect Jewish students
on campus, hundreds of Jewish students reached out to Harvard's
Office of DEI, raising concerns about the rise of antisemitism,
and they did not even receive a single response from the Office
of DEI.
Can you comment? I know that you have watched as a former
Dean of Penn's Med School, you have watched what is happening
on that campus. Can you talk to me about how these offices of
DEI fuel this increase in antisemitism?
Dr. Goldfarb. Yes. You know we have written about it, and
Dr. Greene here has written about this quite extensively as
well. I think the point is that once you start dealing with
this identity politics. Once you start thinking about people as
members of groups, he has pointed out how Jews suddenly become
the oppressor simply because of their prominence in these
academic institutions.
Once identity politics takes over, then one of the natural
consequences of it is divisiveness and antagonism between
groups because now we are putting people into these groups.
Yascha Mounk has recently written about this in his book, the
Identity Trap, and points out as a man of the left what a great
concern this is for American life.
I think what we are seeing in the antisemitism that is
really sprung up terribly in the last few months, has been the
natural outcome of thinking about people as members of a group,
rather than thinking about people as individuals. I think in
medical school, in colleges and undergraduates that's what
we're seeing. I think these students have decided that are
parading and demonstrating this antisemitic sentiment, they see
the Jewish students as members of a group, not as individuals,
not as their friends, not as their co-students, but as members
of a group.
Once you go down that path this is the consequence of it.
This is why it is so divisive in America.
Ms. Stefanik. Dr. Greene, would you like to answer the
question as well?
Mr. Greene. Sure. I mean I agree entirely with Dr.
Goldfarb's comments, and just say that we systematically
measured this, I mean in a study we did of 741 DEI officers. We
examined their social media, Twitter feeds, and we observed
shocking levels of antisemitism coming from people with a
professional obligation not to do that.
It is as if we studied doctors and found that they were
smokers, right? It would be not something you would expect from
people in an occupation, and yet DEI staff are active promoters
of antisemitism in their social media feeds, and it is not
surprising that they also facilitate it on campus.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Owens. I would like to recognize the Chair of the
Full Committee, Dr. Foxx.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today, and shedding a lot of light on
this very, very important issue. It was recently brought to my
attention that all athletic teams at Davidson College, roughly
one-fourth of the student body, were mandated to attend a
showing of the firm entitled, ``I'm Not Racist, Am I?''
That was followed by an all-afternoon discussion with one
of the film's producers. Let us take a look at a part of this
film now.
[Video Shown]
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. We have Davidson's for Freedom
Thought and Discussion and Discourse to thank for bringing this
to light. Dr. Smith, can you provide a quick reaction to what
you just saw?
Mr. Smith. First of all, I want to say that what we just
saw there is what I am talking about when it comes to DEI. I am
sure there are various offices that are doing it right. Too
many are doing it wrong. That is the kind of thing they are
doing. The nitpicking between racism and bigotry is absurd.
Once more, typically those students are not allowed to push
back. I haven not seen the rest of this, but if they are
allowed to push back, if critical inquiry and a true
conversation is allowed to take place, then that is one thing.
That is not happening. You are not allowed to question these
things too much, or else you are considered a bigot.
Once more, a lot of these things that they are demonizing
are things that are helpful to our students, like individuality
and self-reliance, and reason and rationality. These things are
considered ``white ways of knowing''. This is not good for
anyone, especially students of color.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Dr. Greene, could you
provide a quick reaction to this film discussion?
Mr. Greene. I think it captures perfecting the DEI
worldview that divides people into different groups, treats
them differently based on group identity, and believes that all
whites are racist, and no non-whites can be racist.
These are not just absurd, they are actual natural
outgrowths of the DEI world view that informs most of the DEI
movement, and then we see in the professional standards issued
by the National Association of Diversity Officers.
Mrs. Foxx. Dr. Goldfarb, you have mentioned in your
testimony that Do No Harm found a similar situation in which
UCLA's Medical School required students to segregate by race.
Have you spoken with some of these students, and how is UCLA
responding?
Dr. Goldfarb. Yes, thank you very much for the question,
Congresswoman. Yes, that went on at UCLA, putting students into
different groups. There were white students, and somewhat brown
students and black students. Each group was different. It is
unclear whether it is still going on, but I have spoken
recently to faculty members there who say there is absolutely
no regret on the part of the institution about doing that and
feeling like the fact that this occurred and the views that we
had about it represented ``misinformation''.
It is still, and it has been advocated in the pages of the
New England Journal of Medicine to occur throughout medical
education, as a way of giving people the chance to have that
kind of discussion that we just saw on the screen, go on and
create divisiveness amongst the various groups.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this material again was
brought to us from Davidson's for Freedom of Thought and
Discourse. A former member of this body, and former Governor of
North Carolina, James G. Martin, has written an editorial about
this, and I would like to submit that editorial for the record.
Chairman Owens. Without objection.
[The information of Mrs. Foxx follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my
friend from California, Mr. Kiley.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It has been a few months
now since this Committee held a hearing with several university
Presidents that shocked the conscious of the country, and
opened many people's eyes to just how warped much of higher
education in this country has become.
For me, one of the most jarring moments of that hearing was
when President Claudine Gay of Harvard, now rightfully former
President, refused to answer time and time again whether she
could assure the parents of a Jewish student, or a perspective
Jewish student, that their child would feel safe and welcome on
her campus.
She refused repeatedly to even answer the question, which
just demonstrated very clearly that she did not understand the
gravity of what was occurring on that campus. Now here today,
we have had folks on both sides of the dais, you know, talk
about how DEI bureaucracies have been indifferent, and failed
to adequately respond to the crisis of antisemitism on campus.
Really, the issue goes deeper than that. It is these very
bureaucracies that have, in many ways--are the root of the
problem. Dr. Greene, you have some actual evidence
demonstrating that where you used social media to document how
they are in fact in many ways the source of the problem. Could
you just give us those statistics again?
Mr. Greene. Sure. We analyzed the Twitter feeds of 741 DEI
staff. These were DEI staff that we identified in our study of
the 65 universities in the Power Five Athletic Conferences.
What we found was that the DEIs that were obsessed with the
State of Israel, 96 percent were critical of the State of
Israel, while by comparison, they spoke about China one-third
as often, even though China is a much bigger country.
This was during the pandemic when China was in the news,
but they were not that interested in China. They were 62
percent favorable toward China. It crosses the line into
antisemitism because of the double standard, and the obsessive
criticism, and because of the vitriolic language that we found,
so one could be critical of the State of Israel without
crossing that line but it is very clear they did, and did
repeatedly, and this was endemic in the DEI staff.
Mr. Kiley. The very people that are hired to promote
diversity, equity and inclusion, to make students feel safe and
welcome are in fact, using their social media accounts to
promote antisemitism. It really goes to show you that these
have become Orwellian institutions in the truest sense of that
term.
When you think about what it tells us about the broader
culture of our universities. I mean our universities are
supposed to be promoting progress, not in a partisan sense, but
to be at the leading edge of new ideas. Here they are investing
in these bureaucracies, tens of millions of dollars that are
leading a 21st Century American resurgence of one of the
world's oldest, and most retrograde prejudices which was at the
root of the greatest crime in the history of the world.
I think we have to ask ourselves how has this been allowed
to happen? It is happening alongside many other things
happening at universities where they are rejecting the very
premise of the enlightenment. They are saying we should not
have free speech anymore. We should not allow the free exchange
of ideas.
We should not have academic freedom. We should reject the
very idea of merit. My question for you, Dr. Greene, or for
anyone is how did this happen? How did our universities get to
this point? It is not just limited to universities because for
better or worse, university culture tends to, you know,
incubate changes in broader society.
We have seen a lot of things that started at universities
have now become problems more broadly in American life. How did
we get to this point, and how do we go about fixing it to get
universities back to their core purpose?
Mr. Greene. Thank you for the question, and I will answer
quickly because I want to leave time for others, but this is
kind of a warmed-over Marxism that made its way into our
institutions. That is basically what it is. Good thinking
liberal institutions opened the door to these Marxists who came
in, and then closed the door behind them, and now they are
purging out the liberals.
Now, we have to dismantle DEI. We have to starve
universities of funds that fuel this nonsense. Those would be
the first things I would recommend. I think Dr. Smith and Dr.
Goldfarb would have useful things to add as well.
Mr. Smith. First of all, we need to you know, audit these
DEI programs, and not just the offices but faculty as well, who
are abiding by this ideology. We need people to see what is
going on. If people would deny being audited, that should be a
sign that there is something they are hiding. My time is up.
Thank you.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my
friend from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Murphy, you have
alluded to the fact that a substantial portion of your
education at a 4-year college experience occurs outside of the
classroom. Can you remind us of what a life lessons learned on
a diverse campus, and the value of a diverse education on a
diverse campus that cannot be learned on a nondiverse campus?
Mr. Murphy. Yes. When I think of all of us who went to a 4-
year college think back, we sometimes remember classes that we
took, but more often we remember the people that we lived with,
the meals that we had, the conversations.
All of that stuff is an incredibly important part of that
experience. For many people in America, which is unfortunately
still highly segregated, both by race and by income. A college
campus will be the most diverse place they've ever experienced
in their life. They will get to meet people from different
income brackets, from different races, from different
religions, and indeed different ideologies, right?
That experience is incredibly valuable, both because it
enriches one's thinking, and it challenges people. Then there
is also the more practical issue of when you leave that campus
you are very often going to end up in a workplace where you
will encounter again, different levels of diversity, different
kinds of diversity, which is why the value of these programs
are so important.
Especially in the front of faculty hiring as well, the
least diverse place on most college campuses is in fact the
faculty, right? Keeping that in mind, recognizing once again,
talent is everywhere, opportunity is not, also enriches that
student's experience.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Greene, you talked about
merit. If you can show that standardized tests have a racially
discriminatory impact, we know that legacy obviously
discriminates in favor of college graduates. We are measuring
achievement based on where people--after people have gone to
different kinds--of public schools.
It is known now that these schools are as segregated now as
they were in the late 1960's, and with segregated schools,
opportunities are different. How is--if you are subjected to
that, why would you not want to offset the discriminatory
impact with affirmative action?
Mr. Greene. I think the Supreme Court--thank you for the
question. I think the Supreme Court in its recent decision
decided that universities could not consider race as a
preference for admission. It did not speak to other criteria
that could be considered.
Mr. Scott. Well, if you can show a racially discriminatory
pattern, racially discriminatory impact, if you cannot do it
with affirmative action on one hand, why should you be able to
use those factors on the other?
Mr. Greene. Well, thanks for the followup. I think
universities have to figure out the best ways that they can
ascertain the qualifications of people for admission to their
institutions, and I am not here to testify about the best way
that they are supposed to do that. I am just here to testify
that they should not be discriminating on the basis of race,
and they should not be constructing bureaucracies that further
discrimination on the basis of race.
Mr. Scott. Well, it seems to me that people are a little
blase about racial discrimination on the one hand, but if you
want to compensate for it, people get all upset. Dr. Goldfarb,
you are aware that there is disproportionate incidents of
maternal deaths amongst black women. What can you do to address
that without involving race?
Dr. Goldfarb. Thank you very much for that question.
University of Pennsylvania, I have been very proud of one thing
that they have done lately is to tackle this directly. The
Chairman of OB/GYN there is a woman named Melissa Butallo, who
has made her career studying this issue of black mortality,
maternal mortality.
What they have done is two things to prove my point that
the whole issue is better access.
Mr. Scott. Well, even controlling for access for healthcare
and education and everything else, there is still a disparity.
How do you address that without involving discussion about
race?
Dr. Goldfarb. It is not controlling for seeking out
healthcare. It is not controlling for having healthcare
delivered to you. If I may say, two programs that they put in
place. One is they created teams that were focused on any
hemorrhage that might occur during the time of delivery, and
this improved mortality across the board, including in white
women, who are also dying because of mortality during delivery.
The second thing they did was to supply telehealth measures
in order that blood pressure would be followed up after
delivery, and they have reduced maternal mortality by 30
percent in that example. Black women have a 40 percent less
frequency of getting first trimester prenatal care.
Therefore, that deficiency is an important part of the
increased maternal mortality because the deaths occur due to
severe hypertension that occurs at the time of delivery. I
think the literature on this is very complex. What is
considered maternal mortality involves something up to 6 weeks
after delivery as well.
There are a lot of social issues involved here, but the
issue that I have focused on is it is not because the women are
being mistreated when they show up to have their babies, and I
think it is black women are now quite terrified to come in and
deliver their babies in hospitals because they have been told
that this kind of bias is going on, and it is just not correct.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Owens. Thank you. Thank you. I would now like to
recognize for closing remarks, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you again to your witnesses for the testimony. I want to note
that this is the 59th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when civil
rights protestors led in part by then recent college graduate,
our former colleague and friend, the late, great John Lewis,
who bore the scars of that day for his whole life.
I just want to note that, and I am very grateful that Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972 have laid the groundwork to create
campuses that are more reflective of our society. However, as
we heard today, and as we know, discrimination still permeates
within the intersections of our society and on college
campuses.
Students of various religious affiliations, socioeconomic
statuses, sexual orientations, race, and even disability are
subject to discriminating behavior. I am disappointed that
instead of having a productive conversation about how we
address the root causes of inequality, that students can face
on college campuses, many republicans use this time to target
campus DEI programs, diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
We should be working together to ensure that students are
safe and feel safe and welcome when they are on campuses.
Unfortunately, this hearing has not advanced that goal.
Democrats will continue to support and defend programs that
protect students and educators from all forms of
discrimination, harassment and violence on campus.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Owens. Thank you again. I would just like to first
of all enter into the record, without objection into the
record, a letter to support B'nai B'rith International, and an
article by Danielle Allen entitled ``We've lost our way on
campus. Here's how we can find our way back.''
[The information of Mr. Owens follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Owens. Thank you so much, as I kind of wrap up my
thoughts here. Earlier there was a comment about admissions and
the low admissions since the 1990's of black students into
college. Let me give you a novel suggestion. Let us start
teaching our kids earlier how to read, write and add. That
might be a good start.
That way you do not have to worry about affirmative action,
they can get there through meritocracy. The second thing is how
about we start thinking that blacks cannot compete
intellectually with everybody else. It is meritocracy, which I
grew up with, I am proud to say I grew up with, and we win when
we put the work and effort in.
The last thing is that we just need to make sure we are now
looking at the potential of all our kids, regardless of the
color, race and creed. I think one of the smartest strategies
that the Marxist ideology did, and I appreciate the comment. I
think it was spot on, it is an ideology that used really good
people, good liberals with good intentions.
They hide behind these good folks and do damaging bad
things. Again, we point them out, they say no you talk about
good liberals. No. We are talking about Marxists, okay? Do not
make that point.
They are really good at understanding how to control the
language. Diversity, equity and inclusion, you would think it
is a really good thing. Unless you think about diversity that
excludes Jews, black conservatives, and white, straight,
Christian--male Christians. They are not included in this
little bubble that the Marxists put together.
They have taking the good word of equality and changed it
to equity. Equality says I just want the opportunity. Give me a
chance. I will run harder, I will work harder, I will prove
myself to gain your respect. Equity is no, you come with the
right color, you come with the right ideology, and you got the
job.
Inclusion. Well, let us look at our colleges. Harvard
University now has a black graduation class, a Hispanic
graduation class, and a gay Hispanic class. At MIT you have a
black only dorm. Guess who is not going to be invited in that
dorm? Jews, whites and black conservatives. This is the most
divisive concept that we have ever seen, and it is truly a
cancer.
This is something that destroys everything that builds our
foundation of a country of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness and looking at each other inside out and not outside
in. I want to thank my great State of Utah. I will tell you I
am so proud of the legislators we have here.
We are very innovative, we collaborate very well. We
believe in fairness. And just recently we have a couple of my
good friends, Kate Hall and Keith Grover, who will introduce
legislation to ban DEI from our educational systems. It now
prohibits discrimination period.
It protects Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It eliminates
diversity statements. It creates success centers for all of our
students, not just of a particular color. I am going to kind of
wrap up with this one statement. I read this, Dr. Smith, and I
just have to respond and then kind of finish up with this one.
All right. Regarding the way that our black students and
youth are being addressed. Okay. I have been challenged by
white and black people alike when I express apparent idea that
is we should have more faith in an agency of our minority
students, especially black minority students, who seem to be
downtrodden, poster children for victimhood.
This lack of confidence in these children is called
empathy. This lack of optimism and succeeding in life is called
empowerment. The dismissal of very valuable skills that would
better ensure success in life is called social justice.
Anything that could possibly instill a positive outlook, self-
awareness, emotional self-control, delayed gratification,
achievement orientation, and adaptation is called white
supremacy with a big hug.
Whenever I hear educators advocating such interpretations
in higher education, I always say to myself, thank God they
were not teachers when I grew up. I want to echo that thank
God. I grew up at a time of segregation, but my community
believed in its kids. We believed in meritocracy. We did not
teach foolishness.
We did not teach each other to judge each other from the
outside in instead of inside out. Thank God for that. I want to
thank God for every one of you guys who engaged in this
conversation. We might not agree on everything, but we are
talking about the right topic. What do we do to make sure our
kids land in a better spot than we did, like every generation
has done before us?
Not feeling angry, bigots, discouraged. Let us leave our
country and our kids with the greater vision of our country and
what we can accomplish. We could do that, but make sure our
education is in the right place. This is a great start, so
thank you so much.
I appreciate your efforts. I appreciate all the comments
that has come to us, and I would like again to thank our
witnesses for taking the time to testify before the
Subcommittee today. Without objections, there is no further
business, and this Subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]