[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SACRIFICING EXCELLENCE FOR IDEOLOGY:
THE REAL COST OF DEI
========================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE AND
FINANCIAL SERVICES
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 25, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-38
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-817 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California
Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eli Crane, Arizona Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Brian Jack, Georgia Vacancy
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Reagan Dye, Senior Professional Staff Member
Peter Spectre, Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee On Health Care and Financial Services
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman
Paul Gosar, Arizona Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois,
Pete Sessions, Texas Ranking Minority Member
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Emily Randall, Washington
John McGuire, Virginia Wesley Bell, Missouri
Brandon Gill, Texas Lateefah Simon, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Glenn Grothman, U.S. Representative, Chairman............... 1
Hon. Raja Krishnamoorthi, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member.... 3
WITNESSES
Mr. Dan Lennington, Managing Vice President and Deputy Counsel,
Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
Oral Statement................................................... 4
Dr. Erec Smith, Ph.D., Research Fellow, Cato Institute
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Dr. Judge Glock, Ph.D., Director of Research and Senior Fellow,
Manhattan Institute
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Dr. Shaun Harper, Ph.D. (Minority Witness), Provost Professor of
Public Policy, Business, and Education, University of Southern
California
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Letter, from LDF and MBELDEF, to DOT; submitted by Rep.
Krishnamoorthi.
* Letter, from LDF, to Commerce, re: RFI on DEIA; submitted by
Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Harvard Law, ``Mission and Goals of the Racial Justice
Initiative''; submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Letter, from POTUS, to The Leadership Conference; submitted
by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Report, McKinsey, ``Delivering Through Diversity''; submitted
by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Report, CitiGPS, ``Economic Cost of Discrimination'';
submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Report, WH, ``Racial Disparities in Government Contracting'';
submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Report, DoD, ``State of Competition Within Defense Industrial
Base''; submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Statement for the Record, Commerce Comment RFI--BDP, Lawyers'
Committee; submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Statement for the Record, McCain Testimony, Legal Defense
Fund; submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Statement for the Record, NDAA; submitted by Rep.
Krishnamoorthi.
* Statement for the Record, RMSDC; submitted by Rep.
Krishnamoorthi.
* Statement for the Record, USBC; submitted by Rep.
Krishnamoorthi.
* Statement for the Record, Lee Testimony, Legal Defense Fund;
submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Article, Forbes, ``Google Photos Tags Two African Americans
as Gorillas''; submitted by Rep. Randall.
* Article, Brookings, ``Who uses legacy admissions''; submitted
by Rep. Randall.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
SACRIFICING EXCELLENCE FOR IDEOLOGY:
THE REAL COST OF DEI
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee On Health Care and Financial Services.
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Grothman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grothman, Gosar, McGuire, Gill,
Krishnamoorthi, Randall, Bell, and Simon.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you, first of all. The Committee
will come to order.
Okay. Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at
any time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN GLENN GROTHMAN
REPRESENTATIVE FROM WISCONSIN
Mr. Grothman. I recognize myself for the purposes of making
an opening statement, but before I do that, just a little bit
of house cleaning. I am going to ask that Congresswoman Beth
Van Duyne and Congressman Scott Perry be allowed to sit in
here, and they both expressed an interest in showing up, and,
of course, the more, the merrier.
Okay. Now welcome to the Subcommittee on Health Care and
Financial Services. Today's hearing will focus on the
destructive diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, policies
that radical Democrats have tried to insert in American
institutions, and really going back a little bit more than
that, all the way back to affirmative action and the executive
order put into place by President Johnson in 1965. I think it
is important we all understand the effect and the scope of
these policies have had on American life in the last 60 years.
On September 24, 1965--we got to remember to celebrate that
anniversary--almost 60 years ago, Lyndon Johnson signed
Executive Order 11246, which mandated affirmative action
programs and policies which facilitated discrimination. In
1965, minority groups had faced a generation of despicable and
repugnant discrimination, though I know individual universities
who were already practicing affirmative action ten years before
that. I know Princeton was practicing it in 1955. At the time,
these nascent DEI policies were nobly aimed at reversing that
harm. Unfortunately, even well-intentioned bad policy is still
bad policy. Discrimination should never be fought with more
discrimination. That is exactly what affirmative action and DEI
policies have done.
Over the last 60 years, these policies have infiltrated
nearly every type of institution in America, including higher
education, corporate workplaces, the military, and more. In my
opinion, it really has not been gradual over the last 60 years.
I think if you look back even in the 1970s, the 1960s, these
policies were around. These policies divide Americans by
putting them all in groups and educating people that they
should not view themselves as an individual, they should view
themselves as a group, which is why I think people who want to
destroy America are so in favor of them. Categories, I might
add, these arbitrary categories, are entirely self-reported.
Rather than focusing on the whole of somebody's
circumstances, DEI assumes that anyone who checks a box faces a
certain racist disadvantage. Of course, we do not want to be a
society where we go back and try to give preferences based on
other factors as well. On President Biden's first day in
office, he signed an executive order to promote DEI in Federal
employment. This order went further than any before by
expanding racial divisions, including immigrants. Thankfully,
President Trump rescinded this executive order and decades of
executive orders that preceded it.
Let us be clear about what DEI is. It is a deliberate and
explicit choice to put ideology over excellence. To deny
admission of highly qualified students, to accept students with
lower scores to fill in the box, right, is un-American, and,
like I said, encourages divisiveness. To award government
contracts to minority-owned companies over companies with
better bids, this is spelled out plainly in the ``E'' of DEI.
Under DEI, equity means ensuring equal outcomes. I think it is
beyond Marxism, though. You are trying to destroy America by
doing to America what they do in other countries in trying to
set one ethnic group against another ethnic group. You know,
you think of Canada, the French against the English. You think
of Middle Eastern countries, the Shiites against the Sunnis,
what have you. That is what they are trying to do in this
country.
Fortunately, despite the Democrats' best efforts, the
courts have been opposed to this sort of thing. The Civil
Rights Act protects everyone. Earlier this month, the Supreme
Court rejected a lower court's requirement that members of
majority groups must meet a certain higher standard to win
discrimination cases against their employers. By the way, the
case was unanimously decided. Even Justice Jackson authored the
majority opinion. In 2023, the Supreme Court ended race-based
admission programs at colleges and universities, finding that
that considering race as a factor in admissions violated the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Equal Protection Clause and Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The Trump Administration has launched a wide-reaching
effort to eliminate DEI, including revoking LBJ's 1965
executive order. These steps are critical, but there is more
work to be done. Above all, we have to educate the American
public what has been going on in this country in the last 60
years. Hopefully, the hearing will provide us with an
opportunity to discuss this important topic and consider
possible reforms to fortify American meritocracy and
excellence, and above all, have reforms that do not continue
with this policy of what I believe is intentionally trying to
set one group of Americans against another.
I yield to my Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER
RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Chair, thank you, and thank you for
convening this hearing. Despite this being the Health Care and
Financial Services Subcommittee of the Oversight Committee, I
am disappointed that the words ``healthcare,'' ``financial
services,'' and ``oversight'' do not appear anywhere in today's
hearing topic. Rather than conducting real oversight into the
damage being done to our Nation's healthcare systems, this
Subcommittee is once again failing to meet the moment. I can
understand the Majority's desire to change the subject. If I
had to defend the Big Beautiful Bill, or what I call the Large
Lousy Law, I would be looking for a distraction as well. It is
easier to deflect than to face the truth. This Large Lousy Law
is cutting at least $625 billion from Medicaid, leaving
millions without access to healthcare. It is taking food from
children through cuts to SNAP. It is forcing thousands of
veterans out of their homes by slashing affordable housing
assistance, and not to mention this bill adds so much to the
Nation's debt that CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, says
the bill may trigger $500 billion in automatic cuts to Medicare
in addition to the cuts that are happening to Medicaid.
It is no surprise that with the Senate Republicans making
even deeper cuts to Medicaid in their version of what I call
the Large Lousy Law, this Subcommittee is trying even harder to
change the subject, holding a hearing not about healthcare, but
how great it would be to pit Americans against each other and
go after the concept of diversity. The Majority believes
diversity is a barrier to excellence, but I believe that it is,
in fact, the key to achieving excellence in America. Diversity
means lowering the barrier so everyone can compete. When we
have competition, America benefits. Diversity means we have
more competition in our work force so our employers can perform
better. It means more opportunities for small businesses. It
means higher quality products and services, and ultimately, it
means lower prices.
From consumers to taxpayers to employers, everyone wins
when we expand opportunity and lower barriers to competition.
This is not theory, it is proven. Studies from across the
political spectrum back it up. Indeed.com, the Nation's largest
online recruiter, found that diverse teams make faster, better
decisions. McKinsey reported that companies with more women in
leadership are significantly more likely to outperform
companies with fewer women in leadership. Forbes found that
diverse workplaces are essential to retaining top talent.
Diversity means not giving someone an unfair head start and
making sure ultimately that the race is not rigged.
When I first ran for office in Illinois, I said my name is
Raja Krishnamoorthi and instead was called Roger Christian
Murphy. A tee shirt with that name now hangs in my office. Yes,
it is funny, but it is also a pointed reminder that the whole
point of diversity is that Raja Krishnamoorthi does not have to
be Roger Christian Murphy in order to get ahead. Real
competition and true opportunity drive economic success. That
is why it is no accident that Illinois is one of just 13 states
that sends more tax dollars to Washington than it receives in
services. Illinois does this by fostering diverse talent, and
it invests in having the broadest opportunities for everyone.
Those investments mean that Illinois ranks near the top
nationally in economic performance, education, and quality of
life, and Illinois is an engine of America's economy. Diversity
is one of its drivers. There is no reverse gear for prosperity,
and I will not go back to the days when the American Dream was
reserved merely for the privileged few. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I am pleased today to welcome our
witnesses, Dan Lennington, Erec Smith, Judge Glock, and Shaun
Harper. Dan Lennington is managing vice president and Deputy
Counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. Erec
Smith is a research fellow at the Cato Institute. Judge Glock
is the Director of Research and Senior Fellow at the Manhattan
Institute, and Shaun Harper is provost Professor of Public
Policy, Business, and Education at the University of Southern
California. We look forward to hearing what you have to say on
today's important topic.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Grothman. The record will show that the witnesses all
answered in the affirmative, so we are going to get nothing but
the facts today. Thank you, and you may take a seat. Okay. I
appreciate you being here today.
Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written
statement and it will appear in full in the hearing record.
Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that it is on and the Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow, which means
you have got a minute to go. When the red light comes on, your
5 minutes have expired, and I ask you to wrap up as quickly as
possible. We will start with Dan Lennington for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF DAN LENNINGTON
MANAGING VICE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY COUNSEL
WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY
Mr. Lennington. Thank you, Members of the Subcommittee, for
inviting me here to testify. A few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme
Court unanimously held that Federal civil rights laws apply to
all Americans equally. The law of the land is color blind.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, stands in direct
contrast to this legal principle. DEI treats individuals as
members of racial groups and then aims to even out the outcomes
through racial balancing, a practice the U.S. Supreme Court has
repeatedly deemed unlawful.
This morning, I would like to emphasize two points briefly.
First, DEI hurts real Americans every day, and second, DEI is,
in fact, illegal. At the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty,
we have represented over 80 clients from 25 states who have
been harmed by discriminatory DEI policies. We have filed
lawsuits, including six against the Biden Administration and
one recent lawsuit against the Trump Administration, to protect
Americans from these harmful DEI policies. Programs we have
successfully challenged include grant programs, investment
vehicles, educational policies, government programs that
discriminate against many Americans based on race.
DEI in the workplace is particularly harmful. Many victims
suffer in silence, fearing retaliation or job loss. For
instance, an employee at a Fortune 500 company recently told us
he was excluded from a fast-track promotion program because he
is White. A different employee told us about a policy that
rewards managers for meeting race-based hiring goals. These are
not isolated anecdotes. A 2023 Pew study found that over half
of American workers encounter discriminatory DEI policies every
day at work. McKinsey & Company estimates that DEI spending
will hit $15 billion by 2026. Beyond workplaces, corporations
like Microsoft, Amazon, BMO Harris Bank run race-based programs
for their customers and suppliers. Hospitals and health
systems, like Johns Hopkins and Cleveland Clinic, have
prioritized race in patient care, employment, or contracting,
and the Federal Government still runs dozens of race-based
programs even to this day, under the guise of helping
``socially disadvantaged individuals,'' a designation that
several courts have held is illegal race discrimination.
DEI is, in practice, illegal. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme
Court outlawed affirmative action because it violates five
separate rules just like DEI. First, diversity and racial
balancing are never lawful reasons to discriminate based on
race. Second, racial categories, like ``Asian'' or
``Hispanic,'' are simply too vague to enforce and sometimes
overbroad or underinclusive to permit any racial distinctions.
Third, race can never be used as a negative, favoring one race
over another. Fourth, race can never be used as a stereotype,
such as encouraging racial diversity as an end in and of
itself. And fifth, any race-based remedy, if it is permitted at
all, has to be temporary. DEI runs afoul of all these rules and
hurts Americans every day.
Congress should lead by example by reforming Federal law to
root out all benefits and preferences for ``socially
disadvantaged individuals''. In our recent ``Roadmap To
Equality'' report, we identified dozens of such race-based
programs currently enshrined in Federal law. Additionally,
Congress should provide more funding to support those Federal
agencies that enforce our civil rights, such as the EEOC and
the Department of Justice.
To end, I would like to briefly quote one of our clients,
Colby Decker, a mom from Green Bay, Wisconsin, whose son could
not get help at school for dyslexia simply because he is White.
Mrs. Decker told me, ``As a mother, it is heartbreaking to see
countless children directly and mercilessly impacted by DEI.''
These are not victimless policies and practices. Indeed, DEI is
not victimless. Penalizing individuals to ``make up'' for past
discrimination is wrong. As the Supreme Court wrote in Brown v.
Board of Education, treating people differently based on race
``generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the
community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way
unlikely ever to be undone.'' Thank you, and I look forward to
your questions.
Mr. Grothman. Dr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF DR. EREC SMITH, PH.D.
RESEARCH FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE
Dr. Smith. Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member
Krishnamoorthi, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak today. My name is Dr. Erec Smith. I am a
former professor and current research fellow at the Cato
Institute, and I am also the president of Free Black Thought, a
nonprofit dedicated to viewpoint diversity and academic
freedom, particularly in discussions surrounding race and
education. I come before you today with deep concern about how
diversity, equity, and inclusion, commonly known as DEI, has
evolved, or rather devolved, in our institutions of higher
learning. What began as a call for fairness has transformed
into a sprawling ideology that undermines academic rigor,
weakens individual accountability, and consumes public and
student resources. In many cases, it replaces education with
political conditioning.
Let me be clear: I support racial equality and inclusion in
principle, but too many of today's DEI practices are rooted in
a framework drawn from Marxist critical theory, typically
critical social justice, and postmodern thought. These programs
promote the idea that all disparities result from systemic
oppression and that institutions must be re-engineered along
lines of race, gender, and identity. This framework rejects
principles like merit and equal treatment, and instead replaces
them with a primacy of identity and identity-based power
dynamics. Thus, when most critics go after DEI, they are not
going after racial equality and inclusion in principle. They
are going after their opposites disguised as justice. This
ideology has consequences. In my own academic career, I have
seen how the rise of DEI has undermined meritocracy and
discouraged open dialog. When I questioned the efficacy of some
certain ideas and tenets, I was labeled a White supremacist. I
will give people time to wrap that around your mind. Okay,
good. When I questioned the efficacy of certain ideas and
tenets, White supremacy was what was associated with me.
My experience is not unique. Universities are increasingly
rewarding ideological conformity and penalizing dissent, even
when that dissent is rooted in rigorous evidence-based
argumentation. Now, many studies highlight DEI's apparent
benefits. Many others, however, challenge its core claims, such
as its role in reducing harm, preventing violence, or aiding
recovery. Research increasingly shows that DEI training often
fails to reduce harm and may even exacerbate it. A fair
comparison of the evidence on both sides is long overdue.
Meanwhile, students are paying the price. DEI promotes the
notion that minority students are too fragile for challenging
ideas, which weakens resilience and hinders intellectual
growth. Many now graduate with little improvement in critical
thinking and writing skills--writing skills, which are
sometimes dismissed as inherently White, and, therefore, racist
to expect from minority students. I will pause again and let
you wrap your minds around that. Even the Smithsonian's
National Museum of African American History & Culture once
echoed this view. Undermining the very traits that foster
success, this is not empowerment. This is educational
malpractice.
Perhaps most troubling for this Committee is that DEI has
become a publicly funded industry. Universities often use
Federal student loans and grants to fund DEI initiatives that
have very little to do with actual education. DEI bureaucracies
are self-reinforcing. The more they declare society to be
systemically racist, the more positions and programs they claim
are necessary to fix it. This alone does not prove ill will,
but it does create a feedback loop that diverts taxpayer
dollars and tuition revenue away from instruction, research,
and student support. The actual amount of the funding is
irrelevant. The money could be better put to use. Yes, some DEI
proponents say they do not abide by this detrimental ideology
and create initiatives more aligned with classical liberal
values, but where were they when detrimental ideologies were
ruining lives, demonizing critical thinking and inquiry, and
pushing a narrative of doom and gloom for minorities? In this
scenario, silence is indeed consent.
In sum, DEI has ceased to be a tool for fairness. It is now
a mechanism for ideological control, bureaucratic expansion,
and fiscal inefficiency. It undermines academic integrity,
penalizes viewpoint diversity, and shortchanges the very
students it claims to uplift. Let us find a better way. Thank
you.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. Dr. Glock.
STATEMENT OF DR. JUDGE GLOCK, PH.D.
DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND SENIOR FELLOW
MANHATTAN INSTITUTE
Dr. Glock. Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member
Krishnamoorthi, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on DEI, in
particular on the topic of race and sex-based contracting.
Although it does not receive the attention of other so-called
diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, the Federal
Government's programs to award contracts to businesses based on
the owner's race and sex are probably the most expensive by an
order of magnitude.
Last year, the Federal Government spent over $750 billion
on contracts involving everything from Army tanks to office
software, and its grants to state and local governments
supported contracts involving everything from energy
infrastructure to highways. Yet for years, Federal laws and
regulations have demanded that significant portions of
contracts at all levels of government go to businesses based
not upon those contracts' quality or cost, but on the race and
sex of business owners. The Biden Administration actually had a
goal to require up to 15 percent of all Federal contracts to go
to so-called disadvantaged businesses. We now know that these
minority contracting programs cost taxpayers tens of billions
of dollars a year, degrade our infrastructure and national
defense, encourage corruption, and do nothing to help the truly
disadvantaged. Congress should end them as soon as possible.
There are two main race contracting programs, one the 8(a)
program, which gives preferences to so-called disadvantaged
businesses in Federal contracting, and the Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise Program, which gives preferences to
minority-and women-owned firms in programs funded by the
Federal Government. Contracting officers are required to give
certain proportions of all their contracts to these firms or
require subcontracting to them. Given that tens of billions of
dollars are at stake based not on contract price or quality,
but on the race and sex of business owners, it should not be
surprising that many otherwise non-qualifying businesses seek
to take advantage of these. A Department of Transportation
Inspector General report found that over a third of its active
fraud cases involved disadvantaged business enterprise fraud
over the previous five years, and in those cases, the
Department of Transportation recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars in financial penalties. A Small Business Administration
report found that 20 of the 25 8(a) disadvantaged firms they
reviewed, which included 15 of the largest 8(a) contractors, 20
of them should not have been in the program.
Stories of minority contracting fraud are shockingly
common. Just last month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a fraud
case involving two companies that used a fake passthrough firm
to meet disadvantaged targets, with the passthrough firm taking
a significant fee and performing no work, which is a very
regular tendency in these contracting programs. Just this
month, the Department of Justice secured four guilty pleas
involving bribery by an 8(a) firm of a United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) official to secure over $550
million in contracts. There was a recent even more egregious
case involving an individual who, although considered socially
and economically disadvantaged, according to the filed
complaint, was living in a 14,000 square foot waterfront
mansion that was featured on HGTV'S Extreme Houses--or Extreme
Homes, excuse me for missing the term of the TV show.
There is solid academic evidence that these programs are
costly. A well-regarded paper from 2009 looked at what happened
when California banned consideration of race and sex in
contracting. The author found the cost of state-funded highways
fell about 5-and-a-half percent relative to federally funded
projects. A working paper from last year found that
disadvantaged business set-asides increases cost overruns by
about a third and delays by about nine percent. There have been
some welcome developments in the field of minority contract,
including changes in the courts and the executive branch, some
of which my fellow witnesses have mentioned. Unfortunately,
much of these contracting programs will continue without
further action from Congress.
A district court recently said that businesses can no
longer be presumed eligible for the 8(a) program based on their
owner's race, but soon after the decision, the Small Business
Administration requested current and potential 8(a) businesses
to write what they called social disadvantaged narratives to
receive admittance to the program. It now recommends applicants
for this contracting program describe how their race, ethnic
origin, sexual orientation, or other so-called identities and
characteristics have caused them to suffer discrimination and
made them disadvantaged and eligible. It seems the Federal
Government is now awarding large defense and infrastructure
contracts based on essays about putative social slights, which
would strike most Americans as absurd.
American taxpayers deserve the best deal possible, which
means the core of contracting with the Federal Government
should always be price and quality. Preferences for already
successful businesses based on their owner's race or sex are
unconstitutional, expensive, and detrimental to the core
functions of government. They should be removed from all levels
of government as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Now, I will go on to Shaun Harper
for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DR. SHAUN HARPER, PH.D.
(MINORITY WITNESS), PROVOST PROFESSOR OF
PUBLIC POLICY, BUSINESS, AND EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Dr. Harper. Thanks for inviting me. I am a tenured
professor in three academic schools at the University of
Southern California, but I am not here today as a spokesperson
for my institution. America owes the enslaved Africans who
built the White House and the U.S. Capitol Building. Neither
they nor family members of theirs and subsequent generations
were rightly compensated for those magnificent contributions or
for centuries of additional unpaid labor.
America owes the women who have never received equal pay
for their performance of equal work. It owes employees who were
sexually harassed and abused in their workplaces, especially
those who never received legal or financial remedies. It owes
extraordinarily talented service members of color who were
unfairly passed over for promotions in our Nation's military.
It owes extraordinarily talented people with disabilities who
never received the accommodations that would have enabled them
to advance in their careers, and it owes extraordinarily
talented professionals who never got a real shot at earning
their way to the top in their workplaces because of their
weight, accents, last names, sexual orientations, or skin
color.
DEI policies and programs aim to redress these and myriad
other longstanding realities. Opponents often critique DEI
plans that they have never read. They make unsubstantiated
generalizations about DEI experiences in which they have not
participated. I furnish several examples of this in my written
testimony. One such overestimation and overstatement is that
White employees are being most routinely discriminated against
in their workplaces. Here are the facts. Seventy-two percent of
employees in leadership roles at colleges and universities are
White. Cumulatively across all industries, 77-percent of
managers are White. Eighty-four percent of C-suite executives
in Fortune 100 companies are White. Eighty-seven percent of
Fortune 500 CEOs are White. Ninety-four percent of U.S.
Governors are White. Seventy-three percent of the current U.S.
Congress is comprised of White Members. All but one President
of the United States of America has been White. Put simply,
there is insufficient evidence to confirm that highly
qualified, White professionals, especially men, are being
systematically passed over for leadership roles on the basis of
their race. There is even less evidence that DEI policies and
programs are responsible for racial discrimination against them
or anyone else.
Opponents also exaggerate the amount of time and money
spent on DEI activities. At U.S. Defense Secretary Pete
Hegseth's confirmation hearing, Indiana senator, Jim Banks,
claimed that the Defense Department spent over five million
hours on counterextremism and diversity training during the
first year of Joe Biden's presidency. Banks did not disentangle
counterextremism from DEI activities. Surely, they are not the
same. Rhode Island senator, Jack Reed, pointed out that the
estimated 5.9 million hours devoted to DEI were out of more
than two billion hours that the Defense Department devoted to
all training activities during that same year. That means that
less than .3 percent of training time was spent on DEI.
Notwithstanding, Hegseth went on to say that as Defense
Secretary, he would ``send a clear message that this is not a
time for equity.''
It is essential for Secretary Hegseth, the Trump
Administration, and all other citizens to understand the real
cost of inequity to our country. Here are the real costs that
too many Americans pay with their lives. Infant mortality,
maternal mortality, diabetes, asthma, COVID-19, heart attacks,
strokes, AIDS-related illnesses, and most forms of cancer
disproportionately kill Americans of color. Analysis presented
in a highly cited W.K. Kellogg Foundation report revealed that
closing racial gaps in health, education, and employment would
increase America's GDP by $8 trillion. On their own, health
disparities in the United States annually produce $93 billion
in excess medical costs and $42 billion in lowered productivity
according to that same Kellogg Foundation report. Additionally,
the economic impact of shortened life spans among people of
color is $175 billion. Now, those are the real cause. Thank
you.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Now, we will begin to open it up for
questions, and I will call upon myself first.
Mr. Lennington, I would like to have you give us a little
bit of a background of what some people call affirmative
action. As I understood, it began in 1965, Lyndon Johnson, and
since that time, our Nation has shifted more and more in that
direction. First of all, I think it was supposed to be a race
thing, but at what time did people from south of the border
wind up getting added to the mix? At what time did women get
added to the mix? And do these policies result, as a practical
matter, in American businesses discriminating by sex or race?
Mr. Lennington. I think that is a fair estimation. What I
would say is, you know, the first thing to remember is that the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in July 1964. There was an
election in November 1964, and every single person who voted
for that law was reelected. It was very popular among the
American people, and one of the reasons why is because the law
was itself colorblind. There was actually a provision at the
end of Title VII that says that nothing in this law should be
read to encourage the development of quotas or goals. But after
that election, President Johnson did go on to establish this
Executive Order 11246, which established affirmative action
with some teeth, which meant that goals were going to be then
enforced by the Federal Government. And so, Federal contractors
were encouraged to set aside businesses for minorities under
something called the Philadelphia Plan that was later expanded
greatly by President Nixon under his Secretary of Labor, George
Shultz, and then basically ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court
in a couple of decisions, Bakke and Weber, saying that it is
okay to take race into account when you are establishing
benefits and burdens. So, based on----
Mr. Grothman. Could you describe what you mean by race at
the time? I believe President Biden recently added people from
North Africa, Middle Eastern. You know, when it began, were you
just talking about Black? Were you talking about Hispanic? Were
you talking about Asian? At what time were these different
groups added, and at what time were women added to the mix?
Mr. Lennington. So, the women were a few years after the
original affirmative action order was issued, but then, in the
1970s, the OMB came up with this Directive 15, which
establishes racial categories that we actually live with today,
which broadly defines ``Asian,'' but irrationally also defines
``Asian'' to exclude many people who are from Asia. For
example, someone from Afghanistan is not considered Asian under
the Federal law. Someone from the Middle East is not considered
Asian. People from North Africa are considered White. So,
people from, you know, different parts of the world are labeled
other things. You know, Hispanics are people who only derive
from Spanish-speaking countries.
Mr. Grothman. If I am, say, of German descent, but my
ancestors spent a few generations in Uruguay, am I considered
Hispanic or am I considered European?
Mr. Lennington. These are difficult questions, and I think,
right now, you would be considered South American or Latino or
Hispanic, depending on which Federal law you are actually
looking at. A lot of these Federal laws contradict each other
in who is in and who is out.
Mr. Grothman. Right. If I am one-quarter Mexican and three-
quarters Irish or something in ancestry, and by Mexican, I
mean----
Mr. Lennington. Hispanic.
Mr. Grothman. Even not Hispanic because Hispanic, as you
just mentioned, covers people of European descent who came here
from Cuba, say. Like I said, if one-quarter of my ancestry is
from Uruguay and three-quarters is from Ireland, am I
considered a minority for purposes of this law?
Mr. Lennington. It is presently interpreted as self-
identification. So, if you identify as that race, you get the
benefits under the current Federal law, so it is not a blood
quantum sort of process that they go through. They ask you how
you identify.
Mr. Grothman. You are talking about people who are at a
disadvantage. If my father is a billionaire but my ancestry is
Latin American, am I considered disadvantaged?
Mr. Lennington. Yes. One interesting point. We just won a
case against the Minority Business Development Agency, and the
judge in that case said that under Federal law, Oprah Winfrey
is disadvantaged.
Mr. Grothman. Right. So, is there any reason for this other
than that you want to divide Americans? If we are really
looking at disadvantaged, I can have a life of hell, but since
my ancestors are from Europe, I am not disadvantaged. You know
what I mean?
Mr. Lennington. We can decide who is disadvantaged in this
country by asking them. Under Medicaid, you can get on the
Medicaid rolls by establishing your individual need. There is
no reason to assume someone is disadvantaged just by the color
of their skin, which is what Federal law does in many, many
programs right now.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I will maybe come back to myself later.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the name of
expunging DEI, the Trump Administration has lurched from the
farcical to the cruel in its effort to rewrite history,
including, for instance, threatening to remove Emmett Till's
monument to even deleting references to the historic and heroic
Tuskegee Airmen. These actions are wrong but do not compete in
cruelty with the ending of a suicide hotline for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) youth,
which I just want to go into very briefly.
Mr. Lennington, in the Trump Administration, CDC in this
report found that suicide risk is around four times higher for
LGBTQ youth compared to their peers. You do not dispute that
these are the Trump CDC's findings from 2020, correct?
Mr. Lennington. I cannot see what you are holding up, but
are you talking about the Trevor Project? Is the----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No, I am talking about the CDC.
Mr. Lennington. Okay. No, I do not know what that is.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. In 2018, Republican Senator Orrin
Hatch said, ``It is a tragedy that in the United States suicide
is a leading cause of death among young people, and more tragic
is the fact that LGBTQ youth are especially vulnerable.'' You
do not dispute that that is what Senator Hatch said, correct,
Mr. Lennington?
Mr. Lennington. I am not aware of what he said at all.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And in 2019, Democrats and Republicans
came together to pass the National Suicide Hotline Designation
Act, which was signed into law by President Trump, and, Dr.
Harper, you do not dispute that President Trump signed that
into law?
Dr. Harper. I do not dispute that.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. This May, so just a month ago,
Republican Representatives Lawler and Kim wrote that this
dedicated LGBTQ hotline has received over 1.3 million calls and
texts. They go on to say in their letter, ``Eliminating these
support systems would be a devastating setback for youth
already at elevated risk.'' You do not dispute that my
Republican colleagues said this, do you, Mr. Lennington?
Mr. Lennington. I am not aware of anything to do with the
suicide hotline.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And that is the problem, a lack of
awareness. The fact that we are expunging an LGBTQ youth
suicide hotline in the name of expunging DEI is precisely why
this crusade is so misguided.
Let me go to my next topic. The Trump Administration is
eliminating DEI programs to ensure ``equality for everybody.''
That supposed equality has also translated into ending programs
that have helped working people get ahead, leaving everybody
equally a lot worse off. Dr. Harper, the California Medical
Association reported that the Republican Senate reconciliation
proposal will slash Medicaid by $900 billion. You do not
dispute they found that, right?
Dr. Harper. I do not.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The House reconciliation bill will lead
to at least 16 million people losing their health insurance.
The Senate plan will be worse. Within this estimation, the
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) reports that 1.3 million
Medicare beneficiaries will lose their Medicaid coverage. You
do not dispute they found that, right?
Dr. Harper. I do not, and it will disproportionately affect
people of color.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Crain's Chicago Business reported that
this proposed slashing of Medicaid will leave at least eight
hospitals to immediately close their doors in Illinois and
potentially hundreds of hospitals across the country to do the
same. Again, that is what this Large Lousy Law is about to do,
and we are talking about eliminating DEI programs all day
around here.
Last topic. The title of this hearing is ``Sacrificing
Excellence for Ideology: The Real Cost of DEI.'' I would like
to discuss some of the excellence within the Trump
Administration. Mr. Lennington, the AP reports that Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth is being investigated for accidentally
sharing potentially classified information with the Atlantic's
editor-in-chief. You do not dispute this report, right?
Mr. Lennington. No.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. ProPublica reported that President
Trump appointed a 22-year-old to oversee the government's main
hub for terrorism prevention. His only qualification? Having
served as the secretary general of a Model U.N. club. You do
not dispute that ProPublica reported this, Dr. Harper, do you?
Dr. Harper. I do not.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I have an interesting picture of this
gentleman as well, which I will show you in a second. Oh,
actually, he is here, this guy. Additionally, The New York
Times reported that the President's Health and Human Services
Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has promoted numerous
unproven conspiracy theories. He claims HIV does not cause
AIDS, that fluoride is a neurotoxin, and Wi-Fi causes cancer.
You do not dispute these reports, do you, Dr. Smith?
[No response.]
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In 2023, Mr. Lennington, you wrote in
an article titled, ``Re-nominating Trump could cause a
dangerous chain reaction,'' that, ``Republicans may want to
think about nominating someone else.'' To end on a positive
note, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Thank you.
Mr. Lennington. Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Well, thank you, Chairman Grothman. DEI might as
well be renamed DIE, because that is where all good things go
to die. Under DEI, no longer are skills valued because it
forces people to judge a man based on the color of his skin
rather than content of his character. We are all created
unique, men and women, in God's image, each with unique
talents. In the 117th Congress, I introduced the MERIT Act to
prohibit government hiring and contracting based on affirmative
action. I invite all my colleagues on this dais to join me and
to co-sponsor this bill.
In healthcare, do you want a doctor or a dentist like me or
a nurse based on my skin color or based on my qualifications?
By promoting DEI in schools, you are teaching students to see
color in their classmates before virtues. Now, I am not denying
that discrimination does not exist in this world. It does. But
DEI and affirmative action have historically failed to protect
Americans. You guys cannot keep repeating these same mistakes
because it is called insanity. Dr. Smith, would you agree that
modern DEI originated with the affirmative action?
Dr. Smith. Modern DEI did not originate with 1964 Civil
Rights Act. That definition of affirmative action meant a
prohibition of discriminating based on race and denying
resources to people of color. Later on, through case law, it
became a quota system, so it started out with great intentions,
but it has devolved substantially.
Mr. Gosar. Okay. For example, I have a bill to terminate
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Initiative or DEI
mandates in local planning and zoning decisions. Mr.
Lennington, anyone who is complicit in promoting DEI is
violating the civil rights. As an attorney, what are the
consequences of violating the Civil Rights Act?
Mr. Lennington. Well, if you are an employer, you can be
held liable in court for damages, and under Federal civil
rights law, you can be held liable for punitive damages, too,
so there are severe consequences. Also, if you are a Federal
contractor, you can have your Federal money taken away, or if
you are a Federal grant recipient, you can have your Federal
money taken away. So, there are very harsh consequences to
discriminating based on race, and everybody who does
discriminate based on race should be punished.
Mr. Gosar. So, should these DEI pushing companies and
schools be pursued for violating the Civil Rights Act?
Mr. Lennington. Yes, I think they are. Actually, right now,
under the Civil Fraud Initiative at the U.S. Department of
Justice, they are actively investigating U.S. companies. We
have filed a complaint against Amazon a few weeks ago for
running something called the Black Business Accelerator.
Lockheed Martin was just brought up in the news over denying
bonuses to employees based on race. That is a major Federal
contractor. And so, yes, the agenda of the Trump Administration
is to investigate and root out DEI in Federal grant recipients
and Federal contractors.
Mr. Gosar. So, you mentioned in your testimony that victims
of DEI discrimination often suffer in silence for fear of
retaliation. In your opinion, do DEI policies make a mockery of
real discrimination cases like those against pregnant women in
the workplace, for example, or individuals with disabilities?
Mr. Lennington. Yes, it does. It does not help the people
who need help. If people have been the victims of race
discrimination, we should punish the offender and provide a
remedy to the victim of race discrimination. Taking a job away
from an unaffiliated White male and giving it to someone else
does not cure the discrimination. It just pushes the
discrimination onto someone else.
Mr. Gosar. Dr. Glock, will Federal costs decrease if DEI is
truly abolished across the Federal Government?
Dr. Glock. Absolutely.
Mr. Gosar. What happens if we do not stop this madness now?
What are the dangers of a prolonged DEI policies?
Dr. Glock. Well, we will see continued high costs in
defense and infrastructure contracting. We will see increased
delays. We will continue to see corruption. We will continue to
see more cost overruns on government projects and poor projects
in general because they are selected not on price and quality,
but on race and sex.
Mr. Gosar. There is really no shortage of dangers because
how infected both the public and private sectors are with DEI.
We are talking about compromising healthcare outcomes, defense
force and readiness, and infrastructure construction. And I
just got one last question. Where does Native Americans fit in
this thing, Dr. Glock?
Dr. Glock. There is significant contracting benefits for
some Native Americans and some Native-American tribes, but
there has been a lot of evidence that, of course, the actual
beneficiaries, they are a small group of owners, and the
benefits rarely flow down to the actual disadvantaged Native
Americans.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Ms. Randall? Oh, she is not here.
Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, for our
witnesses for being here today.
The terms ``diversity,'' ``equity,'' and ``inclusion,'' or
DEI, have been thrown around today as if we are speaking on
some looming threat to America, as if DEI has some hockey mask
on, committing heinous crimes in our communities, and
destroying our work force and gutting our economy, and to Mr.
Chairman's point, we did our DNA in our family. We got a little
Irish in us, too, but it was not voluntary. And so, I am going
to take this from a little bit of a different angle or
perspective and speak on the history and impact or the lack of
protections for diversity initiatives
So, why they came about in the first place, because it
seems really convenient that you all are kind of missing that
whole point of where we came from, and so let us be real where
it came from: racism, right? And this country that we all love
has a history of racism: racism toward the very individuals
that make up our diversity, racism toward those striving for an
equitable society and an inclusive America because inclusion,
that part of the DEI, that just means everybody. That means
White folks, Black folks, Brown folks, everybody. So, racism
did not begin with one man on Pennsylvania Avenue, although he
kind of leans into it a little bit, in my opinion, but instead
has been embedded in our very creation as a Nation.
So, some of you may be naive to think that the trails of
racism that have plagued our Nation ended when Black soldiers
were able to give their lives in the Civil War or with the
signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. But even in the
1860s, Black American veterans returned home not to honor and
reward, but to terror and violence, denied pensions, denied
land, lynched, terrorized. This is the grim reality of Black
history in America, and that is intertwined today as we see
Black families face ongoing struggles. My grandfather's
grandfather was a slave. Like, that is not that long ago.
And so, I want to talk about three quick things: housing,
healthcare, and criminal justice. So, let us wrap our heads
around this because you were bringing that up, Dr. Smith. In
the 1930s, the Federal Government created the Homeowners Loan
Corporation, and it was so folks could buy soon-to-be
foreclosed mortgages, own mortgages, refinance them into new
government mortgages so people could keep their homes. You
know, who was not included in that? Dr. Harper, do you know?
Dr. Harper. Yes. Black people.
Mr. Bell. Yes. In 1939, Black Americans fought and died in
World War II, in every war in this country. Are you familiar
with the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, Mr. Lennington?
Mr. Lennington. No, sir.
Mr. Bell. That is the GI Bill. Mr. Harper, help me out
here. Who did not get access to the GI Bill?
Dr. Harper. Black people.
Mr. Bell. Yes. Okay. So, Mr. Lennington, you said that the
law is colorblind. I do not think that you completed that
thought. The law should be colorblind. Is that what you
intended to say?
Mr. Lennington. I think the GI Bill applies to all
Americans, right.
Mr. Bell. That is not what I asked you. The law should be
colorblind, right?
Mr. Lennington. Absolutely.
Mr. Bell. Because the law has not been colorblind, and then
I will ask you too just for clarification purposes, racism is
illegal, right?
Mr. Lennington. Racism is illegal.
Mr. Bell. I will take that as a yes. Now, I am a data
person. A lie does not care who tells it, right, but facts and
actual data, you cannot get around that one. So, let us talk
about, you know, how we got here. So, GI Bill, veterans fought,
they are denied that. They cannot get the low-cost mortgages,
payments for tuition, living expenses, and you know how
historically most Americans built their wealth? Housing. The
Fair Housing Act, also known as Title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, was enacted to address and prevent discrimination
in the sale, rental, and financing of housing. And you know the
Black ownership rate compared to White folks? Do you think it
is even, Mr. Lennington?
Mr. Lennington. There are large disparities in many areas.
Mr. Bell. Huge disparities, 75 percent to 46 percent. Black
residents are less likely to own homes. When they do
successfully own a home, it is often devalued when being
appraised compared to a similar home owned by a White
counterpart. So, let us talk about healthcare quickly. You know
about the Tuskegee study on syphilis? That Black folks were
experimented on for 40 years?
Mr. Lennington. Yes.
Mr. Bell. You are familiar with that?
Mr. Lennington. Yes.
Mr. Bell. Criminal justice. In Missouri, Black men make up
eight percent of Missouri's population but 45 percent of the
jail population. So, when we talk about health disparities,
when we talk about housing, when we talk about criminal
justice, all of these things are the reason why diversity
initiatives came about. And so, if we disregard those things
and leave things as they were, guess who suffers? Black folks,
Brown folks, minority folks suffer all the time. So, I think my
colleague said we can keep doing the same things and expect
different outcomes, but for Black folks and Brown folks and
minority folks, that means we get screwed over, over, and over.
And I think you made a quote that I wrote down, which I
thought was interesting, ``Racism impacts the hearts and minds
for years to come,'' right? And so, I do not think it is White
males because Dr. Harper gave us some data that you cannot get
around that White males are represented very well, and I am
fine with that. Many of my good friends are White males. God
bless them, too. But my god, what are we talking about here?
So, you know, I will close on this, and I see I am getting
a hook, and I appreciate the Chairman for giving me a little
bit of latitude. If we know that this impacts people for
generations and we know that Black folks and Brown folks have
been discriminated against for generations, shouldn't we be
doing something about it? I yield back my time.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. McGuire.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
You know, when I was growing up, our country, we were told
it was the melting pot. We live in a great country. Our country
is the greatest country because we were founded on the belief
of meritocracy, and I think everyone in the audience would
agree with this statement. Isn't it great we live in a country
where a man or a woman regardless of party, race, religion, or
creed can work hard and achieve just about anything? And we
could go on and on with many examples of people of all those
different backgrounds succeeding in this country, where they
would not have a possibility of succeeding in other countries.
What is so wonderful about our country is we are born with
our God-given rights. They cannot be taken away. And because we
are a republic and not a democracy, we are a republic with
representatives, even the minority has a voice. If it was a
strict democracy, only those in power would have a voice, but
your rights that you are born with cannot be taken away whether
your party is in power or not, but DEI is very harmful. It
divides Americans even further and promotes racism and sexism.
To me, DEI stands for ``didn't earn it.''
I am glad this hearing has been brought up. President Trump
and House Republicans have done a lot of work rolling back
President Biden's disastrous DEI policies. As a Navy SEAL, as a
veteran, if somebody saved your life on the battlefield, you
would not care about their party, their race, religion, or
their creed. We are all Americans. We should be able to
disagree without being disagreeable, but the law should be
colorblind. And again, I heard my colleague talk about if
somebody was to do surgery on you, you would want meritocracy.
You would want the best surgeon to save your life or your loved
one's life.
I also heard a colleague talk about diversity, but he did
not talk about the ``E,'' the equity, or the ``I,'' inclusion.
Everybody here loves the idea of diversity, but I do not care
what color your skin is. If you are the best doctor, that is
the doctor that I would want for my family. But the problem
with the complete statement of DEI is the equity part, equal
outcome. You put in 28 years of your life to be a great
musician or a surgeon, and someone just says, hey, I am a
surgeon and I have the same outcome. It is not right. In fact,
it is Marxist. It destroys innovation and motivation.
I am soon going to be introducing legislation, by the way,
that will prevent public utility commissions from authorizing
rate recovery for utility or business entity for return on
equity if such entities' business model or operations is
governed by framework based on environmental, social, and
governance (ESG) or DEI or similar social or environmental
agendas. DEI or ESG frameworks have incorporated into
businesses' models of countless utility companies operating
across America. These frameworks typically force utility
companies to procure a portion of their power from renewable
energy sources and dedicate a percentage of procurement from
minority-owned companies. This drives up operation costs, which
drives up the rates charged to their customers. Rate payers are
forced to procure utility services through these companies,
hence why they are textbook examples of waste, which
unnecessarily hikes up costs. Since many of these companies
operate across state lines or obtain power from other states,
it is the duty of the Congress to act.
My first question for each of you, yes or no: do you
believe DEI is rooted in Marxist ideology? Mr. Lennington, yes
or no?
Mr. Lennington. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Dr. Smith?
Dr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Dr. Glock?
Dr. Glock. A similar ideology of complete equity, yes.
Mr. McGuire. And Dr. Harper?
Dr. Harper. I do not know what you mean.
Mr. McGuire. No worries. All right. Now, I have another
question for each of you. If you had to have a heart surgery,
again, would you rather have a doctor who studied the hardest
in school and was the most qualified to perform the surgery or
a doctor that was in that position because of their race or
gender? Which one would you rather have? Mr. Lennington?
Mr. Lennington. I would prefer a well-qualified physician.
Mr. McGuire. Dr. Smith?
Dr. Smith. At the risk of not keeping it real, I want the
best physician.
Mr. McGuire. Dr. Glock?
Dr. Glock. The best physician.
Mr. McGuire. And Dr. Harper?
Dr. Harper. Are only the best physicians White?
Mr. McGuire. I do not care what their color is.
Dr. Harper. That was not the question.
Mr. McGuire. Okay. Yes or no, do you agree with Dr. Martin
Luther King's statement that people should be judged by the
content of their character, not the color of their skin? Mr.
Lennington?
Mr. Lennington. Absolutely.
Mr. McGuire. Dr. Smith?
Dr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. And Dr. Glock?
Dr. Glock. Absolutely.
Mr. McGuire. And Dr. Harper?
Dr. Harper. Martin Luther King would absolutely be
repulsed, repulsed by the politicized attacks on diversity,
equity, inclusion.
Mr. McGuire. So, you are not going to say yes or no? Yes or
no. You got to say yes or no.
Dr. Harper. No, no. Listen, I am telling you right now----
Mr. McGuire. Well, I got to move on to the next question.
Dr. Harper. Are you advocating hiring or promotion based on
character?
Mr. McGuire. We are out of time here. We are out of time.
Dr. Smith. He would also be repulsed by the lack of
classical values DEI gets rid of.
Mr. McGuire. ``DEI'' stands for didn't earn it, and the
answer was yes or no.
Dr. Harper. Are we hiring people based on skills and
experiences, or are we hiring them based on character?
Mr. McGuire. It should be quality and not race and sex.
Mr. Grothman. It is clear he does not want to answer the
question. Why don't you go on to the next one?
Mr. Bell. No, he was asking for clarification. I think that
is fair.
Mr. Grothman. If you want to get a one-word answer, that is
fine. Otherwise, we will go to the next question.
[No response.]
Mr. Grothman. Okay. We will go to the next question.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grothman. Ms. Simon.
Ms. Simon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a very, very
difficult conversation. I am a great granddaughter of someone
who had a literal yoke on her neck, a literal yoke, and I will
give the 4-and-a-half minutes of my time to my people from
Malvern, Arkansas, from those fields. And I want to be clear
that four out of the five of you last year posted on your
social media the words of Dr. King, and there are so few folks
who actually have studied, who are clear on the theology of
freedom of King. Very few of you have read and studied and have
sat in Ebenezer Baptist Church. So, I would ask you, you keep
Dr. King's name out of your mouth.
If you, like me and the many scholars who will be watching,
studied King, you know that he and the mothers and the fathers
of the Civil Rights Movement and of the movement for
emancipation not only would be struck by the conversations in
this room, but would be shattered by the consequence of lies,
of hatred, of abuse of this Administration in the name of folks
who worked to make this country more free, children of Abraham,
for real. I want to be clear for the young people that are
listening today here in this audience, this conversation is not
about an acronym. It is just not. It is just not. This is a
conversation, it is an attack. It is an attack on what you see
right here.
Now, see who is on this side of the dais? This was never
the plan. It was never the plan to have people of color in
positions where they would be able to speak from this place. In
fact, folks had to fight tooth or nail to gain access to the
front door to this Capitol. I want to be very clear about that.
Today's hearing says quietly and actually out loud who the
Majority believe is allowed to belong in this country. They use
Dr. King's name in deep vain, who has a place in the hierarchy
that was never meant to be questioned.
The Majority is leading a coordinated effort, I want to be
clear, to push us back to a segregated America based on race,
based on ethnicity, based on national origin, based on sex,
based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and
disability. Inclusion as a disabled woman? They have been very,
very clear: including folks who look different than the
standardized White man in this country, folks who are disabled,
folks who love differently, those folks should not be at the
center of power. That is the plan. They are motivated by a
fear, a fear of a multiracial and a multicultural democracy, a
fear that freedom of coequal citizens living as their authentic
selves with pride, and a fear they have, a fear of
accountability. We must name this conversation today for what
it truly is. It is a bigotry. It is a hypocrisy.
Republicans, like I said before, will quote Dr. King all
day, will bring forth Lincoln and will talk about Frederick
Douglass, in the same breath that they are gutting civil rights
offices in our government, in the same breath where they seek
to ban AP African American Studies that tells the true story of
this country. It ain't just one story, it is a complete story,
but folks on this dais do not want you to learn it. The
hypocrisy from the Republicans is not only shameful, it is
anti-American. President Trump and others have purged more than
275,000 Federal workers through mass terminations and unlawful
firings while--check this out--preparing draft hiring guidance
that would screen job applicants for political loyalty to the
Administration rather than the Constitution.
The Trump Administration put 500,000 qualified Federal
workers with disabilities' jobs at risk. Half of those are
veterans. The Trump Administration has forced out transgender
service members who have served their country with loyalty and
love, while elevating dangerously unqualified news anchors to
lead our Nation's Defense Department. The Trump Administration
rewards loyalty over expertise, obedience over justice. These
attacks are central to a broader agenda--let me just finish
this one sentence--that criminalizes protests, that bans books,
that erases history, and redefines its national identity in
narrow and violent terms. A 1950s America is what the goal of
this conversation is, and some of us say, hell no. I yield.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Gill.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing, and thank you to all of the witnesses for taking
the time to be here. We certainly really appreciate it. Dr.
Harper, I have got a couple of questions for you. Just starting
out, do you believe that ageism is a form of bigotry?
Dr. Harper. Yes.
Mr. Gill. You do. Yes, I thought so because you wrote an
article saying that ageism in media discourse about Biden's
reelection is an issue. Do you still believe that ageism was an
issue in the past election cycle?
Dr. Harper. I believe that ageism, in any form and in any
context, is a problem.
Mr. Gill. Do you believe that Americans who are concerned
about Joe Biden's age were bigoted?
Dr. Harper. I did not say that in my article, nor do I
claim that now.
Mr. Gill. You said that ageism is a form of bigotry.
Dr. Harper. Ageism is a form of bigotry, but I did not say
that in my article. You cannot misrepresent my idea.
Mr. Gill. Okay. Well, why don't you provide your
explanation for that. Ageism is a form of bigotry. People who
were concerned about Joe Biden's age were ageist. How do you
square that?
Dr. Harper. I am less concerned about Joe Biden's age. I am
more concerned about young people and older Americans being
systematically denied opportunities and access because of their
age.
Mr. Gill. Do you think that Joe Biden's age had a relation
to his cognitive decline?
Dr. Harper. That is outside of my area of expertise.
Mr. Gill. Do you need to be an expert to determine whether
an 82-year-old man is, who is clearly visibly declining
mentally on camera, if that has anything to do with his age?
Dr. Harper. I am not a cognitive scientist.
Mr. Gill. You are not. Okay. Of course you are not. Do you
think those Americans were right to be concerned about Joe
Biden's age?
Dr. Harper. Again, you are missing the point. The point is
about the ageism itself. It is not about Joe Biden.
Mr. Gill. Okay. We are going to move on. We are going to
move on. Do you believe that America should be a colorblind
society? For instance, should people be treated differently
based on their race? It is just a yes or no question.
Dr. Harper. It is not a yes or no question.
Mr. Gill. It is a yes or no question.
Dr. Harper. As I said in the beginning of my testimony,
America has not done right by indigenous peoples, by Black
people, by Asian-American and Pacific-Islander people.
Mr. Gill. Should people be treated differently based on
their race? Yes or no.
Dr. Harper. People should receive the services and the
support and the remedies that are owed to them.
Mr. Gill. So, your answer is that they should be treated
differently based on their race.
Dr. Harper. They should receive the remedies that are owed
to them because of the systemic racism and justice.
Mr. Gill. Do you believe that race should be considered in
employer hiring practices?
Dr. Harper. I do not believe that White people are the only
qualified people for jobs.
Mr. Gill. I did not say that. Nobody said that. I asked you
if race should be considered an employer hiring practices, and
you are not going to intimidate me by slandering me as a
racist.
Dr. Harper. I did not call you a racist. You are not going
to intimidate me by insisting that I called you a racist.
Mr. Gill. I am asking you a straightforward question. It is
a ``yes'' or ``no'' question. Should race be considered an
employer hiring practices? Yes or no?
Dr. Harper. I believe that diversity ought to be considered
as companies and other organizations attempt to represent their
customers, their country.
Mr. Gill. I will take that as a yes. I will take that as a
yes. Which race do you think should be preferred?
Dr. Harper. I do not think that a single race should be
preferred.
Mr. Gill. Well, you just said that you believe that race
should be considered in employer hiring practices.
Dr. Harper. I do not know. There is going to be a
transcript of this hearing. I did not say that in that way.
Mr. Gill. Okay. Why don't you explain what you believe?
Dr. Harper. What I said and what I believe is that the
demographic composition of workplaces, our Nation's military--
--
Mr. Gill. By demographic composition.
Mr. Harper [continuing]. And so on, our Congress, ought to
reflect the diversity of the United States of America.
Mr. Gill. The racial demographic composition. Racial
demographic, is that what you are saying?
Dr. Harper. Racial, gender.
Mr. Gill. Okay. So, race should be a factor in employer
hiring practices. That is what you are saying, is it not?
Dr. Harper. Organizations ought to attempt to match the
diversity of----
Mr. Gill. You are hopping around the question. You do not
want to answer that.
Dr. Harper. No, I am answering quite straightforwardly, as
a matter of fact.
Mr. Gill. Who gets to determine which races are preferred?
Dr. Harper. I already told you I do not have a single
racial group that ultimately----
Mr. Gill. You just told me that you believe that the racial
demographic makeup should be taken into account in hiring
practices.
Dr. Harper. And it should be reflected in all levels of
companies and other organizations.
Mr. Gill. Okay. Let us talk about college admissions. If
two different children are applying for college, let us say one
is White and one is Black, and there is one slot available.
Should they be evaluated based on the same objective criteria,
test scores, for instance?
Dr. Harper. Are you familiar with holistic admission?
Mr. Gill. Should they be held to the same standards
regarding test scores? It is a ``yes'' or ``no'' question.
Dr. Harper. I am a proponent of holistic admissions.
Mr. Gill. It is just a ``yes'' or ``no'' question.
Dr. Harper. Yes. No, I cannot answer that question for you
as a proponent of holistic admissions.
Mr. Gill. Got it. I will take that as a no. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Grothman. Ms. Randall.
Ms. Randall. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. You know, I
stepped out of this Committee for a while to go my Natural
Resources markup, and I think we began this Committee with
Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi's question about where the words
``healthcare,'' ``financial services,'' and ``oversight'' were.
And I have the same question now because what a wild ride it
was to walk into a committee and have a discussion about ageism
and President Biden.
You know, this Committee has had some really meaningful and
interesting discussions about health equity and the financial
instruments we use to ensure we are reaching people, and I have
really enjoyed the discussion that we had about the marriage
penalty and how we need to lower barriers for families from
forming in the way that is right for them. There is no reason
to have an unnecessary barrier if a family wants to get married
when they have children, and they should not be kicked off of
the support that is allowing them to thrive just because they
get married because that costs the American people more in tax
dollars in the long run if their child gets on public
assistance because they have higher ASA scores. I am sure many
of us have dug into the social determinants of health. And I
also know that, you know, Chair Grothman, you are really
dedicated to ensuring that we are supporting families forming
and more children being born in this country. I know that is a
priority of you as a Chair and certainly of our Vice President
and many in this Administration.
So, I have a question for our panelists, and anyone who
knows, please feel free to chime in. Does anyone know the
maternal mortality rate for Black women as compared with White
women in this country?
Mr. Lennington. I just know it is much higher.
Ms. Randall. Much higher?
Mr. Lennington. Yes.
Ms. Randall. Yes. Dr. Harper, you had your hand up?
Dr. Harper. Yes, I was going to say that for Black women
and for indigenous women, it is exponentially higher than for
White women, as a matter of fact.
Ms. Randall. Yes. I think the last data I found had 50.3
deaths per 100,000 for Black, non-Hispanic women and 14.5
deaths per 100,000 for White women, non-Hispanic, non-
indigenous women. That is pretty crazy, isn't it? And another
question: does anyone know the rates of Black women obstetrics
and gynecology professionals (OB/GYN)s as compared to White
women OB/GYNs in this country? No?
Mr. Lennington. I have done some work in health equity and
understand that there are very few Black OB/GYN females.
Ms. Randall. Yes. So, it is about eight percent to eleven
percent as compared with 68 percent. Now, it seems like there
has not been a lot of study from members on this panel on this,
certainly majority witnesses on this correlation, but it is
there. Like, that data is there. We know that when individuals
have providers that share their life experience, that
understand the challenges that they face, that share cultural
connectivity, we have higher health outcomes. That data exists,
and we have seen incredible work in states that have pushed to
lower their maternal mortality rates by increasing
representation of providers of color. You can roll your eyes
all you want. I see some eye rolls on the panel, but it is
true.
And if we allow one party in this country to wage a war on
DEI by calling it reverse racism but let Black women die in
this country, let Hispanic women die, let indigenous women die,
we are not going to have the babies that we so clearly want to
ensure that our country has. And, you know, I am not a mother,
but I am a queer woman of color who has grown up in this
country, who has watched my family grow up in this country, who
has watched my dad, a brown-skinned man named Dave, be called
``Jose'' because that is what his White peers saw him as. And I
think if we do not open our eyes to the truth about who is
dying and who is living, then we are failing the American
people. I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I will ask unanimous consent that 6
additional minutes be equally distributed to both sides, which,
as a practical matter means 3 minutes for myself and 3 minutes
for Mr. Krishnamoorthi, so in any event, then I ask unanimous
consent that 6 additional minutes be equally distributed to
both sides without objection.
Nobody is objecting. So ordered.
I will go first here. Dr. Smith, one of the things I find
interesting about this discussion is the idea that your value
as an employee would be determined by where your ancestors come
from. In other words, the implication being that there is an
Asian way to be an engineer, and a Hispanic way to be an
engineer, and a Northern European way to be an engineer. Could
you comment on that ideology that your value of employee or the
way you think as an employee comes down to, I guess, where your
great-great-grandparents are from?
Dr. Smith. I can tell you about some egregious examples in
academia, but first I want to talk about this concept of
colorblindness and the fact that colorblindness or the idea
that colorblindness is inherently racist that comes from the
DEI proponents that I have had interest with. If you tell
people that colorblindness is a bad thing, you are telling them
what to think of me without my say. If you tell somebody to
look at a Black person and say, well, they are Black, you need
to look at them differently, you are telling them to look at me
differently without my say. You cannot erase individuality,
individual sovereignty from this. Yes, we are parts of groups,
but we are also, and perhaps primarily, individuals.
To answer your question more directly, there are some
egregious pedagogies out there that I think we need to talk
about, like ethnomathematics, for example, the idea that Black
kids learn math differently from White kids, and, therefore, we
need Black math. That is stupid. I am going to be simple about
it. It is really stupid. The idea that getting the right answer
is somehow inherently White is stupid. The idea that having the
teacher be the person with the most authority and knowledge in
the room be a bad thing is stupid. Ethnomathematics, there is
ethno-composition. You write differently if you are Black. All
these things are there to divide us in certain ways, and I see
through it, and for that, I have been attacked.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Now I will give a question to any
one of the three on the left. We have brought out today that
this kind of affirmative action policy began in earnest, it was
run informally before that, but in earnest in 1965, and there
are outright businesses that have sprung up telling companies
who to hire and who to promote and whatnot. I have talked to
people in these businesses. As a practical matter, have these
laws in 1965 resulted in discrimination since that time? In
other words, are firms told to hire this person or that person?
Particularly, we talk about race today, but it is very much
with regard to women as well since 1965. Mr. Glock, you want to
take a crack at it?
Dr. Glock. All right. Yes, there have been significant
effects across the entire economy of the United States because
of these laws changing how businesses compose their work force,
changing how they contract or subcontract out to others, and of
course, as I have been----
Mr. Grothman. I am running out of time here. Does it result
in discrimination based on sex in which men are discriminated
against in 1965?
Dr. Glock. Absolutely.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Okay. I will ask Mr. Lennington,
too, because he is a lawyer and deals with this stuff.
Mr. Lennington. Definitely the affirmative action, 11246,
did result in discrimination. I would say the Civil Rights Act
itself of 1964 is colorblind, though.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you. Now, Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Sure. Let me give Dr. Harper a chance
to answer that question, then I have a couple of others.
Dr. Harper. Sure. The answer is, yes, White women have been
the biggest beneficiaries.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, let me just turn my attention to
one issue, which it blows my mind, that in the name of DEI, we
would get rid of the LGBTQ national suicide hotline, which
receives 1.3 million calls and texts. And there are people who
are specialized, and this was created during the Trump
Administration. This is not some kind of liberal Democrat who
created this particular hotline. But in the name of DEI, we are
getting rid of a hotline, and as a consequence, people are
going to D-I-E. They are going die. And LGBTQ youth are at
elevated levels of risk for suicide, four times, according to
the Trump Administration CDC.
Again, this is not the Biden Administration, this is the
Trump Administration. My colleagues, to their credit,
Republicans Lawler and Kim wrote a letter asking, pleading,
saying, please do not end this suicide hotline in the name of
expunging DEI. We are getting rid of this hotline. That is
idiocy. That is not excellence. So, when we are going to talk
about sacrificing excellence in the name of DEI, I respectfully
disagree in the context of not only getting rid of this
program, the national suicide hotline for LGBTQ youth, but
there are countless others.
Now, let me ask a question of Dr. Harper. If we did not
have slavery, if we did not have Jim Crow, if we did not have
discrimination of any kind, I do not think there would be
necessarily a need for some of the efforts that have existed
since the time of Jim Crow to address some of the issues that
came about because of those prior, what I call, original sins
of America.
Dr. Harper. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. What is your opinion on this?
Dr. Harper. Yes, that is right, but to be sure, they are
not only historical, they are also contemporary. Women continue
to receive unequal pay for equal work. LGBTQ people continue to
be discriminated against because of who they love. People with
disabilities continue to not receive the support and the
accommodations that they need in the modern time. So, this is
not just historical, it is also contemporary.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you. I have a few seconds. I
would like to yield to Ms. Randall.
Ms. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will just ask for
unanimous consent to enter a couple of articles into the
record. First, a Brookings article on who uses legacy
admissions, I think, apropos to our earlier conversation about
whether or not we are actually colorblind in admissions pre-
affirmative action. And also, a Forbes article from 2015 that I
think speaks to one of our panelist's points about whether or
not there is a way to be a Black engineer or a White engineer:
``Google Photos Tags Two African Americans as Gorillas.'' Thank
you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for
convening this hearing. Thank you to all of our witnesses for
taking precious time out of your busy schedules. Thank you to
our Members for joining. But I just return to something very
basic, which is this Committee has in its title, it is the
Health Care and Financial Services Subcommittee of the
Oversight Committee. The more that we talk about subject matter
outside the confines of what this Subcommittee is really
directed to, the less I believe that we are going to be able to
come together in performing our oversight roles, and today's
topic of DEI is a prime example of what we should not be doing
on this Subcommittee.
I hope that we can return to a time where we can do
bipartisan joint oversight with regard to issues squarely
within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, for instance,
going after illicit vapes, which continue to plague the
landscape and addict millions of teenagers to tobacco and to
nicotine; going after practices or companies or entities that
might poison our baby food with toxic heavy metals; going after
those people who might prey on our youth through Big Tech. The
list goes on and on but doing oversight in a way that where we
can come together as Republicans and Democrats and do the
people's business because today, I do not think we are doing
the people's business. I think today, unfortunately, we are
going down a rabbit's hole in terms of a narrative that is not
true and, second, that serves to divide, not unite, and now
more than ever, we need to come together.
I will just close with this. Yesterday, we had a resolution
on the Floor condemning political violence and condemning what
happened in Minnesota with regard to the assassinations of
elected officials and others. Republicans and Democrats came
together on this particular resolution. My name happened to be
in the shooter's notes, and I spoke on the Floor as well. One
of the things I said is this debate, this discussion that we
had yesterday, was actually exemplary in terms of the civil
dialog that we had, Republicans and Democrats coming together,
and how if we could just replicate that on all of our
committees and in our committee work, how much better off we
would be as a country. And so, I just respectfully submit if we
could potentially follow that lesson here on this Subcommittee,
we will be doing wonders for our country. Thank you and I yield
back.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you. It is a long biennium. As I
have told you, there are a variety of health-related issues and
finance-related issues people get around to, but the Chairman
of the Oversight Committee has given me broad discretion as to
what we take up here. The reason I took up this topic is
because I think it leads to division. I think intentionally it
leads to division as we have been educating young people that
we have a racist society and we should all view ourselves as an
ethnic group, constantly fighting with each other. I think that
would destroy our country. I think some of the other Members of
this Committee have pointed out when they talk about Marxist. I
think they talk about it in a little bit different way than I
do.
I think it is trying to destroy our country, particularly
at a time when we have so many immigrants who are people of
color from all around the world to have a bureaucracy that is
educating people that they should walk around with a chip on
their shoulder. And I think on the face of it, the successes of
people of color from around the world who come here, be it from
Africa, be it from North Africa, be it from the Pacific, what
have you, would indicate that everybody can make it in America.
And I think people who talk about how horrible things are wind
up only hurting the people who have to breathe this stuff in.
I also tried to point out that diversity is not determined
by where your ancestors come from, Okay? Everybody lives in
different backgrounds, has different parents, and insofar as
there is an ethnic view of engineering or an ethnic view of
medicine, well, that is kind of absurd on its face, right? I
mean to say that, what do you as a Black man, how would you
approach being a dermatologist or maybe how you would approach
as being an OB/GYN is a little bit ridiculous. There is a right
way or wrong way under the medical literature how to do things.
I did want to bring this up because I think if we are going
to move forward in a Nation, we have to look at the last 60
years and the degree to which preferences have been given. I
was glad Dr. Harper brought up that the preferences frequently
benefit women. But in any event, the fact that the preferences
are out there should destroy any public perception that I think
the Democrat Party is trying definitely to promote. I know
President Biden talked a lot about White men and White male
supremacy and that sort of thing, which I think was incredibly
divisive, but I wanted to talk about the law in the past
because, ultimately, I want young people to know that is a lot
of bunk, right? And we have actually had, what I will call,
reverse discrimination, including a lot of reverse
discrimination for women, as Dr. Harper pointed out, over the
last 60 years.
In any event, I would like to thank the four of you for
being here today. I hope we all do what we can to educate the
public on the effect or the laws that have been out there over
the last 60 years so they do not come here from other countries
and think that we have this horrible, racist country, which it
is not. I think a lot of that evidence can be shown in the wild
success that people who have come here from all over the world
have in our country. I think we also should look at some of the
absurdities of this law, which shows why we should get it
behind us, the fact a person can come from a family of multi-
millionaires, but if I am a person of color, I am considered
disadvantaged, which is ridiculous. I can be one-quarter
Mexican and be considered disadvantaged, which is ridiculous.
And I do, as one of the Democrats pointed out, I do think
it is very good or a huge benefit in life if you come from a
strong, stable family background. There are wonderful parents
of all types, but I think people who want to help other
Americans rise would do better on educating people or focusing
on telling people the importance of trying to provide a good,
strong family for every American. And I do not think enough
time has been devoted to that, and, indeed, people like to hide
that benefit that people get in life.
But in any event, I would like to thank Mr. Krishnamoorthi
for being here. I think in the future, we will try to give you
some nice medical issues to deal with, and I would like to
thank the four of you. I know this is a potentially
controversial issue. You have dipped your toes in it and I
appreciate doing that, and I hope you use your careers to
educate the public on kind of the danger of educating young
people that expectations of society is based on where your
great-grandparents came from rather than what you do.
So, thank you and, oh, I got to say, with that and without
objection, all Members have five legislative days within which
to submit materials and additional written questions for the
witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, this
Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you for being here.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]