[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMBATING DEI IN AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
TASK FORCE ON DEFENDING CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS AND EXPOSING INSTITUTIONAL ABUSES
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 14, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-69
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
64-224 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Greg Casar, Texas
Byron Donalds, Florida Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Emily Randall, Washington
William Timmons, South Carolina Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California
Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri James Walkinshaw, Virginia
Elijah Crane, Arizona Christian Menefee, Texas
Brian Jack, Georgia Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
John McGuire, Virginia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Brandon Gill, Texas
Richard McCormick, Georgia
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Ryan Giachetti, Chief Counsel
Karl Keyzer-Andre, Professional Staff Member
Rodney Rios, Counsel
Mallory Cogar, Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing
Institutional Abuses
Brandon Gill, Texas, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Lateefah Simon, California,
Michael Cloud, Texas Ranking Member
Andy Biggs, Arizona Dave Min, California
Byron Donalds, Florida James Walkinshaw, Virginia
Brian Jack, Georgia Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Brandon Gill, U.S. Representative, Chairman................. 1
Hon. Lateefah Simon, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member......... 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Mike Gonzalez, Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior
Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Ms. Inez Feltscher Stepman, Senior Policy and Legal Analyst,
Independent Women
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Dr. Michael Shires, Ph.D., Vice Chair of Education Opportunity,
Higher Education, and Senior Policy Officer, America First
Policy Institute
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Article, The Hill, ``Asian American Students Were Victims of
Racial Discrimination''; submitted by Rep. Gill.
* Article, Washington Times, ``DEI has Jeopardized Air
Safety''; submitted by Rep. Gill.
* Article, Washington Examiner, ``DEI Policies Threaten Medical
Excellence''; submitted by Rep. Gill.
* Article, The Heritage Foundation, ``The Left's Incurable DEI
Addiction''; submitted by Rep. Gill.
* Article, AMAC, ``Uncovering Radical Efforts to Disguise
DEI''; submitted by Rep. Gill.
* Press Release, ``Justice Dept Investigation Determines UCLA's
Medical School Discriminated Based on Race in Admissions'';
submitted by Rep. Gill.
* Article, America First Legal, ``CMS Removes Biden-Era DEI
Framework from Kidney Transplant Program''; submitted by Rep.
Jack.
* Article, Fox News, ``Watchdog Urges DOJ Probe of Top Research
University Over Alleged Illegal DEI Practices''; submitted by
Rep. Jack.
* Press Release, ``U.S. Department of Education's Office for
Civil Rights Launches Title VI Investigation Into Fairfax Co
Public Schools''; submitted by Rep. Jack.
* Article, TDR, ``DOGE Cancels Affordable Housing Deals in
Anti-DEI Push''; submitted by Rep. Menefee.
* Article, Brookings Institute, ``How Racial Bias in Appraisals
Affects the Devaluation of Homes in Majority Black
Neighborhoods''; submitted by Rep. Menefee.
* Article, CNN, ``Trump's Diversity Purge Freezes Hundreds of
Millions in Medical Research at Universities Across the
Country''; submitted by Rep. Min.
* Article, Yahoo, ``Civil Rights Organizations and Nonprofits
Signed Letter Demanding Transparency and Response From the
Trump Administration Regarding DEIA Ban''; submitted by Rep.
Pressley.
* Article, Time Magazine, ``How Trump's Attacks on DEI are
Hurting Communities That Voted for Him''; submitted by Rep.
Simon.
* Article, CNN, ``Trump's Gutting of Federal DEI Programs will
Hit Rural Poor''; submitted by Rep. Simon.
* Article, Military Times, ``Ending Military Diversity Efforts
Will Cost Us Talent and Readiness''; submitted by Rep.
Walkinshaw.
* Article, NPR, ``Defense Secretary Hegseth Intervened to Stop
Promotions of Black and Female Officers''; submitted by Rep.
Walkinshaw.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
COMBATING DEI IN AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2026
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing
Institutional Abuses
Washington, D.C.
The Task Force met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brandon Gill,
[Chairman of the Task Force] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gill, Donalds, Jack, Simon, Min,
Walkinshaw, and Pressley.
Also present: Representative Menefee.
Mr. Gill. This hearing of the Task Force on Defending
Constitutional Rights and Exposing Institutional Abuses will
come to order.
Welcome, everybody. Thank you all for taking the time to be
here.
Without objection, the Chair may declare recess at any
time. I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRANDON GILL
REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing before the
Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing
Institutional Abuses on the discriminatory, harmful, and often
illegal nature of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion,
or DEI, policies.
DEI is, by its very nature, an affront to the principles
and ideals that define our great Nation and a rejection of the
progress our predecessors made in ensuring civil rights
protections for all Americans. Our Forefathers fought and died
to ensure that this country would be a place where every person
has the opportunity to achieve great things as the fruit of his
or her own talents and hard work. Civil rights leaders of the
1950s and 1960s fought tirelessly in the pursuit of these same
principles to ensure that America would not be judged by the
color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Today, DEI has become a euphemism for a Marxist ideology,
which seeks to undo those very efforts by civil rights leaders
like Martin Luther King and his contemporaries. DEI represents
a conscious effort to specifically judge people by the color of
their skin and other immutable characteristics. Not only is
this an utterly disgusting and racist ideology, but it is also
a clear violation of the Constitution and Federal law.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly prohibits
unlawful employment practices that discriminate against an
individual because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin. And the Supreme Court ruled in a 2023
case that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to
the Constitution prohibits racial discrimination in college
admissions practices.
Meanwhile, DEI policies embody racist and stereotypical
attitudes harbored by the left toward groups that these
policies purport to benefit. Do Democrats believe that people
they would categorize as diverse do not possess the skills to
succeed in our society without quotas or preferential
treatment? Apparently, yes. We know this because the mask
slipped, and they admit this explicitly. New York Governor and
Democrat Kathy Hochul patronizingly claimed in 2024 that
``Black kids growing up in the Bronx don't even know what the
word computer is.'' I guess if you believe that nonsense, DEI
makes a lot more sense.
And it is not just prominent Democrat politicians. Some of
the largest American companies bought into this absurdity. For
instance, companies such as Macy's, BlackRock, Starbucks,
Disney, Google, Amazon, among others, in recent history
instituted aggressive DEI policies. In higher education,
institutions have, in open defiance of the Supreme Court,
merely rebranded the racist DEI practices while continuing to
seek out novel means to racially categorize and then
discriminate against individuals. To combat this, the Trump
Administration has taken historic action to enforce Federal
civil rights law and ensure all Americans are protected from
discrimination.
Despite this bold stance against discriminatory practices,
this Committee is concerned that the DEI proponents in industry
and academia are just biding their time. The behavior of the
radical left indicates that DEI is not truly eradicated from
our society, but merely lying dormant and licking its wounds
until it has an opportunity to rise again. If the left does not
abandon this obsession, where will that lead our country?
I look forward to a discussion today on how we can work
toward a society that has eradicated insidious discrimination
under the guise of DEI.
And with that, I yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. Simon,
for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER
LATEEFAH SIMON
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Ms. Simon. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman, and
good morning to the witnesses. Thank you all for coming here
today.
And before I begin my opening statement, I would, in
thinking about this hearing and thinking about the recent
passing of one of my core mentors, Dr. Clarence Jones, who was
the attorney and speechwriter for Dr. Martin Luther King. Mr.
Jones, for many folks who have followed the civil rights
movement, has been a seminal and clear voice of what is in
front of us as a Nation. And I think of him, and I think of his
words and his teachings as we move through today's
conversation.
So, you know, it is with that, that I am so thankful that
we are all here to have the conversation. And I do also think
that it is extremely appropriate that we are meeting today,
just weeks after the Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's
effort to redefine what it means to be an American. Because
that is the real issue at stake today. That is what we are
talking about today. Who counts? Who belongs? And who deserves
a seat at the table? The question before us is simple. Will we
welcome Americans who look and pray and love or think
differently? Or will we turn our backs on the diversity that
has always made this country stronger?
Mr. Chairman, these questions, we know, are not new.
Throughout our history in this country, these arguments have
been made by people convinced that they were defending America.
When Strom Thurmond held the Floor on this campus for 24 hours
against the Civil Rights bill, he insisted that he hated no one
and that he was only defending the Constitution. George Wallace
claimed he was preserving order when he said, ``Segregation
now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.''
In 1956, 101 Members of this body stood and signed the
Southern Manifesto insisting that school desegregation was
unconstitutional. Yes, school desegregation was
unconstitutional. And let me just say that one more time. It
was 101 Members of the U.S. Congress who stood firmly with the
ideals listed out in the Southern Manifesto. They believed that
they were on the right side of history. And that is not ancient
history. That is the world that my own mother was born and
raised in, in the deep rural South.
I raise this history, Mr. Chairman, because the arguments
before us today, this morning, are from a mirrored pattern.
Now, let me say something about the three letters at the center
of today's hearing. Our Chairman cited those three letters as a
pretext for discrimination. That has not been the experience.
In the institutions that I have served and some that I have
run, those three words meant ensuring that a veteran had the
desk that they needed, that they could use. That disabled
veteran rallied for accommodations, and they got it. It means a
first-generation student who needed a mentor and a worker who
knew how to report the abuse that they had received and they
were heard. None of that is quota. None of that takes a seat
for anyone. The law forbids discrimination, and it forbids it
for all of us, every single one of us in this room.
Today, the Majority will speak about fairness, but fairness
means recognizing that for most of our history there was one
group of Americans who had been ushered to the front of the
line. That is not hyperbole; that is fact. After generations,
that head start began to feel something like an inheritance,
and sharing that opportunity feels like loss. But acknowledging
that head start, removing those barriers, and expanding
opportunity, it is not discrimination. When someone sees a few
more chairs at the table and calls it a takeover, we hear
discomfort. That opportunity is no longer reserved for those
who have always and already had it, but the opportunity belongs
to every American.
Wealthy and powerful people want to weaponize that
discomfort, to divide us, to divide you, to distract you, and
to entrench the power that they still hold behind the scenes,
but justice does not diminish anyone. It simply makes room for
everyone. If my colleagues truly cared about the thumb on the
scale, the record is waiting.
Black workers with the same credentials are still hired--
this is fact--and paid less with the same credentials of their
White counterparts. Students from the wealthiest one percent of
families in this country are more than twice as likely to
attend top colleges than their middle-class counterparts with
similar test scores. That is fact. At Harvard, a study found
that three out of four legacies, donors, staff, recruited
athletes, those admittance would not have been admitted without
those preferences. That is a thumb on the scale. The heavy
thumb on that scale has always been pressed for folks who
needed it the least.
So, I have a question as I close for every single witness
that has come here today and the ones that will follow. If
fairness is truly your principle, are you prepared to challenge
every unfair advantage or only the efforts designed to expand
opportunity for those folks who have too often been left out?
Now, I love this country enough to tell the truth about it.
The signers of the 1956 Southern Manifesto in defense of school
desegregation, against school desegregation, were lawyers and
they were statesmen and elected as well, sure of their footing,
and the record kept their names. The record kept their names to
place a count on what they chose. There will be a record of
this morning as well, read one day by people who will never,
never meet our faces and they will precisely--they will know
exactly what side we chose to defend. I have chosen mine.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Ranking Member Simon.
And now without objection, Representatives Clay Higgins of
Louisiana and Mr. Menefee of Texas are waived on to the Task
Force for the purpose of asking questions at today's hearing.
I would like to welcome our witnesses for being here, and
thank you for being here. First, we have Mike Gonzalez, the
Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow at The
Heritage Foundation. Next, we have Inez Feltscher Stepman,
Senior Policy and Legal Analyst at Independent Women. We are
also joined by Dr. Michael Shires, the Vice Chair of Education,
Opportunity, Higher Education, and Senior Policy Officer at the
America First Policy Institute. So, thank you all for joining
us. I am really looking forward to hearing your testimony as
well.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), will the witnesses please
stand and raise their right hand?
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Gonzalez. I do.
Ms. Stepman. I do.
Dr. Shires. I do.
Mr. Gill. Let the record show that the witnesses answered
in the affirmative. Thank you, and you can take a seat.
We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your
testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your
written statement, and it will appear in full in the hearing
record. Please limit your oral statements to 5 minutes. As a
reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of
you so that it is on and the Members can hear you. When you
begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green.
After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light
comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would ask that
you please wrap it up.
I now recognize Mr. Mike Gonzalez for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF MR. MIKE GONZALEZ
ANGELES T. ARREDONDO E PLURIBUS UNUM SENIOR FELLOW
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Gonzalez. Chairman Gill, Ranking Member Simon, Members
of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify of
the persistence of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs
across American institutions. My name is Mike Gonzalez. I am a
Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The views I express
in this testimony are my own.
Two weeks ago, I spent ten days in three European
countries, starting with five days in the United Kingdom. As I
was able to witness, the country still reeling from the recent
stabbing death of a young man, who died because police shackled
him and allowed him to bleed to death after his accuser--after
his attacker accused him of having been racist. The police have
been trained in antiracist practices, so they sided with the
attacker and suppressed their natural instinct to save a person
bleeding to death. That man was Henry Nowak, and his death was
caused by DEI.
But, entire societies can become victims of DEI.
On the Fourth of July, the White House published a
devastating report on the Smithsonian Institution, revealing
how DEI and DEI-type thinking has spread deeply into all our
cultural entities, including our museums. The report reveals
that DEI permeates thousands of exhibits that reframe America,
recasting the founding as a story of pure evil. The National
Museum of American History held more than 400 DEI initiatives
in 2023 alone. One of them included a discussion of a toolkit
that contained a chart that could have been written by Ibram X.
Kendi. It said the ultimate goal is to structurally transform
museums into antiracist multicultural institutions in a
transformed society.
Which brings us to the question, what is DEI? The initial
stand for things we should want. However, the intention of
these words has been distorted as they now mean the opposite.
Diversity is now an identity-based approach that violates
individual character, enforces intellectual conformity, and
demands quotas in order to attain community proportionalism. As
for equity, it means equality of outcomes, which is a violation
of equality before the law. It sounds like equality, but it now
means its functional opposite, as candidate Kamala Harris
demonstrated in November 2020 when she tweeted, ``There's a big
difference between equality and equity. Equitable treatment
means we all end up in the same place.'' That is not the
American ideal, but it marks this promise written in sand.
Inclusion, meanwhile, means exactly its opposite--
exclusion. We just saw an example of this when baseball players
for the San Francisco Giants were prevented from wearing
references to Bible verses on their caps. Inclusion is language
codes. DEI is therefore illegal. It transgresses the American
understanding of the promise of equal treatment from which we
must never deviate. DEI is also immoral as it demands that we
treat people differently because of immutable characteristics;
that is, traits they were born into and which they can never
change, such as race, sex, national origin, et cetera. To do so
is recognizably unjust.
President Biden, or whoever controlled the levers of power
during his years in office, put this anti-American and immoral
insanity on steroids. The DEI regime did not, of course, emerge
with President Biden. DEI trainings go back over many decades,
but it has been over the past 15 years or so that the acronym
has become standardized. DEI trainings are nothing more than
struggle sessions as practiced in China during the Cultural
Revolution. These trainings attempt to indoctrinate Americans
and stop them from viewing their country as worthy of patriotic
love and see it instead as a place so structurally unjust that
it requires systemwide transformation.
President Trump has tried to reverse this regime through
executive orders (EO) that explicitly targets President Biden's
programs, directs Federal agencies to eliminate DEI initiatives
throughout the Federal Government, and calls for increased
scrutiny of DEI practices in schools and universities that
receive Federal support. Most recently, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) issued a new rule change that also fights DEI.
Unfortunately, schools and university administrators who remain
intent on continuing to discriminate based on race and sex have
tried to figure out how to defy the President or to at least
game the system. It is up to you to cement President Trump's
actions into legislation.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez, and thanks for staying
within the time limit.
I now recognize Inez Feltscher Stepman for her opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF MS. INEZ FELTSCHER STEPMAN
SENIOR POLICY AND LEGAL ANALYST
INDEPENDENT WOMEN
Ms. Stepman. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished
Members of the Task Force, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today. I currently serve as Senior Policy
and Legal Analyst with Independent Women and Independent
Women's Law Center. For almost 30 years, Independent Women's
unique methods and trusted brand have shaped public
preferences, policies, and movements to create a better future
for men and women alike. Independent Women's Law Center
supports that mission by advocating for individual liberty,
equal opportunity, and respect for the constitutional order.
Today's subject matter, in my opinion, is critical for all
three of those missions.
When I came here to testify on this exact issue in 2024, I
identified three major factors barring the promise of
colorblind meritocracy and equality under the law from being
real in the United States. First, the enforcement of
antidiscrimination law in admissions and in the workplace had
become hypersensitive to mere statistical disparities in
outcomes and alleged microaggressions while looking the other
way as universities and companies announced and then followed
up on their intention to actively discriminate in favor of
preferred racial categories and against disfavored ones.
Second, and related, the legal doctrine of disparate
impact, imagining systemic racism as a kind of ``god of the
gaps'' to be assumed anytime outcomes do not come out perfectly
racially balanced, even in the face of total lack of evidence
of any animus, had become baked into our legal system in a
variety of ways. Disparate impact is, or optimistically was,
the legal enforcement arm of the DEI empire.
Third, the Biden Administration, building on groundwork
from the previous Obama Administration, redefined the basic
word used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964--sex. Up until that
point, from time immemorial, sex had meant biological sex. And
all of a sudden, under these administrations, it suddenly
included gender identity, so-called, as declared by the
individual. That false definition was illegitimately
substituted and used to transform all of antidiscrimination law
in the United States without a single legislative vote.
But now we are in 2026, more than a year and a half into
the second Trump Administration. On day one, this President
declared that the Federal Government was actually going to
enforce equality under the law, regardless of whether the
thumbs on the scale benefited Black Americans or White
Americans or anyone else. The promises of the President's
roster of day one EOs have taken some time and I am sure a lot
of hard legal and bureaucratic work across disparate agencies
to come to fruition, but now this ideal, that it is illegal to
use characteristics like race and sex to make important
decisions about people's lives and work, is being shaped in
real time.
As I sit here before you today, I am pleased to be able to
say that enormous progress on each one of these fronts has been
made. Although anti-White discrimination continues to exist in
ideologically dedicated institutions, as Mike testified, they
resist this kind of enforcement. In no era, in my lifetime,
have more strides been made toward the American ideal of being
judged by merit rather than immutable characteristics. It is a
simple ideal, but rare, and one no less worth fighting for now
that discrimination is against Whites and being laundered under
the gauzy terms of diversity, equity, and inclusion than it was
during the first wave of the civil rights movement, when racial
discrimination was implemented against Blacks.
As Chief Justice Roberts memorably put it back in 2007,
``The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to
stop discriminating on the basis of race.'' There is no
diversity exception to this just colorblind principle of our
law. No matter our race, Americans should expect to be judged
fairly and on the merits, not on the basis of skin color,
religion, or sex. We can either have civil rights and just
treatment for every American, or we can have a legalized racial
hierarchy system and balkanized resentful politics that puts us
at each other's throats.
Despite being considered controversial in some of our elite
institutions, this principle is very popular. Americans of all
political stripes, from red Florida to blue California, and
from all backgrounds, agree that we ought to be judged by the
content of our character and what we have to offer on the basis
of merit, whether we seek to offer that merit to an admissions
committee, an employer, or as a contractor working with the
Federal Government. That is why even in my deep blue home state
of California, when voters are presented with the opportunity
to reject racial discrimination for any reason and embrace
colorblind meritocracy, they overwhelmingly choose to do so.
The Trump Administration is, for the first time in decades,
enforcing the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution equally for
all Americans. But this laudable progress is fragile. Equality
under the law and colorblind meritocracy need codifying from
this body and protection from its highest court. Now, it is up
to Congress and the Supreme Court to make sure that the
principles of colorblind justice and equality under the law,
the only fair system in a multi-ethnic republic, continue to
flourish. Thank you.
Mr. Gill. Thank you.
And I now recognize Dr. Michael Shires for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL SHIRES, PH.D.
VICE CHAIR OF EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY,
HIGHER EDUCATION, AND SENIOR POLICY OFFICER
AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE
Dr. Shires. Thank you. Chairman Gill, Ranking Member Simon,
and Members of the Task Force, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. It is a privilege to be here, and I am grateful
for your leadership and service to our Nation.
I am honored to testify before you today about diversity,
equity, and inclusion, or DEI policies, and their devastating
impact on one of our most important national treasures,
America's colleges and universities. I am speaking today in my
capacity as the Vice Chair of Education Opportunity and Senior
Policy Officer at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a
nonprofit research institute whose focus is putting the
interests of the American people at the forefront of American
public policy.
I lead our extensive work in higher education, including
our work that shows how DEI undermines the quality of the
education provided to millions of Americans each day. I also
speak as someone who spent nearly 40 years in higher education
policy and leadership, including 25 years as an administrator
and professor at Pepperdine University, and most recently,
three years as the founding chief of staff at the Free Speech
University of Austin.
A few days ago, we celebrated the 250th anniversary of the
adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the proclamation
that launched America on a path to freedom, opportunity, and
prosperity unrivaled in human history. The central premise of
that declaration is the notion we all know--all men are created
equal. And even though we have not always lived up to that
ideal, pursuing it has fueled American success for the past 250
years.
Yet today, our leading institutions, including our colleges
and universities, have set aside this principle, instead
advancing a virulent DEI ideology rooted in the belief that the
United States is systemically racist and a White supremacist
project. DEI argues that certain disfavored groups, including
Whites, men, heterosexuals, even political conservatives, are
oppressors who must give up their privilege in favor of those
who are not. Today, this insidious ideology infects nearly
every dimension of the academy, including hiring, promotions,
tenure, admissions, and even academic publishing.
Over the past four decades, I have watched this contagion
metastasize on campuses. I have sat in university diversity
committee meetings where I was personally scolded by my peers
for the color of my skin. I have been asked to draft loyalty
statements to this ideology in order to apply for jobs and
explicitly told to hire candidates because of their race or
gender and not because of their ability to do the job. I have
seen it devastate careers, and I have seen it close the door of
opportunity to some of our best and brightest students. This
leftist monoculture undermines the very purpose of the American
investment in higher education, to equip the next generation of
Americans to think, debate, and make the best decisions in a
complex world based on evidence, not prejudice.
Unfortunately, the conversation on most university campuses
is more about indoctrination and advancing this leftism than
promoting shared American values. The leftists who have co-
opted America's institutions tolerate only one perspective on
campus--theirs--undermining the very intellectual diversity
needed for higher education to fulfill its primary public
purpose. Unaligned speakers are canceled, students who disagree
are failed, faculty are intimidated into silence or fired.
Shout-downs, hecklers, vetoes, violence, and even murder are
used to silence dissenting voices.
The American people collectively rejected this anti-
American discrimination and divisiveness when they elected
President Trump. And he responded, taking bold steps to roll
back the left's DEI stranglehold on higher education by
revoking the previous executive orders that mandated it. He has
aggressively enforced existing laws that ban discrimination in
all forms, including those demanded by DEI. He limited the use
of disparate impact in civil rights law and reformed
accreditation to ensure institutions are transparent and
accountable to the American people who fund them.
As a result, DEI forces today appear to be in retreat. Do
not be deceived. Many of these discriminatory processes are
still at work, just reformulated or hidden for the moment. AFPI
supports and applauds the Administration's actions to
reinstitute merit and opportunity for all Americans in higher
education, regardless of race, gender, or other
characteristics.
To persevere, these changes must be codified into law, and
we welcome the opportunity to work with Congress and the
Administration to ensure equal treatment for all Americans of
every background in our colleges and universities, much as our
Founding Fathers would have envisioned 250 years ago.
Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to your
questions.
Mr. Gill. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Shires, and thank you
to all three of you once again for taking the time to come here
and testify before us.
We are now going to move on to the question portion of this
hearing, and we are going to kick it off with the great
Governor Byron Donalds to begin. You are now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Donalds. I appreciate the sentiment, Chairman, about
115 days to go.
Dr. Shires, thanks so much for being here. I want to pick
up where you left off. In your view, what is the current state
of academia with respect to DEI programs? What is actually
happening in there today?
Dr. Shires. On most campuses, DEI is still in full force.
You see institutions, for example, that require diversity
statements for application have eliminated that, but yet every
single website that helps you apply for a job has information
on how to circumvent not having it to make sure that they know
that you are aligned with DEI.
Mr. Donalds. Are we seeing the same issue in some Federal
agencies, even though the Trump Administration obviously has
put out executive orders to unwind DEI practices in Federal
agencies?
Dr. Shires. Absolutely. It is important to remember that
the universities and the academy are kind of the epicenter for
our professional workforce, and so as students graduate and
have been indoctrinated in this ideology, they carry it with
them into the workplace.
Mr. Donalds. Well, in these agencies and even in the
universities, what are some of the ways that they are
rebranding DEI to try to basically kind of be in the shadows
away from the eyes of the American people?
Dr. Shires. The most common one is if you see an Office of
Community Belonging, it is where all the people that were in
the DEI office now are on campus. I am sorry?
Mr. Donalds. Point of clarification for me, what is
community belonging?
Dr. Shires. It is what they call DEI offices now. It takes
the inclusion part of DEI--diversity, equity, inclusion--and it
talks about how you empower and enable students in these
protected classes to be on campus and to be engaged, but it is
really the same operation that was there before about dividing
the campus.
Mr. Donalds. Why don't we just empower them to be in class
and actually learn? Wouldn't that be empowering a student?
Dr. Shires. I believe it would be, yes.
Mr. Donalds. Let me ask you this question because I have
never heard of this classification. Say that--community?
Dr. Shires. Community belonging.
Mr. Donalds. Community belonging. Okay. I have never heard
this term before, but that is okay. That is why we are having
this hearing.
If this is what colleges and institutions are moving toward
to shield or to rebrand DEI, what are some metrics or some
planks that policymakers need to be looking out for so that,
while we continue to move toward a true colorblind society
based upon merit, that we are examining what is happening at
institutions of higher learning who still want to hold on to
DEI programs by this name of community belonging? What should
we be looking for?
Dr. Shires. Much we should be doing is enforcing existing
law. I mean, current laws against discrimination prevent
universities from treating students differently, and yet on
many campuses we now have separate graduations. Imagine if we
would have had a graduation for White students only, for
example, what the uproar would be, and yet on many campuses we
have ethnically based graduations.
And so, we want to look at enforcing current discrimination
law. I think the civil rights focus for so long has been on
opening the door to opportunity, and we have allowed this
engine to build overt discrimination through DEI.
Mr. Donalds. Well, thank you for that.
Ms. Stepman, your testimony was actually quite interesting.
Quick question, what are some of the--have you been studying or
looking at what some of the current practices in corporate
America are around DEI? Is it something that corporate America
is largely stepping away from, or are they trying to rebrand
similar to what is happening on university campuses?
Ms. Stepman. I think corporate America is, for better or
worse, is a much less ideological environment than the
university campuses. I would expect universities to fight this
tooth and nail for ideological reasons. I have been much more
encouraged. I think if you would have asked me that question
just a couple years ago, I would have given you a more
pessimistic answer. I have been pretty positively encouraged by
the response of corporate America here, although they are
definitely trying their best to hide and memory-hole all of the
things they said in 2020 and 2021. Fortunately, we have records
of those statements, both external and internal, and those will
be used for litigation. But I do think that they are backing
off of some of these commitments. We will see whether that
commitment--new commitment to meritocracy, is maintained once
this Administration leaves power.
Mr. Donalds. Okay. Interesting. Thank you for that.
Mr. Gonzalez, do we have a reliable estimate on the
cumulative taxpayer dollars spent across the Federal
bureaucracy on DEI, personnel, contracts, and training programs
over the last five years?
Mr. Gonzalez. I am sure that exists. I do not have it, but
I can get it and forward it to your office.
Mr. Donalds. I look forward to seeing that.
Listen, I want to thank you all for taking the time to
come.
Chairman, thank you for leading this effort to make sure
that the United States is focused on true merit between all
people, regardless of race. I think that is going to be
critical to the future of the United States.
And I yield back.
Mr. Gill. Thank you.
And I now recognize Mr. Walkinshaw from Virginia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General C.Q. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the former Chief of Staff of the Air Force, a fighter
pilot, commander of all Air Force operations in the Indo-
Pacific, recipient of the Defense Distinguished Service Medal,
the Air Force Distinguished Service Medal, and a Bronze Star,
among others--fired, not for cause, not because he lacked the
experience or the qualifications to lead. Rather, he was fired
by President Trump amid an ideologically motivated purge of
military leaders after, by the way, Secretary Hegseth suggested
that he got his job due to race, kind of ironic from someone
who got his job based on being a cable news celebrity.
Admiral Lisa Franchetti, Chief of Naval Operations, a
former surface warfare officer, former Commander of U.S. Naval
Forces Korea, Deputy Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and
U.S. Naval Forces Africa during the 2018 strikes against Syrian
chemical weapon facilities, again, fired without cause.
My colleagues here today want to spin a false narrative.
They want to claim that diversity efforts are at odds with
merit-based policies, but these firings did nothing to bring or
restore merit to our Armed Forces. President Trump's policies
are removing the best of the best from positions of power, not
because they lack qualifications or experience, but because
this Administration is hostile to seasoned leaders whose views
differ from theirs, perhaps, and whose backgrounds do not fit
their specific stereotypes. And when this plays out in the
institution of our Armed Forces, readiness suffers.
But do not take my word for it. In the words of Admiral
McRaven, the four-star who oversaw the raid that killed bin
Laden, there is ``no doubt that General Brown and Admiral
Franchetti were warfighters committed to the cause through and
through.''
If President Trump and my Republican colleagues and our
witnesses here today want to talk about advancement based on
merit, they owe the American people an explanation for
dismissing two--and I am just talking about two here today--
exceptionally qualified military leaders, while the President
is starting wars of choice across the globe.
In the words of General Stanley McChrystal, the four-star
who oversaw the Joint Special Operations Command during the
Iraq War, ``These efforts are a complete distraction, a waste
of time, and in fact run counter to the concept of a
meritocracy.'' What they are really about, as General
McChrystal observes, is ``making the U.S. military an exclusive
organization that only values service from people of a certain
gender and of a certain race.'' Admiral McRaven goes on.
``These recent firings raise a risk that senior officers will
be overly cautious about providing their best advice, and
therefore, the risk of military miscalculation''--and, wow,
have we had some miscalculations lately--``will grow
dramatically.''
So, let us call it what it is, efforts to exclude qualified
women and people of color from positions of power. They are not
doing away with DEI. They are just doing racism and sexism, and
the American people will suffer as a result.
Ms. Feltscher Stepman, you expressed concern that this
Administration's ``new commitment to meritocracy'' might be
lost in a future administration. Do you agree or disagree with
Admiral McRaven, General McChrystal, that these firings had
nothing to do with merit?
Ms. Stepman. No, I have no way of doing that, but there are
only several basis on which it is illegal and unconstitutional
to fire someone, and that is the purpose of the hearing today,
right, is to talk about those specific things.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Do you think these were merit--were these
merit-based firings?
Ms. Stepman. I--the question has to have----
Mr. Walkinshaw. Is there any evidence to suggest they were?
Ms. Stepman. The President--we elect a President, not
generals, right? So, he has to have the legitimacy to choose
the people----
Mr. Walkinshaw. Should he fire them based on merit?
Ms. Stepman. I--he can make any decision he wants for the
people who are working under him because the American people
elected him. Except on these----
Mr. Walkinshaw. Maybe your organization should look into
these firings and see whether they were merit-based or race-
based or sex-based. Will you do that?
Ms. Stepman. If they were race-based or sex-based, they
would be illegal.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Why don't you look into them?
Ms. Stepman. I do not see any evidence of that.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Why don't you do a report on that?
Ms. Stepman. I do not see any evidence of the fact that it
was race-based or sex-based----
Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Stepman [continuing]. And those are the only ways----
Mr. Walkinshaw. I yield back.
Ms. Stepman [continuing]. That is illegal to fire someone.
The President can fire somebody for disagreeing with him, for
sure.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield
back.
Mr. Gill. Thank you.
And I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the
purpose of asking questions.
Dr. Shires, what is DEI?
Dr. Shires. Diversity, equity, and inclusion, as my
colleague Mr. Gonzalez said earlier, is none of those three
things. It is an ideology that is based on a philosophy--it
comes out of the academic world. It is based on a philosophy
that society is driven by--we are driven by our environment and
our identity, and the world that we live in is constructed from
it. As a result of that, we are victims of the world around us,
essentially, and in that world, they divide people into
oppressors and the oppressed, in the Marxist tradition, to
leverage power.
Mr. Gill. Are DEI policies compatible with meritocracy?
Dr. Shires. They are not.
Mr. Gill. Could you elaborate?
Dr. Shires. Meritocracy is based on the idea that you
measure somebody based on what they are doing, not what they
look like. DEI policies actually call for equal outcomes for
everyone, and so if I perform at a different level than someone
else, they are automatically placed in that same level.
Mr. Gill. What do DEI policies mean in practice?
Dr. Shires. In practice, it means quotas. It means that----
Mr. Gill. Racial quotas.
Dr. Shires. It does. And just like the Congressman
mentioned, you know, the perception that people are promoted to
ranks without the adequate backgrounds, whether that is
legitimate or not. In this case, I do not think it is, but that
is the perception that arises because you simply assign people
status based on who they are and not what they have done.
Mr. Gill. Ms. Stepman, racial quotas seem un-American to
me, don't they to you?
Ms. Stepman. Yes, and they are illegal.
Mr. Gill. And they are illegal. Under DEI regimes, what
races do colleges and universities typically least prefer in
their admissions processes?
Ms. Stepman. Whites, men, Asians. Men is not a race,
obviously, but there actually might be some--a little bit of
reverse discrimination actually going against women now because
women so predominate in universities, but yes, Whites and
Asians primarily.
Mr. Gill. Why do you think that it is primarily those
groups?
Ms. Stepman. Because they are in a war with the reality of
these disparities, so if you want to have a quota that comes
out perfectly racially balanced at the end, the only way that
these universities have been able to achieve that is by
discriminating on the basis of race and sex in their
admissions.
Mr. Gill. And you mentioned that a lot of colleges and
universities, you expect to fight DEI restrictions. Why is
that? You said that there was an ideological component there.
Ms. Stepman. Right, I think my fellow witness correctly
referenced the idea of the oppressor and the oppressed. There
is this idea that all differences in culture, disparities,
outcomes, all of these are somehow immediately evidence of
discrimination and some kind of unjust system, and so if there
is an ideological commitment to make sure that they kind of
force the world to look the way that they think it ought to,
and unfortunately, that is both immoral, discriminatory, and
fortunately for us, it is illegal under the law of the United
States.
Mr. Gill. Could you walk us through, practically speaking,
what a DEI policy would mean for a college admissions process?
Ms. Stepman. It means that, in practice, they place a thumb
on the scale for applications that may have no more or in fact
lesser qualifications than other applications purely on the
basis of race. And by the way, we saw this in the data in
Students for Fair Admissions. Harvard was absolutely
discriminating against Asian and White applicants who are
comparably situated to other applicants, and we know that
universities have been doing this for decades.
Mr. Gill. Mr. Gonzalez, BlackRock has a scholarship
exclusively for a diverse student. Those are their words. What
do you think ``diverse'' means in that context?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, that is--actually, diversity should mean
that you have people of diverse backgrounds. Often enough,
diverse means members of any of the so-called marginalized
groups alone, without any participation by Asian Americans or
White Americans.
Mr. Gill. That seems discriminatory, does it not?
Mr. Gonzalez. And as Ms. Feltscher said, it is not just
discriminatory, it is also illegal and immoral.
Mr. Gill. We see this across the corporate world. Starbucks
has a training program for employees limited to ``Black,
indigenous, and peoples of color, BIPOC, partners.'' Do you
think that is discriminatory?
Mr. Gonzalez. And illegal. I think the corporate world--I
agree with Ms. Feltscher. I think the corporate world is in
fact trying to move away. I have heard many anecdotes of----
Mr. Gill. Their goal at the time was for BIPOC
representation to be at least 30 percent at all corporate
levels and at least 40 percent at all retail and manufacturing
roles by----
Mr. Gonzalez. Right.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. 2025. That sounds like a racial
quota.
Mr. Gonzalez. That is a quota, that is illegal, that is
immoral. However, since President Trump was elected, they are
actually coming forward and saying, hey, we are so glad you are
making this illegal, you are discouraging us from doing this.
We did not want to do it in the first place. And so, I agree
with Ms. Feltscher that the corporate world is moving at a much
faster rate than the academy.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, and my time is up, so thank you all.
And I would now----
Mr. Walkinshaw. Mr. Chairman, a UC request?
Mr. Gill. Yep, without objection.
Mr. Walkinshaw. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a February 21, 2025, article from Military Times titled,
``Ending Military Diversity Efforts Will Cost Us Talent and
Readiness,'' which shows active-duty service members believe
dismantling programs is undermining military readiness and
recruitment of diverse talent.
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Mr. Walkinshaw. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a March 27, 2026, article from NPR titled, ``Defense
Secretary Hegseth Intervened to Stop Promotions of Black and
Female Officers.''
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gill. I would like to enter into the record an article
from The Hill called ``Asian American Students Were Victims of
Racial Discrimination,'' as well as another article called
``The Left's Incurable DEI Addiction.''
And with that said, I will now recognize Ms. Pressley from
Massachusetts for 5 minutes.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Today's hearing is irrational. Today's hearing is
irrational, it is misguided, and it is consistent, consistent
with the Republicans war on diversity, equity, and on
inclusion. Now, Republicans control the White House, they have
rigged the Supreme Court, they have majorities in both chambers
of Congress, and they are using the full weight of that power,
the full force of that, and your taxpayer dollars might I add,
of this Federal Government in this moment to enact precise harm
on working families.
There are no oversight hearings on high unemployment and
the rising costs, and there are no hearings on protecting
voting rights or affordable healthcare coverage. Instead,
Republicans have decided to focus on attacking everyday people
who are just trying to make ends meet. Their agenda is anti-
Black, it is anti-immigrant, it is anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ), it is anti-worker. And
again, since we are talking about diversity, equity, inclusion,
and accessibility (DEIA) and the dismantling of it, it is also
anti-veteran, it is anti-rural, it is anti-disabled, and it
most certainly is anti-woman.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives were created
to promote fairness because there are real biases in America
that disadvantage specific groups of people. That is a fact
backed by mountains of data. While there has been progress, the
work is unfinished. Actually, the work is piling up due to
Republicans emboldening greater discrimination, while
simultaneously dismantling civil rights protections. For
example, women face systemic gender discrimination. I know you
cannot tell by looking at the Republican Party, but women make
up 50 percent of this country, and we deserve equal rights.
So, I am going to start with a simple question, and Ms.
Feltscher Stepman, I am going to begin with you, because
actually the fact that your women's forum even exists, some
might even consider that to be a DEI initiative. But, let me
just ask you a question. Do you believe America should have
gender equality, meaning that women and men should have equal
rights under the Constitution and our laws? Yes or no?
Ms. Stepman. I believe that women and men----
Ms. Pressley. Yes or no?
Ms. Stepman [continuing]. Can and do have equal rights----
Ms. Pressley. Yes or no?
Ms. Stepman [continuing]. Under the Constitution, yes.
Ms. Pressley. Yes or no? One more time to keep it clean
here. Do you believe America should have gender equality,
meaning that women and men should have equal rights under the
Constitution and our laws? Yes or no?
Ms. Stepman. I believe they should have equal rights, yes.
Ms. Pressley. Okay. And Dr. Shires, yes or no?
Dr. Shires. Yes.
Ms. Pressley. Mr. Gonzalez, yes or no?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Ms. Pressley. All right. Well, unfortunately, the
Constitution is silent on this topic, and that is why I have
introduced legislation to add the Equal Rights Amendment as the
28th Amendment, enshrining it as the law of this land. Now,
look you all, every Democrat in the House has signed on to my
bill, but I am still waiting on my Republican colleagues to
join. So, until we are able to codify gender equality in the
Constitution, diversity, equity, and inclusion policies have
supported women in every aspect of their lives.
For example, women have served in the military for more
than 200 years, yet Republicans and your anti-diversity
campaign have denied multiple women promotions just because
they are women, not to mention those that have just been fired.
Women get paid less money for doing the same work as men, but
since Republicans are anti-equity, the EEOC, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, has weakened enforcement of pay
discrimination laws, maintaining and widening our gender wage
gap by the day. Do you all have any daughters? Not to mention
Black women making 65 cents on the dollar to White men.
And finally, women are underrepresented in medical trials
to find cures for diseases that affect us, but because
Republicans are attacking inclusion, they cut funding for
women's health research projects.
So, let me sum it up. Anti-DEI is anti-woman, and those
harms are compounded by attacks on voting rights, like the so-
called Save America Act that Republicans are fixated on
passing, which could disenfranchise nearly 70 million women
simply because their last names on their ID no longer match
their birth certificates after being married, which pro-family
people seem to care about. Not to mention the attacks on bodily
autonomy. As women, our bodies are treated as a debate, and
Republicans are passing laws that restrict what we do and when
we do it, something men have never had to struggle with.
So, when it comes to Republicans on this Committee who are
all men, enacting more harm on women through anti-DEI hearings
like this one, we need to call it out and fight back.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
this June 2026 article from AfroTech titled ``Civil Rights
Organizations and Nonprofits Signed Letter Demanding
Transparency and Response From the Trump Administration
Regarding DEIA Ban.''
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Ms. Pressley. So, you all, since Donald Trump is so loud
and proud about these efforts to dismantle and defund DEIA, why
do you think the Trump Administration is hiding all the data on
their firings?
Okay. I guess that is my time. All right then. Thank you.
Mr. Gill. Thank you. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Thank you, Congresswoman. And I would be happy to look at your
equal rights amendment and read through it. I guess my biggest
question was, does it define what a woman is?
Ms. Pressley. I look forward to your signing on.
Mr. Gill. We will take a look at it.
Ms. Pressley. I look forward to your signing on.
Mr. Gill. I just was hoping for some analytical clarity,
but thank you. We will take a look at it.
And I have got some UCs as well. ``DEI Has Jeopardized Air
Safety,'' ``DEI Policies Threaten Medical Excellence,''
``Uncovering Radical Efforts to Disguise DEI,'' ``Justice
Department Investigation Determines UCLA's Medical School
Discrimination Based on Race and Admissions.''
And with that said----
Ms. Simon. I have a UC request----
Mr. Gill. Yep.
Ms. Simon [continuing]. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record, January 26, 2025,
an article from CNN entitled ``Trump Gutting of Federal DEI
Programs Will Hit Rural Poor Communities,'' which shows to
push----
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Ms. Simon. Okay. It is right here.
Mr. Gill. I will now recognize Mr. Menefee for 5 minutes
for the purpose of asking questions.
Mr. Menefee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. You know, we have heard a lot today about you
all's views on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. You
know, my take is these are about leveling out a playing field
that has historically not been level where there are folks in
this country who are all running the same race, but for some
people, their lane has obstacles in it. It has hurdles, it has
water pits, and that is because of discrimination that was
pushed, instituted, and facilitated by government at every
single level.
So, I want to start with you, Dr. Shires. You have written
much about how DEI programs fuel racial stereotypes. You talked
here a little bit today about your opposition to these
programs, and I think that is consistent with what we have
heard from our Republican colleagues, as well as Vice President
Vance, who I believe called them a deliberate program of
discrimination against White men.
So, let me ask you this. Take a random White person in
America today and a random Black person. When they go apply for
jobs, when they apply for a home loan, when they are getting
their home appraised, when they are seeking higher wages, would
you say that those two people are more likely than not to be on
the same playing field?
Dr. Shires. Legally, yes.
Mr. Menefee. I have no clue what that means. In practice,
are they likely to be on the same playing field?
Dr. Shires. I guess what I am trying to understand is, what
playing field are you comparing them on? I mean, in your
metaphor, you talk about how some lanes on the track have
obstacles and others do not. The solution to that is to remove
the obstacles. It is not to change the finish line. And DEI
changes the finish line, whereas the Federal laws against the
discrimination are there to remove the obstacles.
So, if you are asking--if the question is, how do I get to
the situation where both of them have the same access, the
answer is removing the obstacles and enforcing the law. It is
not changing the finish line.
Mr. Menefee. Well, there are also DEI programs that remove
the obstacles that the President has removed from the Federal
Government. But my question to you is, if a random White person
in this country and a random Black person in this country go to
get their home appraised, right, why is it that the Black
person is much more likely to get a lower value on their home
appraisal?
Dr. Shires. Because they live in a different neighborhood?
Mr. Menefee. Okay. Great. We will get to that in a second
because that is wrong. Black people in this country were
enslaved for at least 240 years. Is that correct?
Dr. Shires. That is correct.
Mr. Menefee. Okay. And after slavery ended, you had about
100 more years at least of Jim Crow and legal segregation where
government at the Federal, state, and local level blocked Black
people from owning land, from getting bank loans, from living
in certain neighborhoods, from attending certain schools. All
that happened too, right?
Dr. Shires. Yes.
Mr. Menefee. Okay. So, my question to you is simple. Name
the year that the playing field became completely even. I want
you to give me a date.
Dr. Shires. Again, it depends on what playing field you are
talking about. I mean, if you are looking at----
Mr. Menefee. For home loans, you brought--I think we talked
about home loans and appraisals. For home loans, what year did
it become equal?
Dr. Shires. Well, according to the DEI movement, in 1991,
when they imposed disparate impact.
Mr. Menefee. So, you are telling me today that if a Black
person goes and applies for a home loan, they have the same
likelihood of getting accepted for that loan as a White person
does?
Dr. Shires. I am saying under the DEI rules, yes, that
would be the case. We know in practicality that people have
different income profiles and experiences. If you are asking me
a person that lives next door to another person, if one is
White and one is Black and they go both apply for a loan, do I
expect different outcomes? No, and if there are, then it should
be enforced under discrimination laws.
Mr. Menefee. So, you are talking about rules, I am talking
about outcomes. So, let us play a game of true and false, and
let us start with wealth disparities. The median net worth of a
White household in this country is $285,000. The median net
worth of a Black household is about $45,000. True or false?
Dr. Shires. I do not know.
Mr. Menefee. Okay. You came here as an expert today in a
DEI hearing, and you do not know that, basic facts about wealth
accumulation in this country? All right. Let us go to the next
one. For every $100 in wealth held by White families, Black
families hold about $15. True or false?
Dr. Shires. Again, I do not know those specific numbers.
Mr. Menefee. Okay. Well, I have data here, it is true. So,
we know that the answer here is not just that Black people
believe in saving less than White people do, right? It is that
government in this country has put one set of folks in a better
position to succeed than other people. And it was the law for a
very, very long time, and it became ingrained in our
institutions. Government was part of the problem, and so it has
to now be part of the solution.
So, let us do this true or false game again for employment
and wages. Black workers are far more likely to be unemployed
as White workers at almost every education level. True or
false?
Dr. Shires. That is true.
Mr. Menefee. So, do you just believe that Black people are
lazier or are not as good at applications? Why do you think
that data is the way it is?
Dr. Shires. I think the data is that way it is because our
educational system has dramatically failed the Black community,
and instead of solving it, we just let them into college where
they then have a higher rate of failure because they----
Mr. Menefee. I was not aware that there is a Black
education system and a White education system.
Dr. Shires. I said our education.
Mr. Menefee. In my district, we have schools that are
represented, all races in there, in the same outcomes. The same
school has different outcomes for Black kids and White kids.
My time is up, but in short, if the government was part of
the problem, the government now has to be part of the solution.
Mr. Gill. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you.
And I now recognize Mr. Jack for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jack. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And before I begin, I would like to acknowledge my friend
John Bonk and his wife, Laura, who are in the audience with us
today. I wanted them to see a committee hearing, and I wanted
them to see, Mr. Chairman, what a freshman can do when they
excel in this Committee, as you no doubt are exemplary proof.
When you are a great freshman, you have a chance to lead in
Congress and get a gavel, and that is exactly what you have
proven.
So, today, Mr. Gonzalez, I would like to start with you. I
would like to learn a little bit more about the history of DEI
and some of the initiatives we have seen in the corporate
workplace. Could you help us understand from where this
emanated and who developed these initial ideas to implement
these policies?
Mr. Gonzalez. Representative Jack, thank you for your
question. So, they have been around for many years. Initially,
they were a response to the Civil Rights Act. They wanted, you
know, throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, they wanted to
make sure that companies were doing the things that the
government demanded, first of contractors, government
contractors, then of just any business.
Very quickly, these degenerated into practices and
trainings that were part of a larger framework that saw America
as being basically racist, and that is when--especially since
in the last 15 years when the acronym has become more defined,
they began to look a lot more like the struggle sessions as
practiced in the Cultural Revolution in China, which were meant
to change the thinking of a whole society.
Mr. Jack. And I am just curious, over those past 15 years,
I mean, what has really precipitated the acceleration of this?
It seems like it is commonplace now and something that we are
trying to identify, we are having a congressional hearing on it
today. Is there funding that is going toward this? Are there
groups that are trying to sow division and discord vis-a-vis
this initiative?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, you can see a lot of studies have been
made on the use by newspapers and the academy of the terms of
DEI, Whiteness, systemic racism, et cetera, and they really
spike--and they begin to really spike in 2014. And I have
associated that with the beginning of the Black Lives Matter
movement in 2013, the second, in June 2013, and then the
Ferguson riots in 2014 when we really began to--the country
began to change enormously, and that obviously culminated in
2020, which is when really old, you know, diversity trainers
were brought here to Congress. Robin DiAngelo met with members
of one party, nearly all of the members of one party and gave a
training session. But, so that--so you had two spikes, 2014,
and then a huge spike in 2020.
Mr. Jack. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Dr. Shires, I would like to talk a little bit about what
the Trump Administration has accomplished with respect to
shutting down DEI policies at over 300 colleges and
universities, but it seems like some of these academic
institutions are just changing the name or trying to rebrand
the effort to comply with some of the executive orders. Could
you expound on that for us?
Dr. Shires. Absolutely. It is important to remember that
the Students for Fair Admissions ruling came down during the
Biden Administration, and the Biden Administration did
effectively nothing to implement the idea that we were supposed
to have colorblind admissions in universities. And so, the
Trump Administration has been open and transparent. It shined
the light of sunshine, if you will, on the actions of these
institutions. We see the lawsuits with the Department of
Justice against the medical schools right now, the engagement
with the ABA. It is literally just raising the conversation to
say this discrimination is happening, and we need to stop.
And so, the main actions have actually been these
negotiations with high-profile institutions. The Administration
offered a compact to talk about creating transparency around
these issues. I was part of the accreditation rulemaking where
they added complying with civil rights laws as part of the
responsibilities of accreditors to ensure that universities
respond to Federal law. So, it is kind of a full-court press.
Most recently, the Administration issued new guidance on
disparate impact rules and how they are used. And again, this
is Department of Justice guidance. It still has not been tested
in the courts yet.
Mr. Jack. And in our closing 30 seconds, what more could
Congress do to help accelerate and codify some of these actions
that the Trump Administration has led on?
Dr. Shires. Well, I think the first is to codify the
disparate impact changes, and I know Chairman Gill has a bill
on this that would touch those issues. I think beyond that, it
is a lot about transparency, and it is about enforcement. I
think Congress should revisit the Higher Education Act and take
some of the issues around civil rights and the public interest
in higher education, for example, having intellectual diversity
on campus as a key dimension to why the government funds higher
education, and those should be codified in the Higher Ed Act. I
think that continued conversations and rulings around--or
hearings around these issues as well.
Mr. Jack. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Ms. Simon. Mr. Chairman, I have a UC request.
Mr. Jack. Go ahead.
Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter
into the record an article from Time Magazine, February 25,
2025, ``How Trump's Attacks on DEI are Hurting Communities That
Voted for Him,'' which describes how his initiatives----
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Ms. Simon [continuing]. Have hurt programs in West
Virginia.
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gill. I now recognize Mr. Min for 5 minutes.
Mr. Min. Thank you, Chair Gill, Ranking Member Simon, for
hosting this hearing.
I just want to note, again, this is a Task Force not only
created to defend constitutional rights and expose
institutional abuses. I am still waiting on the hearings on,
say, the constitutional rights protecting people against
illegal search and seizure, from political motivated
prosecutions; or on Article I, and its clear edicts that
Congress and only Congress can declare war, appropriate funds,
or levy taxes, but I guess we will keep waiting for those
hearings.
Now, before getting into politics, I was a law professor.
My research focused on banking and corporate governance. I
actually served on the admissions committee for two years, so I
have some insights on diversity and inclusion here. And I think
people often falsely frame diversity and merit as competing
concepts, and that is not typically the case. This is about
expanding opportunities, about leveling the playing field.
And as someone who was on the admissions committee before
the Harvard case, where the Supreme Court overturned and
nullified affirmative action, but post-Bakke, which you are all
familiar with, where we were allowed to use race as a factor,
we used it as a factor. It could not be dispositive. There were
no quotas. And I also know there was a lot of misinformation
about what diversity, equity, and inclusion actually looked
like, say, in higher ed. I know that was also the case in
workplaces, in government hiring practices, and the like. We
were allowed to use it as a factor.
Now, one thing I will just point out, is that we actually
much more explicitly used ideological diversity as a proxy
because we wanted to have a diverse institution. We did not
want to have all liberal students, so we actually pushed up a
lot of students that probably would not have qualified because
they were outspoken conservatives, and I just want to make that
point that I think a lot of folks in this room have problems
with diversity unless it includes, say, their viewpoints. And
their viewpoints, let us be honest, for a long time were
underrepresented in higher education institutions, in the
workplace because, by pure numbers, people who are outspoken
conservatives were not typically measuring up and getting into
places like Harvard or Yale, so they had to adjust and try to
get people in.
I will also note that the research is pretty clear that
diversity is associated with better outcomes, whether that is
in the workplace, whether that is in decisionmaking, in
academic institutions, whether that is in research, and
certainly in the boardroom, which is what I am familiar with.
And you are probably all familiar with the litany of research
out there that not just suggests, but very clearly shows a
correlation between diversity in boards, corporate boards, and
Return on Investment (ROI).
And so, the McKinsey study is one example of the many, many
studies out there. I think McKinsey found that on average,
firms in the top quartile, top 25 percent of diversity on their
corporate boards, were 27 percent higher ROI than their
counterparts. That is typical of the findings we have. And the
reason it is for, it is not just theoretical, it is because we
have a lot of outcomes associated when you do not have
diversity. You have groupthink. You have echo chambers. These
have all been well-documented. You have the problem of yes-men.
I just want to highlight something that I think is a very
clear example of this today. Pete Hegseth, Secretary of
Defense, is probably the most notorious example of someone who
has tried to get rid of diversity in the name of pursuing, I do
not know, something that looks more like him, people that look
like him, that talk like him. He has notably, apparently, fired
or prevented the promotion of a number of African Americans and
women. And yet I think by all accounts, what we have seen to
date in less than two years is an absolutely disastrous
Department of Defense. We have a Secretary of Defense that is
more concerned about facial hair than constitutional
violations. There appeared to be no exit plan, no strategy when
he went into Iran. This is the problem when you have group
think, and you are just trying to promote people that look like
you. You create that echo chamber, and I think this is a very
clear example.
I will also just note that across the board in my district
in Orange County, which is one of the most diverse places in
the country, where we have one of the most booming economies in
the country--I invite you all to come visit. You can see it is
really great when you can go get boba or an In-N-Out burger in
the same day, like, across the street from each other, a lot of
great outcomes associated with the diversity that is being so
vilified here. And Orange County, I think, benefits from that
diversity in our institutions, among our entrepreneurs, among
our elected officials.
And the problem right now that we are seeing is, as
diversity is being stripped out of so many agencies across the
board at the Federal level, I have heard from just so many of
my different stakeholders, whether it is pharmaceutical
companies, whether it is construction companies, that they have
difficulty now because the expertise that was in place at
agencies like the FDA, USDA, whatever else they are dealing
with, no longer there because in an effort to strip out
diversity, the Trump Administration has stripped out expertise.
Now, with that, I do not really have any questions for you
because I think we have heard your comments. I just want to
close by saying diversity matters. It is the heart of this
country. It is what has made America so great to begin with. As
a son of immigrants, I will say that proudly. I believe that
the reason our military, our institutions are so much more
powerful and effective and lethal than any other countries in
the world that do not have that diversity is because that
diversity gives us strength.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Jack. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Gill. You are recognized.
Mr. Jack. I have a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Mr. Jack. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the
record three items. First, I would like to enter into the
record, from the U.S. Department of Education, a press release
entitled ``U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil
Rights Launches Title VI Investigation into Fairfax County
Public Schools.''
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Mr. Jack. I would like to enter into the record an article
from Fox News, ``Watchdog Urges DOJ Probe of Top Research
University Over Alleged Illegal DEI Practices Defies Common
Sense.''
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Mr. Jack. And last, I would like to enter into the record
an article from America First Legal, which is ``CMS Removes
Biden-Era DEI Framework From Kidney Transplant Program
Following America First Legal's Rulemaking Petition.''
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Mr. Min. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record a May 8, 2025, article from CNN, which describes how
the Trump Administration's anti-DEI push has gutted critical
medical research.
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Mr. Min. It is titled ``Trump's Diversity Purge Freezes
Hundreds of Millions in Medical Research at Universities Across
the Country.''
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Mr. Menefee. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
request. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
March 12, 2025, article from The Real Deal titled ``DOGE
Cancels Affordable Housing Deals in Anti-DEI Push.''
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Mr. Menefee. And, second, a December 5, 2022, research
article from the Brookings Institute, ``How Racial Bias in
Appraisals Affects the Devaluation of Homes in Majority Black
Neighborhoods.''
Mr. Gill. Without objection.
Mr. Menefee. Thank you.
Mr. Gill. I now recognize Ms. Simon for her 5 minutes.
Ms. Simon. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I really appreciate us having this conversation today
because what we are lifting up is it seems like a lot of anger
and frustration with the way that things are in this moment.
And I would agree the American people all over the country,
from sea to shining sea, they are angry and frustrated and
afraid as they see the cost of living skyrocket under the
Administration. Prices are up, and families across the country
are struggling to make ends meet. We all know if you go to the
grocery store right now, the price of ground beef or orange
juice. We are talking about DEI, but I have a couple of
questions as it relates to what is actually germane to most
folks in this country in this moment.
Mr. Gonzalez, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has found that
the price of everyday goods like food and housing and clothes
has increased more than four percent over the last--more than
four percent over the last 12 months. Mr. Gonzalez, yes or no,
is DEI the reason that Americans cannot afford clothes or
groceries?
Mr. Gonzalez. No. I believe Biden was.
Ms. Simon. Okay. No, I am asking you right now. Is DEI--
groceries, is DEI----
Mr. Gonzalez. You know, I do not think that DEI has
anything to do with it. I think President----
Ms. Simon. Thank you.
Mr. Gonzalez [continuing]. Biden's policies did.
Ms. Simon. I am going to move forward. What about housing?
Is DEI the reason why two teachers working in any state in this
country cannot afford to buy a house?
Mr. Gonzalez. Again, I would say Biden.
Ms. Simon. Okay. Biden is the reason why, but not DEI, so
Biden.
Mr. Gonzalez. I do not think DEI has anything to do with
it.
Ms. Simon. But Biden is not the President right now, but we
will move forward.
Ms. Stepman--and if I mispronounce your name, I really
apologize. American families on average paid $310 more for
groceries in 2025 under the current Administration than they
did in 2024. Yes or no, did DEI cause that?
Ms. Stepman. No. There are, in fact, other issues under the
sun.
Ms. Simon. Thank you.
Dr. Shires, under our current Administration, gasoline
prices have increased by more than 50 percent since this
disastrous war. Is DEI the fault of that?
Dr. Shires. I do not believe so.
Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir. This is why, you know, I think
all of us, many folks who are watching, are struggling with the
conversation today. City after city, in rule space after rule
space, folks are struggling with the realities of gas and
grocery prices.
Just a few days ago, a family called my office, not from my
state, from a red state, requesting resources because their
child's clinical trial was cut by this Administration, that
baby who is struggling with cancer, the clinical trial is over.
The port has been taken out of her chest. She will go home to
die. And we are talking about inclusion and equity and
diversity. While SNAP benefits are cut, folks cannot afford
their mortgage, and we are having a conversation about the
lexicon of diversity.
But, okay, did DEI make the President's approval rate fall
to 39 percent? Is DEI the reason that Republicans cannot pass
any of their bills on the floor this week? Is DEI the reason
that the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship? Did DEI
kill the dinosaurs? I do not think that the American people are
buying this attempt to divide and distract and scapegoat.
Because what I would say, Mr. Chairman, it is feeling and
sounding a lot like 1967 in this room. If you know, you know.
We know what is happening. We know what this conversation is
really about. And none of us have any real answers about what
we are doing today outside of having a conversation that is set
to break the commitment to include all Americans, to uplift the
fact that we look different. We have different languages. We
may pray differently. But the assault on that beauty, that is
what we are litigating. Okay. But it is disgusting.
And you want to blame DEI. You want to blame foreigners.
You want to blame people of color for the price of gas, for the
unaffordability in this country, and the fact that literally
right down the street, folks who are working two and three jobs
cannot afford to take their baby to daycare.
And I will yield back. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for
this conversation today.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Ms. Simon.
And I would just note that DEI policies are what drove the
United States allowing foreigners to buy up homes with Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) loans. I think they did drive up
the price of housing.
Ms. Simon. Mr. Chairman, do you want to talk about the GI
Bill in the Stanford study----
Mr. Gill. I am happy to talk about anything you would like
to talk about.
Ms. Simon [continuing]. That literally showed tens of
thousands of mortgages being taken out, and less than one
percent of those GI mortgages are one percent.
Mr. Gill. I think that what our side of the aisle is hoping
for is for college admissions and business hiring decisions to
not be based on race.
Ms. Simon. I do not think that White men are in the
minority of any of the top ten colleges.
Mr. Gill. I do not either. I never suggested that.
With that, and without objection, all Members have five
legislative days within which to submit materials and
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Task Force stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Task Force was adjourned.]
[all]