[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]