    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           RESTORING EXCELLENCE: THE
                                CASE AGAINST DEI
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   Before The

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
                              AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

                                     OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                  HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 21, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-15

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    62-497 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2026

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE

                        TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman

    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina            Virginia,
    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania           Ranking Member
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    JAMES COMER, Kentucky                MARK TAKANO, California
    BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       GREG CASAR, Texas
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania         SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      JOHN W. MANNION, New York
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          YASSAMIN ANSARI, Arizona
    MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
    RANDY FINE, Florida

                         R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director
                  Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

                         BURGESS, OWENS, Utah, Chairman

    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina,
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina             Ranking Member
    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania         FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            MARK TAKANO, California
    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
    RANDY FINE, Florida                  VACANCY

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on May 21, 2025.....................................     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

        Owens, Hon. Burgess, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
          Education and Workforce Development........................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Adams, Hon. Alma, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Higher
          Education and Workforce Development........................     3
            Prepared statement of....................................     5

                                   WITNESSES

        Morenoff, Dan, Executive Director, American Civil Rights
          Project....................................................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................     9
        Harper, Dr. Shaun, Provost Professor of Education, Public
          Policy and Business, University of South Carolina..........    26
            Prepared statement of....................................    28
        Mukherjee, Renu, Fellow, the Manhattan Institute.............    36
            Prepared statement of....................................    38
        Miceli, Dr. Kurt, Medical Director, Do No Harm...............    44
            Prepared statement of....................................    45

                             ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

        Ranking Member Adams:
            Document dated March 28, 2025, titled ``Affinity
              Graduations: A Mosaic of Educationl Achievement''......    81
            Statement of Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)..........    83

                           RESTORING EXCELLENCE: THE
                                CASE AGAINST DEI

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, May 21, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
        Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
                                           Development,
                          Committee on Education and Workforce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
    Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Burgess
    Owens (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Owens, Baumgartner, Grothman,
    Kiley, Onder, Harris, Walberg, Adams, Takano, McBath, Bonamici,
    DeSaulnier, and Scott.
        Staff present: Lexi Boccuzzi, Investigator; Vlad Cerga,
    Director of Information Technology; Solomon Chen, Professional
    Staff Member; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human
    Services Policy; Libby Kearns, Press Assistant; Isaiah Knox,
    Legislative Assistant; Campbell Ladd, Clerk; R.J. Laukitis,
    Staff Director; Danny Marca, Director of Information
    Technology; John Martin, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy/
    Counsel; Audra McGeorge, Communications Director; Eli Mitchell,
    Legislative Assistant; Alexis Morgan, Intern; Ethan Pann,
    Deputy Press Secretary and Digital Director; Kane Riddell,
    Staff Assistant; Carl Rifino, Intern; Sara Robertson, Press
    Secretary; Russell Chance, Economist and Policy Advisor; Brad
    Thomas, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
    Ann Vogel, Director of Operations; Ali Watson, Director of
    Member Services; James Whittaker, General Counsel; Ellie
    Berenson, Minority Press Assistant; Ilana Bruner, Minority
    General Counsel; Ni'Aisha Banks, Minority Policy Aide &
    Internship Coordinator; Rashage Green, Minority Director of
    Education Policy & Counsel; Christian Haines, Minority General
    Counsel; Patrick Jo, Minority Intern; Raiyana Malone, Minority
    Press Secretary; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director;
    Banyon Vassar, Minority Director of IT.
        Chairman Owens. The Subcommittee on Higher Education and
    Workforce Development will come to order. I note there is a
    quorum present. Without objections, the Chair is authorized to
    call a recess at any time. Whitewashing history, creating a
    conservative bogeyman, using racist dog whistles. This is what
    the Left's accusation is whenever American's call out the toxic
    ideology known as diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI.
        DEI supporters promise that they will break barriers,
    promote opportunity and right our historical wrongs. It is an
    ideology that takes its inspiration from Karl Marx, who was
    honest in his vision of America's historical theft, the first
    battleground is rewriting history. Its philosophical roots
    nourished in the seabed of Marxism. DEI states that our
    surrounding social construct determines our destiny, not
    effort, tenacity, grit, dreams, or character, but instead our
    ancestry, history and color.
        Demeaning and racist to its core. DEI states that based on
    your color you are either an evil oppressor or hopeless,
    hapless, weak and oppressed victim. It teaches that all social
    ills could be traced to an oppressor, a segment of people in
    which prejudice and hatred is always justified.
        We see results in the teaching of our campus colleges
    throughout our country where the Jewish race is replaced by
    Marxist professors at the very top of the oppressor spectrum.
    Antisemitism therefore runs rampant and unashamed. The vision
    of our educational institutions from our founding--country's
    founding, has been to prepare every succeeding generation to be
    wise stewards of our Nation's commitment to become a more
    perfect union.
        Despite Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action, it
    appears that some universities are still playing the sematic
    word game with their admission processes. They are continuing
    to discriminate against students based on their race, but under
    different names. DEI adherence in these institutions continue
    to be a large factor in staff promotions and tenure and
    continues to feed the lack of ideological diversity among
    faculty.
        Students are forced to participate in DEI programs in order
    to graduate. Accreditors, instead of holding institutions
    accountable for the student's outcome, are imposing on them DEI
    requirements. The most disastrous outcome of this divisive
    ideology is the impact it has had on low-income,
    underrepresented populations that democrats claim to care
    about.
        As college costs remain high, self-confidence drops to new
    lows, and students often leave worse off than if they never
    attended in the first place. In the strongholds of DEI,
    students are left to doubt whether their personal
    accomplishments are due to their merit, or due to their skin
    color.
        There is no worse area for DEI than in medical education.
    Instead of a focus on the best medical practice for each
    patient, healthcare disparities are quickly blamed on the
    oppression. The DEI solution therefore to discrimination is for
    more discrimination, resulting in racist healthcare policies
    that in the real world have life and death consequences.
        From day one, the Trump administration has taken a strong
    stance against DEI, recognizing that it is contrary to
    America's idea of hard work, merit and equality. This
    administration has undone countless discriminatory Biden/Harris
    executive orders, and worked to ensure that DEI has no place in
    our universities.
        The universities who believe you can simply change the name
    of your DEI offices and continue to teach hatred and
    discrimination, as a heads up, this Committee will not be
    silent. We owe it to the next generation to teach them that due
    to our American DNA, based on faith, family, the free market
    education, there are always reasons to be hopeful and never
    hopeless.
        I look forward to our discussion today, and I yield now to
    Ranking Member.
        [The statement of Chairman Owens follows:]

       Statement of Hon. Burgess Owens, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
                      Education and Workforce Development

        Whitewashing history. Creating a conservative boogeyman. Using a
    racist dog-whistle.
        These are the Left's accusations whenever Americans call out the
    toxic ideology known as ``diversity, equity, and inclusion,'' or D-E-I.
    DEI supporters promise it will break barriers, promote opportunity, and
    right our historical wrongs. It is an ideology that takes its
    inspiration from Karl Marx, who was honest in his vision of historical
    theft--``the firstbattleground is the rewriting of history.''
        With its historical and philosophical roots nourished in the
    seedbed of Marxism, DEI states that our surrounding social construct
    determines our destiny. Not effort, tenacity, grit, dreams, or
    character but instead our ancestry, history, and color. Demeaning and
    racist to its core, DEI claims that based on your color, you are either
    an evil oppressor or ahopeless, hapless, weak and oppressed victim. It
    teaches that all societal ills can be traced to an oppressor--a segment
    of people to which prejudice and hate is always justified. We see the
    results of this teaching on our college campuses throughout our country
    where Jews are placed, by Marxist professors, at the very top of its
    ``oppressor'' spectrum.Antisemitism therefore runs rampant and
    unashamed.
        The vision of our educational institutions, from our country's
    founding, has been to prepare every succeeding generation to be wise
    stewards of our nation's commitment to become a more perfect union.
        Despite the Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action, it
    appears universities are still playing semantic word games with their
    admissions processes. They are continuing to discriminate against
    students based on their race but under different names. DEI adherence
    in these institutions continues to be a large factor in staff promotion
    and tenure andcontinues to feed the lack of ideological diversity among
    faculty. Students are forced to participate in DEI programming in order
    to graduate. Accreditors, instead of holding institutions accountable
    for student outcomes, are imposing on them DEI requirements.
        The most disastrous outcome of this divisive ideology is the impact
    it's had on the low-income, ``underrepresented'' populations that
    Democrats claim to care about. As college costs remain sky high, self-
    confidence drops to a new low, and students often leave worse off than
    if they had never attended in the first place. In the strongholds of
    DEI, students are left to doubt whether their personal accomplishments
    are due to their merit or to their skin color.
        There is no worse area for DEI than in medical education. Instead
    of a focus on the best medical care for each patient, health care
    disparities are quickly blamed on ``oppression.'' The DEI ``solution''
    therefore todiscrimination is more discrimination resulting in racist
    health care policies that in the real world have life and death
    consequences.
        From day one the Trump administration has taken a strong stance
    against DEI, recognizing that it is contrary to the American ideals of
    hard work, merit, and equality. This administration has undone
    countless discriminatory Biden-Harris executive orders and worked to
    ensure DEI has no place in our universities.
        I am excited to see states across the country, including my home
    state of Utah, work to end this evil presence.
        To the institutions who believe you can simply change the name of
    your DEI offices and continue to teach hatred and discrimination--as a
    heads up--this Committee will not be silent.
        We owe it to the next generation to teach them that due to our
    American DNA based on faith, family, the free market, and education,
    there are always reasons to be hopeful and never hopeless. I look
    forward to our discussion today, and with that I yield to the Ranking
    Member.
                                     ______

        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first of all
    thank all of our witnesses for being here today. Diversity,
    equity, inclusion and accessibility, DEIA, these efforts are
    essential to ensuring that our education system reflects the
    richness of our society, and provides every student with the
    opportunity to succeed.
        DEIA is not about lowering standards or moving away from
    merit-based selection. It is about ensuring that everyone has a
    fair shot, everyone is respected and feels like they belong.
    Historically, policies like slavery and Jim Crow laws, and
    redlining has systemically excluded marginalized communities
    from equal opportunities. DEIA works to systematically include
    people on campuses, and ensure that no one feels unwelcome.
        As a former college professor for 40 years, I have seen
    firsthand how DEIA initiatives can transform the lives of
    students. These programs provide students from historically
    marginalized backgrounds with the tools and the resources, and
    the opportunities they need to succeed and thrive.
        DEIA efforts are critical to breaking down barriers,
    eliminating educational disparities, and ensuring that all
    students, regardless of their background, receive a high-
    quality, well-rounded education. Now, these efforts help level
    the playing field for students from all walks of life, from
    first generation college students to those from racially
    diverse communities, to students with disabilities and
    veterans, and more.
        They are vital in creating learning environments where
    every student has the chance to succeed, not just a few. Every
    student deserves a safe, diverse and welcoming learning
    environment. Now, this is not just an ideal, it is a necessity
    for the future of this Nation. Diversity and education in our
    classrooms, our campuses, and curriculum leads to better
    outcomes for all students.
        It fosters critical thinking, enriches the educational
    experience, and it prepares students to navigate the complex
    and diverse world that we live in. We cannot afford to rewrite
    history, or roll back the progress that we have made. It is our
    responsibility to ensure that all Americans, no matter their
    race, background, or economic status, have access to
    opportunity to pursue a college degree, and to achieve their
    dreams.
        Today I wanted to take a moment to specifically address the
    harmful effects these anti-DEI efforts have had on historically
    black colleges and universities, HBCUs. These are institutions
    which I hold dear. These attacks on DEIA initiatives,
    universities like my Alma Mater, North Carolina A&T and Morgan
    State University, have been forced to confront the loss of
    millions of dollars in research funding.
        These losses are a direct result of Federal grants and
    contracts that are tied to diversity, equity, inclusion and
    accessibility programs being slashed, or eliminated altogether.
    That time may have little or nothing to do with the DEI
    initiatives, simply having the wrong word in the title of a
    program can result in your funding being canceled, as Morgan
    State recently found out.
        The school's Center for Equitable Artificial Intelligence
    and Machine Learning Systems would seeks to create a
    trustworthy AI that draws on research, and its Federal funding,
    they had it cut, worked to eliminate AI hallucinations, a
    problem that we all know exists, is defunded because the word
    ``equitable'' was in the Center's title.
        For HBCUs, these cuts are especially devastating. HBCUs
    have long played a critical role in educating students from
    historically marginalized communities, particularly black
    students. However, many of these institutions already operate
    on tight budgets. They rely heavily on Federal grants and
    research funding to sustain programs that support students and
    faculty.
        With Federal agencies slashing funding for DEI efforts,
    HBCUs are forced to do more with fewer resources. Institutions
    have had to trim already lean budgets, while others are
    launching emergency fundraising campaigns just to stay afloat.
    These funding cuts are not just numbers on a page. They
    represent real consequences for students.
        Without these resources, our HBCUs cannot offer the support
    that so many of their students need to thrive academically, and
    professionally. The impact is widespread, affecting not just
    the institutions themselves, but also the students that they
    educate, the faculty who teach them, and the communities these
    schools serve. The truth is all institutions are grappling with
    the crisis as they navigate an ever-shifting Federal funding
    landscape, that increasingly undermines their ability to
    fulfill their mission.
        The loss of funding for DEI initiatives and research grants
    represents an attack on the heart of what our universities
    stand for, providing access to higher education for students
    who have historically been excluded from these opportunities.
    We cannot allow the damage to continue. We must work together
    to ensure that our institutions of higher education receive the
    support that they need to continue educating the next
    generation of leaders, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and change
    makers.
        In conclusion, we cannot allow the work of advancing
    educational equity to be undone. We must protect and strengthen
    DEI efforts, not just for the future of higher education, but
    for the students it serves. We have a responsibility to ensure
    that every student, regardless of background, has a real
    opportunity to succeed.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back.
        [The statement of Ranking Member Adams follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Alma Adams, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Higher
                      Education and Workforce Development

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first of all thank our witnesses
    for being here today.
        Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) efforts are
    essential to ensuring that our education systemreflects the richness of
    our society and provides every student with the opportunity to succeed.
    DEIA is not aboutlowering standards or moving away from merit-based
    selection: it is about ensuring that everyone has a fair shot,everyone
    is respected and feels like they belong. Historically, policies like
    slavery, Jim Crow laws, and redlininghave systematically excluded
    marginalized communities from equal opportunities. DEIA works to
    systematicallyinclude people on campuses and ensure that no one feels
    unwelcome.
        As a former college professor for 40 years, I have seen firsthand
    how DEIA initiatives can transform the lives ofstudents. These programs
    provide students from historically marginalized backgrounds with the
    tools, resources,and opportunities they need to succeed and thrive.
    DEIA efforts are critical to breaking down barriers,
    eliminatingeducational disparities, and ensuring that all students
    regardless of their background receive a high-quality,
    wellroundededucation.
        These efforts help level the playing field for students from all
    walks of life, from first-generation college studentsto those from
    racially diverse communities to students with disabilities, veterans,
    and more. They are vital increating learning environments where every
    student has the chance to succeed, not just a few.
        Every student deserves a safe, diverse, and welcoming learning
    environment. This is not just an ideal; it is anecessity for the future
    of this nation. Diversity in education in our classrooms, campuses, and
    curricula leads tobetter outcomes for all students. It fosters critical
    thinking, enriches the educational experience, and preparesstudents to
    navigate the complex and diverse world we live in. We cannot afford to
    rewrite history or roll backthe progress we have made. It is our
    responsibility to ensure that all Americans, no matter their race,
    background,or economic status, have access to the opportunity to pursue
    a college degree and to achieve their dreams.Today, I want to take a
    moment to specifically address the harmful effects these anti-DEIA
    efforts have had onHistorically Black Colleges and Universities
    (HBCUs), institutions which I hold dear. These attacks on
    DEIAinitiatives, universities like my alma mater North Carolina A&T and
    Morgan State University have been forcedto confront the loss of
    millions of dollars in research funding.
        These losses are a direct result of federal grants and contracts
    that are tied to diversity, equity, inclusion, andaccessibility
    programs being slashed or eliminated altogether. That tie may have to
    nothing to do with theDEIA initiatives. Simply having the wrong word in
    the title of a program can result in your funding beingcancelled as
    Morgan State recently found out. The school's Center for Equitable
    Artificial Intelligence andMachine Learning Systems, which seeks to
    create a ``trustworthy'' A.I. that draws on real research, had its
    federalfunding they had it cut. Work to limit A.I. hallucinations, a
    problem we all know exists, is defunded because theword "equitable" was
    in the Center's title.
        For HBCUs, these cuts are especially devastating. HBCUs have long
    played a critical role in educating studentsfrom historically
    marginalized communities, particularly Black students. However, many of
    these institutionsalready operate on tight budgets, relying heavily on
    federal grants and research funding to sustain programs thatsupport
    students and faculty. With federal agencies slashing funding for DEI
    efforts, HBCUs are forced to domore with fewer resources. Institutions
    have had to trim already lean budgets, while others are
    launchingemergency fundraising campaigns just to stay afloat.
        These funding cuts are not just numbers on a page, they represent
    real consequences for students. Without theseresources, our HBCUs
    cannot offer the support that so many of their students need to thrive
    academically andprofessionally. The impact is widespread, affecting not
    just the institutions themselves, but also the students theyeducate,
    the faculty who teach them, and the communities these schools serve.
        The truth is, all institutions are grappling with a crisis as they
    navigate an ever-shifting federal funding landscapethat increasingly
    undermines their ability to fulfill their mission.
        The loss of funding for DEI initiatives and research grants
    represents an attack on the heart of what our universities stand for:
    providing access to higher education for students who have historically
    been excluded from these opportunities. We cannot allow the damage to
    continue. We must work together to ensure that our institutions of
    higher education receive the support they need to continue educating
    the next generation of leaders, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and
    changemakers.
        In conclusion, we cannot allow the work of advancing educational
    equity to be undone. We must protect andstrengthen DEI efforts-not just
    for the future of higher education, but for the students it serves. We
    have aresponsibility to ensure that every student, regardless of
    background, has a real opportunity to succeed.
        Mr. Chairman I thank you, and I yield back.
                                     ______

        Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. I will now turn to the
    introduction of our four distinguished witnesses. Our first--so
    sorry, okay. 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 in
    Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m., 14 days after this hearing.
        Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
    14 days to allow for statements and other material noted during
    the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I
    will now turn to the introduction of the four distinguished
    witnesses.
        Our first witness is Dan Morenoff, the Executive Director
    for American Civil Rights Project in Dallas, Texas. Our second
    witness is Dr. Shaun Harper, the Provost Professor of Education
    and Public Policy and Business at the University of Southern
    California in Los Angeles, California.
        Our third witness is Ms. Renu Mukherjee, a Fellow for the
    Manhattan Institute in New York City. The fourth witness is Dr.
    Kurt Miceli, the Medical Director for Do No Harm in Glen Allen,
    Virginia.
        I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and look
    forward to your testimony. Pursuant to Committee Rules, I will
    ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a 3-minute
    summary of your written statement as Committee members may have
    questions for you. The clock will countdown for 3 minutes.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-D, the Committee practice,
    however, is I will not cutoff your testimony until you reach
    the 5-minute mark. I would like to remind the witnesses to be
    aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information
    to the Subcommittee. I will first recognize Mr. Morenoff for
    your testimony.

    THE STATEMENT OF MR. DAN MORENOFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
                  CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT, DALLAS, TEXAS

        Dr. Morenoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congress only
    realized the promise of the modern Lincolnian Constitution with
    the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and associated
    nondiscrimination statutes. The Lincolnian Constitution places
    at the center of American government at the State, and at the
    Federal level, a shared national citizenship, and the equal
    protection of our laws.
        The Supreme Court tried to carve a narrow exception to the
    resulting rules of nondiscrimination. First in its Bakke
    decision in 1978 and then in the Grutter decision with an
    actual majority in 2003, specifically, only four the
    admission's decisions of institutions of higher education.
        Despite how narrow those opinions were, many of our
    institutions subsequently adopted an overbroad misreading of
    the cases to create a generalized trump card, which would
    overrule the Lincolnian Constitution wherever the talisman of
    diversity was invoked. All of that should have ended with the
    Harvard decision a few years ago, in which the Supreme Court
    ended that exception to our generalized rules of
    nondiscrimination for the admission's decisions of higher
    educational institutions.
        It should have, but by all appearances it did not. The
    evidence that continues to accrue seems to suggest that our
    most selective institutions, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn,
    Duke, are continuing to discriminate in their admissions'
    decisions. Far more broadly, the evidence seems to show that
    our colleges and universities are discriminating in their
    hiring and promotional decisions, as well as in race and sex
    exclusive scholarships that they continue to administer.
        Above and beyond these institution level problems, the
    Federal Government continues to affirmatively pay colleges and
    universities to violate our nondiscrimination laws. The
    signature example here would be NIH's first program, which
    provided funding only for hirings that would violate Title VII,
    as well as more generally the Federal Government incentivizing
    broadly, directly and indirectly, violations of our
    nondiscrimination laws.
        The new administration has begun to address these issues.
    There is a lot to say about how they have. There are things
    only Congress can do. At the top of that list must be amending
    the Higher Education Act to prevent our accreditors from using
    their control of their access to Congress's purse to compel
    violations of nondiscrimination law.
        I would also point out only Congress can actually de-
    authorize and defund programs like the first program. There is
    much more to say. I have said much of it in my written
    testimony. I look forward to talking with you about these
    issues. Thank you for having me.
        [The statement of Mr. Morenoff follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. I now recognize Dr.
    Harper for your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF DR. SHAUN HARPER, PROVOST PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION,
     PUBLIC POLICY AND BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, LOS
                          ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Harper. Thank you for inviting me. I am here speaking
    in my capacity as a researcher, and a tenured professor in 3
    years at the University of Southern California, not as a
    spokesperson for the institution itself.
        Offices and programs that ensure access and opportunities
    for women, students of color, veterans, students with
    disabilities, low-income Americans, Jewish and Muslim students,
    LGBTQ people, and other Americans who make institutions diverse
    have been defunded and eliminated.
        Innocent, hard-working, law-abiding and highly qualified
    professionals who were hired to help colleges and universities
    actualize espoused institutional commitments to diversity,
    equity and inclusion, have been fired.
        College Presidents have been placed in the tough position
    of choosing between Federal funding on which their institutions
    rely for survival, or courageously protecting the diverse
    people, programs and policies that enhance institutional
    excellence.
        Brilliant scholars, who have dedicated their careers to
    eradicating inequities in education, health, and other sectors
    of our society, have had their research grants abruptly
    canceled. All of this destruction is the result of
    misinformation, disinformation and exaggerations. Politicized
    attacks on DEI are largely informed by anecdotes and small
    numbers of reported wrongdoings on a relatively, tiny number of
    campuses.
        Instead of on proof of what is actually occurring in the
    name of DEI on our Nation's nearly 4,000 degree-granting
    postsecondary institutions. As a citizen, and scholar, I call
    for greater reliance on rigorous studies that consistently show
    the educational benefits of DEI. I also call on opponents to
    furnish a stronger corpus of evidence to prove that DEI is
    universally divisive, discriminatory, over-funded, and
    otherwise harmful to our democracy. Prove it. More than 50
    years of research has repeatedly shown the positive educational
    benefits and outcomes associated with diverse and inclusive
    learning environments for all students. DEI programs, policies
    and protocols also help reduce institutional susceptibility to
    violence, harassment, discrimination and abuse.
        In my written testimony I refute several common
    misconceptions about DEI. One, is that students of color are
    only admitted to highly selective institutions because of their
    race. Another is that those presumably unqualified admits are
    incapable of succeeding academically. Truth is students of
    color at elite institutions graduate at rates that exceed,
    match, or just slightly lag behind those of their white peers.
        In 2023, 4 days after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down
    race conscious admissions in higher education, I published an
    article titled, ``Black Harvard and Princeton Students Graduate
    at Higher Rates than Classmates Overall, Equally at Yale.'' It
    was based on data from the U.S. Department of Education.
        More recently available Federal statistics show similar
    patterns. Across the eight Ivy League institutions, on average
    96 percent of students graduated within 6 years. It was 95
    percent for black students, and 94 percent for Latinos. I call
    on DEI opponents to provide verifiable data from hundreds of
    rigorous research studies, with defensibly large sample sizes,
    to confirm five other popular exaggerations.
        One, while male students are routinely discriminated
    against on many campuses. Two, white applicants are being
    routinely passed over for faculty positions and leadership
    roles on many campuses. Three, the curriculum has become too
    woke. Four, accreditors have become too woke. Five, DEI offices
    are overfunded and accessibly staffed.
        There is not enough solid, systematically collected
    evidence to support the universality of these unverified
    claims. In the written testimony, I juxtapose these
    exaggerations with what I know to be true from multiple
    trustworthy data sources, and from my firsthand experiences.
        Anecdotes gathered primarily from outrageous, one-off
    social media posts, are not credible enough to declare that all
    DEI initiatives are harmful to higher education, and our
    democracy. More than five decades of high-quality studies
    confirm the opposite. Thank you again, I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The statement of Dr. Harper follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Our
    third witness is Ms. Renu Mukherjee.

     STATEMENT OF MS. RENU MUKHERJEE, FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE,
                        NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

        Ms. Mukherjee: Mukherjee.
        Chairman Owens. Mukherjee, thank you. I appreciate it.
    Sorry about that.
        Ms. Mukherjee: Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, and
    all other members of this distinguished body, I would like to
    begin by thanking you for the opportunity to testify on an
    important topic, and stress that all opinions expressed by me
    today are my own.
        I am here to address the negative impacts of DEI in higher
    education. Before I do, I want to call attention to two very
    recent and significant developments in the history of racial
    preferences in the U.S. First, the Supreme Court's 2023
    decision in Students For Fair Admissions versus President and
    Fellows of Harvard College, or SFFA, which banned the
    consideration of race in university admissions after 45 years.
        This development is important because race conscious
    admissions can be understood as the foundation of the so-called
    diversity industrial complex in American higher education.
    Second, President Trump's Executive Order, ending illegal
    discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity. This
    executive order is important in the context of higher education
    because it empowers the Departments of Justice and Education to
    enforce SFFA, and the principles of color blindness and equal
    opportunity articulated therein.
        Unfortunately, many universities have continued to engage
    in illegal race-based discrimination, defying both the Nation's
    highest Court and the President. A professor at the University
    of Chicago Law School found for example that more than two-
    thirds of the country's top 65 universities included a
    diversity identity, or adversary related question on their
    application in 2024, up from 42 percent in 2020, and 54 percent
    in 2022.
        In a similar vein, an April 16th report from Parents
    Defending Education noted that 245 universities still have
    institution-wide DEI offices, or programming, and that 180
    colleges or schools within universities do as well. Some
    universities have merely renamed or rebranded their DEI
    offices.
        At Harvard, the Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and
    Belonging has become the office of community and campus life.
    Headed by the university's former Chief Diversity Officer,
    Sherry Ann Charleston. Racial preferences and DEI programs are
    not only unlawful and wrong, but are also profoundly harmful to
    students of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.
        First and foremost, these policies regularly villainize
    whites, Asian Americans, Jews, and any other group deemed
    privileged. A November 2024 study conducted jointly by the
    Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutger's University
    found that rather than ease racial tensions among college
    students, the antiracism and anti-oppression teachings of Ibram
    X. Kendi, and Robin DeAngelo, two prominent DEI scholars,
    increased feelings of hostility and prejudice for dominant
    groups on campus.
        Moreover, in an amicus brief filed in SFFA, a grass roots
    alliance of 368 Asian small businesses, and parent groups
    detailed the anguish that Asian high schoolers feel when
    applying to college because they know they will face race-based
    discrimination in admissions.
        Meanwhile, Jewish undergraduates across the U.S. have
    sounded the alarm on how DEI pedagogue not only excludes Jews,
    but actively foments antisemitism on their campuses. Racial
    preferences and DEI harm underrepresented minorities too, the
    very group that these policies were intended to help.
        This is because racial preferences and DEI stigmatize their
    purported beneficiaries. Indeed, the possibility looms large
    that such programs might lead people to believe that
    underrepresented minorities are intellectual inferior, which is
    of course, false and dangerous.
        There is, however, reason for hope. As of early March, 17
    states have passed legislation that bans the types of racially
    discriminatory practices frequently affiliated with university
    DEI offices, such as race preferences, mandatory diversity
    statements, and hiring and segregated graduation ceremoneys.
        As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion
    in SFFA, ``Many universities have for too long wrongly
    concluded that the touchstone of an individual's identity is
    not challenge, it is vested, skills built, or lessons learned,
    but the color of their skin.'' Accordingly, racial preferences
    and DEI should be rejected full stop. Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Mukherjee follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Owens. Thank you. I now recognize my last witness,
    Dr. Miceli, for your testimony.

      STATEMENT OF DR. KURT MICELI, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, DO NO HARM,
                          GLEN ALLEN, VIRGINIA

        Mr. Miceli. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, and
    members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
    speak with you today. My name is Kurt Miceli, and I am the
    Medical Director of Do No Harm, a membership organization
    dedicated to keeping identity politics out of healthcare.
        As the son of an immigrant, and a physician, I have seen
    firsthand how America's promise, rooted in liberty, equality
    and opportunity is being compromised by the way diversity,
    equity and inclusion, or DEI is being implemented in medicine
    today. What began as well-intentioned effort to foster
    inclusion, has devolved into an ideology that prioritizes group
    identity over merit. It stifles open dialog, and encourages
    racial division.
        It undermines professionalism. I have witnessed treatment
    teams fall apart, not due to clinical disagreements, but due to
    accusations rooted in DEI fueled interpretations of identity
    and bias. DEI has infiltrated every level of medicine, from
    student admissions, to guidance from prominent medical
    associations, to licensing and professional development.
        Medical schools now emphasize political ideology, with less
    time dedicated to anatomy and physiology. Accreditation bodies
    impose DEI requirements that promote unlawful discrimination in
    admissions and hiring. State licensure boards are mandating
    implicit bias training, based on tools with no proven validity.
        The shift away from merit-based education and evaluation
    risk producing physicians who are less prepared and equipped to
    serve patients. Pass failed rating systems, admission standards
    where merit plays a secondary role, and ideological mandates
    erode the high standards that once defined American medicine.
    Patients, regardless of race, deserve care from the most
    qualified doctors.
        The false premise driving this DEI agenda is that racial
    disparities and health outcomes stem from structural racism.
    The evidence does not support this. Studies on so-called racial
    concordance, matching patients with doctors of the same race,
    have not proven the point. Rather, systematic reviews show no
    improvement in quality outcomes.
        Other studies on racial concordance have been debunked, yet
    the narrative prevails, and it is the current climate.
    Fortunately, there is cause for optimism. Courts have ruled
    against racial discrimination at various levels. Accreditation
    agencies, like the Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical
    Education are rethinking DEI mandates.
        Lawmakers across the country are taking action to protect
    medicine, but more must be done. We must protect medical
    education from ideological capture, demand excellence, and hold
    institutions accountable for upholding merit alongside patient-
    centered care.
        This should not be a partisan issue. When ideology eclipses
    skill, the health of our Nation suffers. In medicine, the
    stakes are too high. Ensuring that medical education and
    practice prioritize competence over politics is essential. I
    thank the Subcommittee for its leadership in addressing this
    important issue. I am happy to answer questions you have. Thank
    you.
        [The statement of Dr. Miceli follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Owens. Thank you. A little echo here, okay. Under
    Committee Rule 9, we will now question witnesses under the 5-
    minute rule. I will recognize myself for the first 5 minutes.
    Dr. Miceli, I was shocked to hear that 77 percent of medical
    school mission statements could be characterized as supporting
    DEI, and even standardized tests, like the MCAT.
        I have some questions with progressive buzz words, such as
    social justice or institutional racism. You might have covered
    this in your statement, but I just wanted to highlight it
    again. DEI medicine seems to be based on the idea of racial
    accordance. Medical treatment from one person of the same race
    is automatically better for the patient.
        How does this research debunk this racist claim?
        Dr. Miceli. Yes, thank you for the question. I think it is
    important to understand that the highest level of research we
    can look at are systematic reviews, but those are compilations
    of the evidence that is out there. I mean we look at this
    question of racial concordance, the idea that black patients do
    better with black doctors, or white patients do better with
    white doctors.
        One of the things that we understand is that four out of
    five of systematic reviews that have looked at that question
    find that there is no difference in outcome based on racial
    concordance. There is no difference in the utilization of care.
    There is no difference in the quality. There is one study, one
    of those five, that does show there is some benefit to
    communication.
        I will say I questioned some of the methodology that was
    done in that systematic review. It includes, or excludes, some
    studies that some of the other systematic reviews have not.
    Nonetheless, there are four out of five systematic reviews that
    showed racial concordance does not improve quality.
        In fact, we also know this to be true in our hearts. We
    know that everybody wants the best possible care. Do No Harm
    actually did a survey of this and found that 88 percent of
    black individuals when surveyed, want highly competent
    physicians. That is what everyone wants. It makes sense.
        The other thing is when we look at specific studies, when
    we look at there is a study on racial concordance that comes
    from 2020. I believe it was Brad Greenwood and Colleagues who
    had done that study. It looks at black doctors serving black
    patients, and this is in the case of babies being delivered in
    infant mortality.
        It looks at white doctors caring for those black patients
    as well. The original publication of that study had claimed
    that black doctors did better for black babies than white
    doctors. It turned out in 2024, actually the colleagues of the
    Manhattan Institute had been able to get the data from the
    authors and reran it. They looked at one key element, and that
    is low birth weight babies. That was not taken into account in
    the 2020 publication of the study.
        When you look at low birth weight babies, you find that
    that racial concordance difference goes away completely. There
    is no difference whether the doctor is black or white, and I
    think that is something that is really so critical to remember,
    and one of the challenges that we have seen in our literature
    in academia, is the first study that I mentioned from 2020 was
    cited almost 800 times.
        That second study, that actually shows that you really need
    to look at low birth rate babies, was only cited less than ten
    times, and this is part of the challenge in academia where
    unfortunately, studies that make these claims that are just not
    based in the evidence when you look at it, unfortunately
    propagate themselves throughout the halls of academia,
    throughout medical associations and the like.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you. I have to--I want to pass to one
    real quick before we run out of time here. Ms. Mukherjee,
    unfortunately we know many DEI offices just changed the title
    on the buildings but keep the same staff and ideology. What are
    some examples of strong anti-DEI reforms that could prevent
    this from happening?
        Ms. Mukherjee. Thank you, Congressman. I would look to
    several examples of DEI legislation that many states have
    passed, because the key is not necessarily the name of the
    office as listed in State legislation in areas such as Texas or
    Iowa or Florida, but rather the function of the office.
        The function matters much more than the names. The way to
    combat it is in legislation to say, for example, we are not
    just looking to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion
    offices, but any office that engages in racially discriminatory
    practices, such as racial preferences in admissions or hiring.
    Mandatory diversity affiliated statements, segregated
    graduation ceremoneys, this was also something that President
    Trump took great care to do that I noticed in his executive
    orders.
        I think any future legislation from this body, or wherever
    else in the states, geared toward eliminating diversity, equity
    and inclusion offices, should focus on the function of these
    offices, and less so exclusively on the name. Thank you.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you, thank you so much. I am now
    going to--let us see right here. I have a few seconds left. Mr.
    Morenoff, as supporters of DEI hide behind the vague, positive
    words of diversity, equity and inclusion, can you talk about
    how these vague, positive words have resulted in legal
    discrimination? We just have a few seconds left, but I hope you
    can.
        Mr. Morenoff. Of course. I do not terribly care what label
    is used. What I care is whether there are activities unfolding
    which violate our nondiscrimination laws. Are people being
    intentionally treated differently in violation of Title VI, or
    Title IX? Are people being hired or promoted on the basis of
    their demography in violation of Title VII?
        Chairman Owens. Thank you. Thank you so much. I now
    recognize Mr. Takano from California. I am sorry, Mrs. McBath
    from Georgia.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say to each
    of you that are our guests today, thank you so much for your
    testimony. I have read your testimoneys. I do not have any
    questions for you today, but I just want to make it abundantly
    clear to the American people that today's hearing is an attempt
    to distract the American people from republican plans to cut
    and gut Medicaid, nutrition benefits for hungry children, and
    student aid grants for working families across the country.
        At a time when Americans are struggling to pay for basics
    like groceries, republicans are forcing them to pay more for
    everything, from healthcare to childcare, and everything in
    between.
        Last Friday, mismanagement by congressional republicans and
    President Trump resulted in a decrease in America's credit
    rating, pushing mortgages and the American dream even further
    out of reach for millions of Americans, and for their families.
        Time and time again, republicans in Congress make things
    more expensive, and life more difficult for people in this
    country, and then they try to distract with issues that have no
    real impact on their quality of life. I encourage Americans to
    ask themselves why House republicans are consistently meeting
    in the middle of the night to debate their agenda, while they
    waste this Committee's and the American taxpayer's important
    time.
        The answer is really simple. House republicans know that
    Americans do not want to lose their healthcare insurance, or be
    forced into debt, but they do not want to talk about it, at
    least not when most Americans are awake and paying attention.
    This is wrong. House republicans and President Trump are making
    it more difficult for everyday Americans to provide for
    themselves and for their families.
        One of the greatest aspects of this country, one of the
    things that most people take real national pride in is our
    historic commitment to equality of opportunity. Our commitment
    that America is the land of opportunity. While we have not
    always been able to live up to that promise, it is a fact that
    we are always striving toward that ideal, that makes the
    promise of America truly great.
        Republicans are making it more difficult to keep that
    promise, and more expensive for people to provide for
    themselves and for their families. We often hear from the
    majority that they believe in a country where hard work and
    merit are rewarded. These efforts today move us further from
    that ideal.
        Representative Barbara Jordan, one of my personal heroes,
    once said that what the people want is very, very simple. They
    want an America as good as its promise. With efforts like
    today's hearing and the budget bill republicans scheduled for
    debate in the middle of the night to hide that they are ripping
    away healthcare from 14 million people, we only get further and
    further away from the promise that this country offers.
        The American people are frustrated, and rightfully so. They
    are frustrated that they keep doing everything right, sometimes
    working multiple jobs, but still feel that they are falling
    behind. Now is the time for everyone who cares about equality
    of opportunity, for everyone who cares about how expensive
    everyday life has become in this country, to let republicans in
    Congress know that you think their priorities are all wrong.
        We need just four members, just four members of the
    majority, to stand up against these dangerous cuts that will
    put lives in this country at risk. The American people do not
    support cuts to these vital programs and will not let
    republicans get away with it. I urge everyone that is in this
    room today, and everyone that is watching on C-SPAN and across
    the Nation, do not be deceived.
        Do not be deceived by what is happening here today. The
    democrats will continue to stand and fight for equity and
    equality for everyone in this country. Everyone deserves to
    have access to a wonderful quality education, and on our watch
    the democrats will not stand by and let this happen, and I
    yield back.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you. Now, I would like to recognize
    the Chairman of the Full Committee, my good friend from
    Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say in
    response to my good friend and colleague from Georgia, having
    just come through that long Rules Committee markup, it was very
    clear that when the truth comes out, 77 million people asked us
    to do what we were doing in that very one big, beautiful bill.
        When it is seen in its totality, I think that group of 77
    million people will say thank you, and I think that goes along
    with what we are talking about today as well, with DEI. Dr.
    Miceli, thank you for being here, and thank you for your
    position in promoting quality medicine regardless.
        I am very concerned about the role accreditation plays in
    promoting DEI in medicine, given that accreditors are supposed
    to measure program quality, how do DEI accreditation standards
    run counter to the proper role of accreditation?
        Dr. Miceli. Thank you for the question. Accreditation is so
    important. It helps set a standard throughout our medical
    schools, and we have nearly 200 or so medical schools in our
    country, two different accrediting bodies, one for the MD
    schools, one for the DO schools, and it is absolutely essential
    that those accreditors maintain standards.
        It is important. Standards in making sure that body systems
    are taught appropriately, and physiology, and all those basic
    sciences. The challenge becomes when DEI becomes part of those
    accreditation standards, and we have seen that with the Liaison
    Committee on Medical Education, which is the accrediting body
    for the MD schools.
        We have seen that in terms of one of the standards that
    they have, and I will just sort of read it here, and it is
    Standard 3.3, which requires schools to engage in ongoing
    systematic and focused recruitment and retention activities to
    achieve mission appropriate diversity outcomes among its
    students. We see where that has led. It is the accreditation
    agency that is nodding to this notion of DEI, and it is the
    schools that then accept it, and then these DEI programs get
    propagated and such.
        I think there is, fortunately, some light. The ACGME, the
    Accreditation Counsel for Graduate Medical Education, which is
    the accreditor for our hospitals that train residents and such,
    they have actually paused their enforcement of similar type
    standards, recognizing that it is essential for merit to be
    part and parcel to the education of our resident physicians who
    will become attending physicians, who will be caring for all of
    us after they finish their training.
        It is essential that these accrediting bodies, all of our
    medical schools in this country are accredited bodies.
    Residents go to accredited programs. It is essential that the
    standards are based on merit and only merit, so that we make
    sure that we have exceptional physicians that are out there and
    nothing else.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Followup, many of my democrat
    colleagues have complained about the cancellation of certain
    Federal medical research grants with DEI in them. Can you share
    how so-called DEI research funded by the Federal Government
    does more harm than good?
        Dr. Miceli. Thank you for the question. I think it is
    important to recognize what is the role of research. The role
    of research really is to move us to a better tomorrow. To
    engage in understanding those things that we wouldn't otherwise
    know. When DEI becomes part of that, it really changes the
    conversation. It creates an opportunity cost, I would argue, as
    folks sort of look to DEI as opposed to looking to the nature
    of the research itself.
        The research should be focused on merit. It should focus on
    being transparent. It should focus on the evidence. It should
    move us forward and propel us into the future. The NIH has such
    an important role in this aspect, just as one example. When you
    look at the billions of dollars of research that are out there,
    I think all of us want the benefits of research on cancer.
        All of us want the benefits of research on Alzheimer's
    Disease, or whatever that ailment is. I think when you start
    putting a political spin on it, you change the outcome that you
    get, and that is detrimental to the outcome that we wish for
    Americans. We wish for a high-quality system that promotes
    excellence, and we want our research to reflect that, and not
    be beholden to ideology.
        Mr. Walberg. Absolutely, thank you. Mr. Morenoff, you
    mentioned how the narrow exception to discrimination in Gruder
    has been misread to apply to a range of illegal discrimination.
    Why has Gruder been misapplied so often?
        Mr. Morenoff. To be charitable, I think that those
    overreading Gruder believed that what they wanted to do was
    really important, and if they could find a fig leaf to justify
    it, they were going to. They grabbed language that the Supreme
    Court had mouthed in a very particular setting, and simply
    pretended that it applied more broadly than it conceivably
    could have done.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, I yield back.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my
    friend from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
    Ranking Member, and thank you to the witnesses. I agree with
    Representative McBath, with the question why is this Committee
    focusing today on attacking diversity, equity and inclusion
    when there is so many issues in higher education and other
    fields that need urgent attention?
        As you heard, starting at 1 o'clock this morning, in the
    dark of night, the House Rules Committee met to push forward
    not a big, beautiful reconciliation bill, but a big, bad,
    reconciliation bill. The headline was, ``Wealthy Gain, Low
    Income People Lose from GOP Mega Bill.'' That was the news this
    morning.
        Here we are in the Higher Ed Subcommittee. This
    Reconciliation Bill will also strip Federal aid opportunities
    from millions of students, so maybe we should be having a
    hearing that convenes students and parents. Let us talk about
    what cutting Pell eligibility and eliminating subsidized loan
    programs will mean for their futures.
        Right now, Secretary McMahon is testifying in front of the
    Appropriation's Committee, Labor HHS Education Subcommittee.
    Perhaps she should come over here and talk to this Committee
    about how the mass layoffs and grant terminations she is
    leading are harming students and institutes of higher education
    across the country.
        Why are they proposing to eliminate the Department of
    Education? Let us ask her how the Small Businesses
    Administration is going to manage a 1.6 trillion dollar student
    loan portfolio when, No. 1, that is not the SBA's mission, and
    more than 40 percent of the SBA staff has been laid off. That
    would be a good thing to talk about today.
        Instead, the Committee majority is continuing to villainize
    DEI policies and programs to advance a fundamentally misguided
    and hypocritical narrative. I do want to point out, this is a
    Higher Education Subcommittee, but there are similar threats at
    the K-12 level as well, as we know.
        This administration is trying to ban what they call DEI
    programs, which is essentially dictating what the schools can
    and cannot teach, which is as we on this Committee know, not
    the job of the Federal Government. It is not within our
    jurisdiction, and it also infringes on State and local rights.
        Also, DEI is a vague term. As we know, that has been
    recognized in this building and in the Courts. Schools would
    struggle to comply with the Federal Government mandate to ban
    it, and so far, after many debates on this Committee about the
    issue, we still do not have a clear definition of what
    constitutes diversity, equity and inclusion that they are
    trying to ban.
        If my colleagues who are complaining about DEI truly cared
    about equality of opportunity and students' civil rights, they
    would support the Office for Civil Rights within the Department
    of Education, but they have already cut the OCR staff, and many
    want to defund and dismantle the Department entirely.
        Finally, I want to add that we all took an oath here in
    Congress to uphold the Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court
    has repeatedly held that academic freedom is a right protected
    by the First Amendment. Colleges and universities are places
    where there should be robust debate, and to muzzle topics
    dealing with diversity, equity and inclusion is a ludicrous and
    narrow-minded restraint on free speech.
        Dr. Harper, I want to ask you, we know that neither
    Congress, nor the administration has offered a clear and
    consistent definition of what constitutes DEI, so how might
    this ambiguity and uncertainty affect campus life at colleges
    and universities, but also who would be most hurt if the
    Federal Government withholds Federal funding from public
    institutions that are allegedly not in compliance with this
    misguided guidance?
        Mr. Harper. I appreciate your question. Regarding the
    ambiguity, it has created such a frenzy on many campuses.
    Institutions that were doing honest, law-abiding work to make
    campuses safe, equitable and inclusive for all students, and
    all employees.
        Now folks are scrambling to figure out how to continue to
    do that work without exacerbating existing inequities, and
    being complicit in the creation of new inequities in the
    absence of those policies, programs and protocols.
        There is a lot at stake for low-income Americans from rural
    environments, including poor white students, as the very
    programs that aim to provide college access and opportunity and
    success for them, are sort of thrown into the DEI dumpster that
    is under attack, right?
        It is not just--DEI programs are not just about students of
    color, they are also about veterans. They are also about
    equitably serving students with disabilities. You know, really,
    all of those populations that make campuses diverse are at risk
    of being even further underserved by those institutions.
        Ms. Bonamici. Who would be most hurt?
        Mr. Harper. Honestly?
        Ms. Bonamici. If funding was blocked?
        Mr. Harper. Honestly, our entire democracy will be most
    hurt.
        Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. I yield back. I just want
    to note sometimes it feels like somebody is going through all
    these things with some kind of AI or Google search for the
    words diversity, equity and inclusion. I actually walked into a
    school recently, and they had this big exhibit for the kids
    called Biodiversity. I said is that okay? I do not know.
        The ambiguity and this approach is completely unacceptable,
    and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you. I now recognize my friend from
    North Carolina, Mr. Harris.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of
    you on the panel. I apologize, several of us popping in and
    out, but I was involved in the Judiciary markup at the same
    time, so but listen, I thank the Chairman for having this
    hearing today. This is something that I think is of great
    interest to a lot of people, and it certainly has been front
    and center in the news.
        I did have the privilege, even though I did not hear all of
    the opening testimoneys, to read your written testimoneys that
    were submitted ahead of time, and Mr. Morenoff, in your written
    testimony, you mentioned how many institutions were continuing
    race-based scholarship.
        I want to ask you does Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
    allow institutions to maintain scholarships or other programs
    explicitly based on race?
        Mr. Morenoff. No.
        Mr. Harris. Would you agree that Congress has not only the
    authority, but also the responsibility to ensure that our
    public institutions receiving Federal funds are not engaged in
    activities that violate Civil Rights law, or constitutional
    protections?
        Mr. Morenoff. Yes.
        Mr. Harris. You see, I think it is clear that we need to
    take a long, hard look at the use of Federal funds at these
    schools to make sure that Civil Rights laws are being upheld.
    Ms. Mukherjee, did I pronounce that correctly? Proponents of
    DEI say that a range of educational benefits can only come from
    a ``diverse'' student body. Do you agree with that statement?
        Ms. Mukherjee. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
    would like to first point out that the educational benefits of
    diversity that have over time been cited in Supreme Court cases
    that deal with this issue, such as cross-racial understanding,
    the breaking down of stereotypes.
        The Supreme Court, that was in the Gruder decision, the
    Supreme Court, much more recently in Students for Fair
    Admissions has said that such benefits can be considered
    broadly in the context of higher education overall as
    amorphous, and because they are amorphous, it is not easy to
    measure them.
        They are not measurable or subjected to judicial scrutiny.
    When you are engaging in something as pernicious as
    discriminating on the basis of race, either in favor of certain
    races, or in opposition to certain races, such as whites and
    Asians, as the Supreme Court litigation has borne out, you need
    to make sure that these supposed benefits of diversity are
    specifically tied through your use of race-based
    discrimination, the means, and are specific to the university
    at hand.
        For example, Harvard, Yale, UNC, Princeton, would have to
    do their own studies showing specifically that somehow
    penalizing Asian American and white students in admissions has
    led to, for example, something like increased test scores, and
    they have not done so. There are these amorphous benefits of
    diversity, but in order for them to be within the bounds of
    what is legal and viewed as legal by the Supreme Court, they
    have to be very specific and tied to a specific institution.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Harris. Well, thank you. In fact, you answered my
    second question about DEI policies that did not actually
    provide these benefits. In fact, recently we have seen the tide
    begin to turn on DEI policies, as schools figure out that they
    are not helpful, or popular. For example, just a year ago, the
    UNC system made the decision to save 17 million dollars by
    eliminating 59 DEI positions.
        We need to see more schools follow suit I believe. Mr.
    Chairman, with that I yield back my time.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you. I now would like to recognize my
    friend from Virginia, Ranking Member--I mean I am sorry, Mr.
    Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Miceli, I am sorry,
    I came in late. We were at another meeting. You were indicating
    that you did not think DEI in research was appropriate. Is that
    what I got from your testimony?
        Dr. Miceli. I believe it is important for research to
    really focus on generating a hypothesis, and certainly in the
    realm of healthcare, it is essential that we look at healthcare
    matters, and we look at the importance of what we can do to
    advance care in that regard. I think the priority really
    should----
        Mr. Scott. Is it not important to have a diverse sample of
    people?
        Dr. Miceli. In terms of pharmaceutical research, in terms
    of research that looks at populations, I mean absolutely. You
    want to look at America to understand that, but I think when we
    look at DEI, that is something that is very different than what
    you might be saying there.
        Mr. Scott. Well, I am trying to figure out what you are
    saying there.
        Dr. Miceli. Right. I would say that when you look at
    research that is focused specifically on driving researchers
    and placing them based on identity politics as opposed to
    merit, and we have seen that through NIH programming, whereby
    identity politics and looking at the research population, based
    on their identity is prioritized. We also see that research
    in----
        Mr. Scott. Is it important to have the research population,
    is it important to have that diverse?
        Dr. Miceli. I believe it is essential to have that research
    population intellectually diverse, so that there are multiple
    theories and multiple thoughts that come about. It is important
    for us to test our hypotheses. It is important for us to make
    sure that there is merit, there is transparency, there is
    evidence that really guides the----
        Mr. Scott. It is not important to consider DEI in research?
        Dr. Miceli. When DEI is a destructive and divisive ideology
    that splits people off, and that puts people into camps, I
    think that aspect is really unacceptable in research. It places
    an ideology within the research as opposed to looking at the
    research itself.
        Mr. Scott. All right. Dr. Harper, can you say something
    about the benefits of diversity on campus, and who benefits
    with the diversity?
        Mr. Harper. Sure. If I might, I first want to address a
    fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of what
    DEI is. It keeps being mischaracterized as this divisive thing,
    this divisive concept. DEI is so much more than that.
        It is exactly what you were just calling for, a
    consideration of the diversity of Americans in clinical trials,
    and in research studies and so on, to ensure that medical
    breakthroughs do not unintentionally have disparate effects on
    Americans who make America diverse. I just think that is really
    important.
        In terms of the educational benefits of diversity and
    inclusion initiatives, I stand on more than 50 years of
    evidence. Highly, credible research published in my field, and
    in others, that consistently shows that all students, not just
    students of color, not just women, not just queer students, but
    all students benefit from being educated in a diverse and
    inclusive educational environment.
        Mr. Scott. If you--can you have a diverse student body, and
    also a merit based student body?
        Mr. Harper. Absolutely. You most certainly can, right? One
    other fundamental misunderstanding about diversity and
    inclusion is that it is either or. Millions of students who
    make campuses diverse help us understand that both, are indeed
    achievable, right? Not hypothetically, but actually. We
    actually see this on campuses where let us take Ivy League
    universities and our Nation's most highly selective
    postsecondary institutions.
        There are students there who have proven that they
    absolutely can do the work. Simultaneously, they are
    diversifying those institutions that historically and in fact,
    contemporarily, have often excluded them.
        Mr. Scott. Some admission standards have a discriminatory
    impact, whether intentional or not, like standard--some
    standardized tests. How fair is it to keep inflicting this
    discriminatory admissions standard on people?
        Mr. Harper. One of the things that I find incredibly
    promising. I am a person who values evidence. During the
    pandemic, many colleges and universities were forced, really,
    to put aside the standardized admissions tests requirements
    because of all sorts of logistics throughout the pandemic.
        One of the things that we found is that, you know, the
    quality of the student body did not decrease. Students were
    still able to be admitted without such a heavy reliance, an
    over-reliance, really, on standardized test scores, be admitted
    and succeed academically.
        I do not know why we keep going back to standardized test
    scores as really a single measure of deservingness for a slot
    in an incoming class at a highly selective institution.
        Mr. Scott. Have those tests been shown to have
    discriminatory impact?
        Mr. Harper. They have.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my
    friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I read a book by Christopher Ruffo
    recently, America's Cultural Revolution, and they talked about
    the hard Left thinking of DEI in the early 70's, as a way to
    divide America. I think prior to that time the hard Left that
    wants to bring down our country, tried to set Americans against
    each other by income level, and create hatred for the wealthier
    people.
        This was the fallback position. They want to divide America
    by race, which seems completely absurd when you look at people
    coming here from all around the globe, from Cuba, from Kenya,
    from Philippines, from Korea, all these--and my district has a
    lot among, all these people from different backgrounds
    succeeding beyond what the European descendants succeed here.
        The evidence--there has probably never been a less racist
    country in the history of the world than the United States
    right now, so you are left to think the only reason they pushed
    this DEI stuff is because they intentionally want to divide
    Americans. Now, I will give you an anecdote, a member of the
    Board of Regents told me in Wisconsin, the University of
    Wisconsin, that they had let in some people of color in the
    medical school who did not do well on the MCATs.
        I felt so sorry for them because apparently three or 4
    years into medical school you have got to take a test, and
    these people all flunked the test. I am sure their parents were
    so proud of them when they told them they were getting into
    medical school, and my son is going to be a doctor, and they
    really did not have a chance.
        Is this a common result of when you try to let people into
    colleges and universities other than merit? Is this something
    you hear in other places? I will give either one of you a
    chance.
        Dr. Miceli. Thank you for the question. Applying to medical
    school is say a big decision. You know, after you certainly
    apply, wow, as you go through the course work, 4 years later
    you will be a physician. You will be the one who at midnight
    will get the pager ringing in the hospital system and answering
    the call to help that patient.
        It is just really so critical that quality is what reigns
    supreme. Now, granted, there are many qualified people of all
    different stripes in this country. I mean this is a beautiful
    country with wonderful folks, and I have worked with folks of
    all different----
        Mr. Grothman. Have you seen this thing, not just in medical
    school, other places in which you let in people of apparently
    different qualifications, and then some of the people of lower
    qualifications wind up not making it through the graduate
    school, or medical school, or whatever?
        Dr. Miceli. Well, I think what we see is we know that
    performance on the MCAT, the test for admissions does actually
    correlate with performance during one's time as a student. That
    performance as a student does correlate to how well you will be
    as a physician.
        That performance as a physician on standardized tests, like
    the American Board of Internal Medicine, does correlate with
    actually care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries in the
    hospital. I mean there is a correlation to the merit one
    achieves, and so we do see that it is absolutely important for
    folks to be qualified, so that we can have the very best of
    quality when folks are in those hospitals and outpatient world.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Mukherjee, I will ask
    you a question. I guess you are what my democrat friends would
    refer to a person of color. Have you experienced prejudice, or
    could you comment? Like I said, I think that there are people
    all around the globe and succeeding here.
        Do you feel you have a different viewpoint if you say you
    applied to medical school because your ancestors, I take it
    were from somewhere other than Europe, a whole different? Where
    did your ancestors come from?
        Ms. Mukherjee. India.
        Mr. Grothman. India. Do you feel that the Indian viewpoint
    to medicine, or Indian viewpoint to architecture, creates
    genuine diversity, or do you kind of feel like everybody else--
    were you raised in America?
        Ms. Mukherjee. Yes. I was born and raised here.
        Mr. Grothman. Do you feel like just a regular American kid,
    or do you really feel that you bring a different whole
    viewpoint to things because your ancestors were from India?
        Ms. Mukherjee. I really appreciate the question,
    Congressman. To answer it frankly, no I do not. I do not want
    anyone to look at me or my mother or father, who both
    immigrated to the U.S. from India, as did my grandparents, to
    find opportunity here because they knew there would be much
    more.
        I do not want anyone to look at me or my story, or where I
    am today and think that it is a result of my skin color, or my
    family's skin color. First and foremost, I am a proud American
    citizen, as are my parents, my siblings, and my other relatives
    that are here, so yes.
        Mr. Grothman. The people who are trying to destroy America,
    I think that is what they are trying to do, they would argue
    that because your ancestors come from India, that therefore you
    will bring a different viewpoint to the architecture firm, or
    law firm, or whatever, do you feel you bring a different
    viewpoint because of where your long dead ancestors are from?
        Ms. Mukherjee. No. I do not feel as though my race or my
    ethnicity dictates my viewpoints, and that is one of the many
    reasons I think racial preferences and race conscious
    admissions, and the diversity rationale are so fundamentally
    dangerous, thank you.
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you being here.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you, my friend from California, Mr.
    Takano.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of
    the witnesses for being here today, and I want to ask Dr.
    Harper, do students and faculty benefit when an institution of
    higher education is socioeconomically and racially diverse?
        Mr. Harper. Absolutely.
        Mr. Takano. How so?
        Mr. Harper. Well, for one, let us talk about research. When
    there is diversity represented among the researchers, people
    are able to bring different points of view for sure, but they
    are also able to bring, you know, different considerations for
    groups that otherwise would not be top of mind for researchers,
    and ultimately really good researchers might produce research
    that ultimately has negative impacts on the forgotten about
    populations.
        It is really important to have people at the table to hold
    us accountable for thinking about Americans who make
    institutions diverse. That is one. Second, this whole notion of
    prejudice reduction, one of the things that is irrefutable is
    that each of us has implicit bias.
        We all have it, right? That implicit bias is reduced as we
    have more sustained, meaningful interactions with people from
    different groups. You know, that helps us to not go into, say
    students, right , if students do not go into the professions,
    then reproducing sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and
    so on, because they have had the benefit of interacting with
    people from those various groups when they were undergraduate
    students.
        That ultimately has positive effects, not just on the
    campuses themselves, but also on our economy and on our
    democracy.
        Mr. Takano. That is another way of saying that
    conversations that happen in a classroom can change pre-
    judgments, prejudice, fixed notions we might have had about
    certain types of people?
        Mr. Harper. They have to be repeated, sustained and high-
    quality.
        Mr. Takano. Do only racial minorities benefit from a
    diverse institution?
        Mr. Harper. Absolutely not. In fact, multiple research
    studies have repeatedly confirmed that white students actually
    benefit even more from their interactions in a diverse learning
    environment.
        Mr. Takano. Wonderful. Why might an institution want to
    cultivate a student body, faculty and curriculum that
    intentionally includes diverse perspectives?
        Mr. Harper. That institution would not want to be
    responsible, in sending college graduates into the world
    underprepared to live, learn and work and lead diverse teams,
    right? I think higher education institutions really have a
    responsibility to ensure that students are prepared.
        Mr. Takano. Well, great. The university in my district, the
    University of California Riverside, UCR, is one of the most
    racially, and ethnically diverse universities in the Nation. I
    am proud to say it was ranked No. 1 in the United States for
    social mobility of its graduates.
        A large portion of UCR students are low-income, first-
    generation college students, student veterans, transfer
    students, and/or racial minorities. University California
    Riverside's success is in part due to the robust support that
    these students get as they navigate college, including through
    the campus ethnic and gender centers, the Veterans Resource
    Center, and funding programs and more.
        Dr. Harper, what does research show about the retention,
    success and graduation rates for students who have access to
    these types of resources?
        Mr. Harper. Yes. I am so glad you asked this question. This
    is one of the strongest areas of research that make again,
    irrefutably clear that when campuses have those kinds of
    resources, that they enrich the college experience. They make
    the campuses safer for students who are more susceptible to
    violence, discrimination, harassment and abuse.
        They become spaces where students can go for affirmation,
    they could go for a sense of belonging, so on and so forth.
    Those kinds of centers and spaces are critically important to
    the retention and success of highly qualified academically
    capable college students who make campuses diverse.
        Mr. Takano. I was going to ask you why is it important to
    make those resources available for students, but you pretty
    much answered that question. As a followup, I wonder if you
    would not mind citing some of your resources for that research
    before the Committee right now, since we seem to be equating a
    lot of anecdotal evidence from the right with robust
    longitudinal peer reviewed study today?
        Mr. Harper. Sure. In the 2-seconds that we have remaining,
    I will just say that there are three books that are about this
    big, titled How College Affects Students, Pascarella and
    Terenzini were the original authors, and Matthew Mayhew at Ohio
    State and his colleagues produced the third volume.
        These are compendiums of research, peer reviewed studies
    that consistently and increasingly show the educational
    benefits associated with diversity, equity and inclusion in
    higher education.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back, and I
    appreciate your forbearance.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. I would like to now
    recognize my friend from Missouri, Mr. Onder.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    the witnesses for being here today. You know, I would like to
    echo something that Congressman Grothman said earlier. I truly
    believe that the United States is one of the most fair, most
    equitable, least racist societies ever to exist on this earth.
        The progress that we have made, although that we are not
    there perfectly in 250 years, is just overwhelming. I heard
    earlier from one of the democrat members of this Committee, DEI
    efforts level the playing field. I would submit that in many
    times pernicious discrimination on race, even if you label it
    some sanitary condition, like DEI, it is still pernicious
    discrimination based on race.
        Mr. Harper, let me ask you, is it fair to discriminate
    against Asian students?
        Mr. Harper. No.
        Mr. Onder. Is it fair to admit a patient, a student of
    different ethnicity over an Asian student who is more qualified
    and has better test scores?
        Mr. Harper. The answer categorically is no, but I will also
    say what do you mean by more qualified? Are we talking just
    test scores?
        Mr. Onder. Better grades, better ACT scores, better SAT
    scores.
        Mr. Harper. You see, the research makes again, irrefutably
    clear that holistic admissions that consider factors inclusive
    of high school GPA and test scores are----
        Mr. Onder. Let me ask you, Mr. Harper, have you ever heard
    of a Supreme Court decision called Students for Fair Admissions
    v. Harvard?
        Mr. Harper. Of course I have.
        Mr. Onder. Your employer is USC?
        Mr. Harper. Of course it is.
        Mr. Onder. Are you abiding by that decision?
        Mr. Harper. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am
    representing myself. I am not a spokesperson for the University
    of Southern California.
        Mr. Onder. Do you draw a paycheck from the University of
    Southern California?
        Mr. Harper. I am not here as a representative.
        Mr. Onder. I know that. Do you, yes or no, draw a paycheck
    from the University of Southern California?
        Mr. Harper. Of course I do.
        Mr. Onder. What is your position at the University of
    Southern California?
        Mr. Harper. I am a tenured professor in three schools
    there.
        Mr. Onder. Okay. Do you have any administration position?
        Mr. Harper. I do not.
        Mr. Onder. You do not. Is USC abiding by Students for Fair
    Admission v. Harvard, or do people who have your opinion about
    these issues, are they looking for ways to get around the laws
    annunciated by the Harvard case?
        Mr. Harper. Two things. I have come in here standing on 50
    years of research. I have not brought my opinion to this
    hearing.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you.
        Mr. Harper. Second, for maybe the fifth time, I am here
    representing myself. I am not here as a spokesperson of USC.
        Mr. Onder. Let me read to you a quote you may have heard
    of. Maybe you have not. It goes something like this, ``I have a
    dream. I have a dream that someday my little children will be
    judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of
    their character.'' Do you agree with that quote?
        Mr. Harper. I absolutely agree with that quote for those
    who understand what Martin Luther King actually meant by it.
    Martin Luther King was staunchly opposed to racism. He was
    staunchly opposed to poverty. He was staunchly opposed to
    discrimination.
        Mr. Onder. When Asian students are discriminated against,
    and not admitted to Harvard, even though by traditional
    criteria, including grades, test scores, extracurricular
    activities, is that discrimination? The Supreme Court decided
    it was. You disagree, it seems.
        Mr. Harper. I do not disagree. What I am saying to you as a
    person who has worked professionally in college admissions, I
    understand from my professional standpoint, that admissions is
    not just about standardized test scores.
        Mr. Onder. You said that. Do you believe standardized tests
    are discriminatory?
        Mr. Harper. Some research----
        Mr. Onder. Do they have any use at all? There is abundant
    research that they correlate very well with student
    performance, with grades, and with graduation rates. Should
    they be--should standardized tests be discarded?
        Mr. Harper. For the record, it should be noted that that
    evidence is indeed mixed.
        Mr. Onder. That is mixed, so someone with a perfect ACT
    score is no more likely to graduate from Harvard or any place,
    community college, than someone who has a lower SAT,
    standardized test score?
        Mr. Harper. Yes, no, I think this is a really important
    question as I attempt, once again, to help us all understand
    what the research shows about holistic admissions. It is not
    just high school grades and test scores that determines who
    ultimately succeeds at America's colleges and universities.
        Mr. Onder. Pernicious discrimination on the basis of race
    is pernicious discrimination on the basis of race. Thank you, I
    yield back.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like now to recognize my
    friend from California, Mr. DeSaulnier.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many thoughts come
    to mind listening to this. George Santayana, a Harvard
    professor, his famous quote, ``For those people who forget. For
    those of us who forget history, we're condemned to repeat it.''
    We keep doing this in this country.
        My perspective is this country is based on diversity, and
    also on merit, but I am reminded of work by a Princeton
    professor, I think it was James Bloodworth, wrote the Myths of
    Meritocracy, and about how the founders of this country did not
    want to replicate the British system of castes, but they did
    like the higher education system.
        That we inherited that, and they built that into it. The
    founders all believed in higher education. The Virginians and
    the Northerners. His work is, as you can imagine by the title,
    is very connected to higher education. There is a myth that
    people who get there get there based on merit.
        Yes, there is a principle to that, but I think we delude
    ourselves when we think those of us who are fortunate enough to
    go to college, that there is not a reality for many Americans
    that not because of their merit, but because of their
    background, they cannot get into it.
        There is another book that is very steep study on who gets
    into Harvard and Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School
    called The Chosen, and clearly, 67--60 to 70 percent, 80
    percent of the people who are chosen are based on various forms
    of legacy. I do not think George W. Bush would have got
    accepted to the MBA program or undergraduate if it were not for
    his father and his grandfather.
        Just to add to Santayana observation, those people who
    think that that was all merit, and having said that, what
    America attempts to do is very hard to do. We are the largest
    attempt in human existence of trying to mold people from very
    divergent cultures and experiences into one country, which
    leads to our national model, E pluribus unum, out of many, one.
        To me that accepts diversity, embraces it, and inclusivity
    and equity. I do not understand why anyone would not be for
    that. The experiences we all bring when they are respected and
    honored, create this wonderful gestalt when it works of us all
    being together, and out of many, one voice.
        I am reminded my dear, dear, profoundly impactful deceased
    Irish Catholic Boston mother, who used to tell us about her
    parents' generation seeing signs in the windows, ``Job
    available, Irish need not apply.'' Ms. Mukherjee, I see that
    you and I went to the same undergraduate Jesuit college in
    Worchester, Massachusetts. Yes, Holy Cross.
        Clarence Thomas was a senior when I was a freshman, so a
    lot of diversity. My mom used to tell us these stories about
    how the anti-Irish Italian Eastern European, it is just another
    history repeating itself. When she got older, and she had moved
    to San Francisco where I had moved to, and I would go take care
    of her.
        She would complain about her caregivers, God bless her, and
    she did not like the way they looked, or where they came from.
    I would say, Mom, you know this sounds a lot like the stories
    you used to tell about Irish need not apply.
        I say that anecdotally as my own life experience. It is one
    that when Americans talk about this honestly, they embrace it,
    and there is a certain joy to that. To your comment, to be
    honest about your background, I think it is wonderful, your
    background, I mean, having gone to Holy Cross when there were
    not many people who were not Irish Catholics going there.
        I say that just as an observation, and then Mr. Harper, I
    think we all want the one thing, but we approach it from
    different biases, and perspectives. As you said, Mr. Harper,
    another great book, Bias, by a Stanford professor, just talks
    about police bias. As somebody who represents a district just
    east of Oakland, when there was a lot of problems in Oakland, a
    lot of Black Lives Matter started there.
        In response to the historical inequality if you ask me, and
    as a white male of somewhat privilege, I feel like what us
    wrong with diversity? I actually embrace it. I think it is
    better for the country. I want to talk about one particular
    population that is dear to my heart briefly, the disabled
    community.
        The Medicaid cuts are going to devaState them. Three
    prominent republican Presidents led legislation, Nixon, Reagan,
    and Gerald Ford. We have talked in this Committee about IDEA,
    that Gerald Ford signed, the Individuals with Disability
    Educations Act to make sure that there was accessibility.
        When you talk about diversity and equality, and equity,
    what about the disabled community? Can you speak to what is
    happening to them? I am wrapping up my time, so you will have
    to be succinct.
        Mr. Harper. Yes. I will just simply say for the record that
    services and offices for students with disabilities are indeed
    a part of what we call DEI programs and services at colleges
    and universities. As those things are eliminated, the wellness
    and safety of those students is placed at risk.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Doctor.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my
    friend from California, Mr. Kiley.
        Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am glad the democrat
    minority member of the Committee had chosen a witness from my
    home State of California because California has actually led
    the way in a sense when it comes to the principles of equality
    before the law, and nondiscrimination that this hearing seeks
    to advance.
        California does not always lead in the best ways, but in
    this way it actually did. In 1996, California voters passed
    Proposition 209, enshrining the principles of equality before
    the law, and nondiscrimination into our Constitution. Now, of
    course, these principles are deeply rooted in our national
    identity, that are famously articulated in our Declaration of
    Independence.
        At the most important moments of our history when our
    country has been propelled forward, we have reaffirmed our
    commitment to those principles as with passage of the 14th
    Amendment, the Civil Rights Movement, and other important
    moments in our history.
        California had a moment of that nature in 1996, as Prop
    209, which states simply as follows, ``The states shall not
    discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to any
    individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity
    or national origin in the operation of public employment,
    public education, or public contracting.
        Now, that became part of our Constitution in 1996, and yet,
    just a few years ago in 2020, the California supermajority
    legislature decided that it was time to overthrow these
    principles of equal opportunity, quality before the law, and
    nondiscrimination. They voted to place a--to overturn that
    constitutional provision, to place a proposition on the ballot
    to simply reverse this provision that had been in place for
    over 20 years.
        The vote in the legislature was 60 to 14, saying we want to
    reverse the principles of equality before the law and
    nondiscrimination. It then needed to be voted on by the people
    of California.
        Even though it passed the legislature with, you know, over
    75 percent of the vote, when it went to the voters, voters said
    something--they had rendered a very different verdict.
        By a vote of 57.2 percent to 42.8 percent in a very blue
    State of California, the voters said no. We want to keep Prop
    209. We want to keep the principles of equality before the law,
    and nondiscrimination as part of our Constitution, and as part
    of our state's character.
        By the way, the spending advantage in that race was 13 to
    1, it was 24 million to 1.8 million in favor of those who
    wanted to overturn these principles, in favor of the Yes
    Campaign, and despite that massive spending advantage, despite
    California being an overwhelmingly blue State, decided the
    legislature voting 3 to 1 to reverse this, the voters of
    California overwhelmingly had other ideas.
        Ms. Mukherjee, what does it tell you that there is this
    enormous disconnect between the people of this country and the
    politicians, and perhaps those who are in charge at
    universities?
        Ms. Mukherjee. Thank you, Congressman. Decades of public
    opinion published by outlets such as Gallop, has shown, and
    that I have documented in my own research, show that
    consistently Americans in their totality as a group, and
    individual racial groups, oppose the use of racial preference,
    especially in university admissions.
        When Pew Research Center conducted a pole in the aftermath
    of Students for Fair Admissions, a majority again, of
    Americans, and a majority of Asians, whites, Latinos and black
    Americans all said that they oppose the consideration of race
    in university admissions. It is extremely unpopular.
        It has been, consistently. To your point about how there
    seems to be a discrepancy between politicians and elites in our
    society, and with what the American people want, I actually
    conducted a study where I looked at all of the amicus briefs
    submitted in the Students for Fair Admissions case.
        I found that while every single legacy Asian American group
    submitted a brief in support of affirmative action, a policy
    that has been shown to penalize Asians, and their constituents,
    before grass roots parent organizations said no. We do not
    support affirmative action.
        You are absolutely right that the American public opposes
    this policy, and that there is a disconnect between our elites
    and what the people actually want. Thank you.
        Mr. Kiley. Thanks very much. I agree, but I think that the
    will of the people is ascendant, and we are at a moment where
    we have a chance to really vindicate those founding principles
    once again that have been so vital to us becoming the greatest
    country in the world. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate you
    calling this hearing, and I yield back.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. I would now like to
    recognize the Ranking Member from North Carolina, Ms. Adams.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank the
    witnesses, but it has been a little frustrating for me
    listening to a number of the things that have been said. Let me
    just--I hope I did not hear references made to the fact that if
    you are a member of a diverse group, whether it is African
    American, or Asian, Hispanic, et cetera, that you do not
    represent excellence. I really resent that.
        Let me begin by saying that the pursuit of excellence and
    the pursuit of equity are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I
    would argue that they are inseparable, because DEI for me, and
    as it should be for all of us, represents diversity, excellence
    and inclusion.
        As I have been a college professor for 40 years, I will
    tell you I have seen firsthand that talent is everywhere, but
    opportunity is not. DEI exists to close that gap. Now, earlier
    this week I heard from STEM educators who reminded me that
    holistic student support DEI included is not just about
    fairness. It is about building a workforce that reflects the
    country that we live in, and the world that we lead.
        We are in a global race, whether it is AI, or
    biotechnology, or clean energy, and yet this conversation today
    feels more like focused on politics than preparedness. We
    should be asking are our students ready for the world ahead?
    Are our institutions creating pathways for all of them to
    succeed?
        Let me just turn to you, Dr. Harper, today's hearing is
    titled, ``Restoring Excellence,'' but it implies that previous
    systems before DEI were somehow more effective or fairer, so I
    would like to explore that with you. Yes, or no, have students
    across all communities historically received the same access to
    high-quality educational opportunities regardless of Zip Code?
        Mr. Harper. No. They have not.
        Ms. Adams. All right. Yes or no, have all educators had the
    same level of training and resources to deliver those
    opportunities?
        Mr. Harper. No, they have not.
        Ms. Adams. All right. Finally, do traditional markers like
    GPAs and resumes, always predict who becomes the strongest
    leader in the workforce, or have you seen individuals from non-
    traditional backgrounds like mine, outperform, once given the
    opportunity?
        Mr. Harper. No, to the first part, and absolutely to the
    second.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. This Committee hears a lot about workforce
    readiness, but what we often do not hear is what employers are
    demanding, especially the Fortune 500. More than 90 percent of
    Fortune 500 companies have some form of DEI strategy. They do
    it not because it is trendy, but because it works.
        My question Dr. Harper, is how do DEI programs align with
    what the modern workforce is demanding from our higher
    education institutions?
        Mr. Harper. I especially appreciate this question because
    in addition to my work in higher education, I also work with
    hundreds of corporations, agencies, and other organizations,
    spanning a multitude of industries. One of the things that I
    consistently find is that leaders want workers who appreciate
    diversity, who are able to work on diverse teams, and lead
    diverse teams.
        They recognize that it is good for global business when
    people understand what their implicit biases are, and they have
    had an opportunity to address those implicit biases. Employers
    understand that high-quality professional learning equips
    leaders, managers and workers with the skills.
        Ms. Adams. Let me move on and ask how do DEI practices help
    ensure that students from all backgrounds, rural, urban, low-
    income, how are they prepared not just to keep jobs, but to
    lead?
        Mr. Harper. Yes. You know, I appreciate that you raised
    earlier that, and I am paraphrasing, but homogeneity is the
    opposite of diversity. Inequity is the opposite of equity, and
    exclusion is the opposite of inclusion. Those opposites are--
    they are bad for our workforces, for our workforce, and for our
    democracy.
        We need college students who become college graduates to
    really appreciate equity, diversity and inclusion, and to lead
    from those standpoints when they transition into their lives
    after college.
        Ms. Adams. Finally, you know, DEI efforts, some people
    claim are no longer necessary, that we have evolved past the
    need for intentional inclusion. I disagree with that. I have
    spent a lifetime in education, and I know that students today
    still face barriers that data alone cannot explain, and I yield
    back.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Well,
    we are now--we will move on to our closing remarks. I would
    like to recognize Ms. Adams for her closing remarks.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you once again to
    our witnesses for speaking with us today. As we conclude
    today's hearing, I want to leave this Committee with this one
    message. Diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility, DEIA,
    are not partisan talking points, they are pillars of just and
    equitable education systems.
        We have heard today about the devastating impact that the
    rollback of DEI initiative has had, especially on institutions
    like historically black colleges and universities HBCUs, but
    these schools are not just academic institutions, they are
    lifelines for communities that have been denied equal
    opportunity for far too long.
        They nurture talent, they uplift communities, and they
    empower generations of students who might otherwise be
    overlooked or forgotten. When we cut DEI funding, when we
    politicize inclusion, we are not preserving merit, we are
    narrowing opportunity.
        We are telling first generation college students, as I was,
    we are telling veterans and students of color, parents,
    students with disabilities, and students from low-income
    communities that their future is less important, and that is
    unacceptable because DEI is not about pre-preferences, it is
    about fairness, it is about recognizing that students from all
    walks of life can succeed on campus, and making sure that there
    are not roadblocks that are visible to some, but not all.
        It is about ensuring that every student has a real shot at
    success, regardless of your Zip Code that you grew up in, or
    the color of your skin. It is not just the right thing to do.
    It is the smart thing to do. A diverse, inclusive and equitable
    educational system produces better outcomes for all students.
        Diversity is our strength, and so it fosters innovation,
    strengthens our workforce, and builds a more competitive and
    compassionate nation. The future of our country depend on how
    we invest in the next generation, and that includes standing by
    our institutions, protecting DEI programs, and pushing back,
    pushing back against efforts that will drag us backward.
        I thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. I have been really
    looking forward to this opportunity because I have seen our
    country come so far. I am going to make sure we never go back.
    Ms. Mukherjee, you made a statement. I felt like standing up
    and applauding.
        When talking about your parents, yourself, that you never
    want to be looked at because of your color to get respect for
    what you have done in life. That was my parent's generation.
    They would fight you if you considered them a victim. They
    worked too hard to get respect from across this country. At the
    time I was growing up in the 60's, my first exposure, by the
    way, to America was when I was 6 years old--until I was 16
    years old.
        I grew up in a community that was so proud of what they
    were doing, and they were going to command respect by winning,
    by competing, by working hard, and never being looked at as
    victims. Well, we have come to the day it is a afront to that
    generation.
        We are now saying instead of us going out and competing,
    because of my color I want to get a 10 yard head start, or a
    100 yard head start. That is not America. It is about
    excellence; it is about merit. Our race can do it just as well
    as anybody else.
        For those that do not know the history of the black
    community, here is something I want you to take home and just
    understand how powerful it is when any communities in this
    country decides they want to be proud Americans, and be
    respected as such.
        The black community, the 40's, 50's and 60's, led our
    country in the growth of the middle class. Led our country, men
    matriculating from college, HBCUs were going to make sure our
    men went out and competed and won the battle of intelligence.
    We led our country in the commitment to marriage.
        The highest percentage of marriage was in the black
    community. The highest percentage of entrepreneurs, because we
    did not go outside our community. We had our business owners
    building within. Not only do they have a legacy of business
    ownership, taking risks, but they understood what it was to
    make sure that the next generation was better than theirs.
        We now have people in our community telling our people we
    cannot compete. We do not have the intelligence. That we need
    to lower the bar. No one else. We have all this other--we are
    going to lower the bar so we can get into college, and then we
    fail in college, and what do we do?
        Then we get angry because we did not make it because we
    have been lied to. This is an opportunity. I am so thankful
    that our country is finally coming back to the old promise of
    we will become a more perfect union, and we do that by looking
    at character, what we have inside, about tenacity, about our
    dream power, overcoming and becoming a better people.
        That is what is always made our country what it is, and
    that is not a color line by the way. You look at every
    community that has that same grit, that same passion, you find
    successful people growing through the process, and reaching
    back and gives us a message America.
        It is not about the struggle. It is what we do with the
    struggle. The message is if I can do it, you can do it. The
    message is not you cannot do it because you are black. You
    cannot do it because you had slavery in your background.
    America is a place of promises of hope, and if we cannot as
    adults give our kids hope, we are failing them big time.
        I am so thankful that we are getting rid of this racist,
    racist DEI-ness. I do not want to be judged by my color guys.
    Somebody comes in and they say oh, by the way, that happened in
    my lifetime. I was the third black to go to the University of
    Miami. I was the fourth black to go in high school to this
    school, today Rigger's High School.
        I know what it is to be told that I cannot become a
    biologist because of my color. I was told that. They had no
    idea what my grades were. They had no idea what my background
    was. I was told I could not succeed because I was black. It is
    time for us to start this process of putting our race down
    intellectually.
        By the way, when is the last time DEI was put on the sports
    field? When is the last time we ever had a football team or
    basketball saying you're going to do DEI here. We do not do
    that because blacks have always been looked at being very
    physical--had physical prowess, but yet was not doing
    intellectually.
        The last little thought, when you ever go back to see
    Martin Luther King's demonstration days--by the way I
    participated in one when I was 12 years old. Check this out.
    Notice the white shirt, the dark tie, the dress shoes. Notice
    the articulation of the speakers.
        Notice that no matter what they said, or what they did,
    they held tight through principle of non-violence because they
    wanted to show Americans that we are confident, we are
    articulate, and we control our emotions, and we deserved, and
    we commanded respect. That was what Martin Luther King was all
    about.
        It was yes, it was Jim Crow laws, but it is also respect as
    equals that black Americans had to other people. We have come
    so far, and we are not going back. Last thought, I grew up in
    the 60's, as I mentioned. My family today represents black,
    Hispanic, American Indian, Trinidadian.
        My grandkids call each other cousins. If we ever found in
    my family DEI's thought process, I know that somebody is
    feeling it big time, it will not be at their appearance. They
    looked at each other, and they loved each other because they
    are family. That is what the American concept is all about.
        Let us continue to get this cancer, racist cancer out of
    our system. Thankful to President Trump and his team, they are
    doing what they are doing, getting rid of those guys. Let us
    get back to merit. Man up, stand up, women up, do your very
    best, compete, win, and then tell other people if I can do it,
    you could do it.
        With that, I would like to thank our witnesses again for
    taking the time to testify before the Subcommittee today.
    Without objection, there is no further business, the
    Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you so much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee on Higher
    Education and Workforce Development was adjourned.]

        [Additional submissions from Ranking Member Adams follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]