[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]