The subcommittee on higher education workforce and development will come to order. Uh I note there's a quorum present without objections the chair is authorized to call recess at any time. uh whitewatching history, creating a
conservative boogeyman, using racist dog whistles. This is what the left's accusation whenever Americans call out the toxic ideology known as diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI. DEI supporters promise that it would break barriers, promote opportunity, and write
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. It's a philosophical roots nourished in the seabbed of Marxism.
Disi 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. DI states that based on your color, you're evil. You're either an evil oppressor or hopeless, hless, weak, and oppressed victim. It teaches that all social ills can be traced to an oppressor, a segment of people in which prejudice and hatred
is always justified. We see the results in the teaching on campus colleges throughout our country where the Jewish race is placed as by Marxist professors at the very top of the oppressor spectrum. Anti-semitism 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 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 uh diversity among faculty. Students are forced to participate in DEI programs. In order to graduate, accredititors instead of holding instead of holding institutions accountable for the students outcome are
imposing on them DEI requirements. The most disastrous outcome of this divisive ideology is the impact it's had on lowincome underrepresented populations that Democrats claim to care about. As college costs remain high, self-confidence drops to two no to to
new lows 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 due to their or their skin color. There's no worse area for
DEI than in medical education. Instead of a focus on the best medical practice for each patient, health care disparities are quickly blamed on the oppression. The DI solution therefore to to discrimination is for 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 is contrary to America's ideals of hard work, merit, and quality. This administration has
undone countless discriminatory Biden Harris executive orders and work to ensure DEI has no place in our universities. The universities who believe you can simply change the name of your DE DEI offices and continue to teach 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 DEA, I'm sorry, 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 I will yield now to ranking member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I want to uh 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 or moving
away from merit-based selection. It's about ensuring that everyone has a fair shot, everyone is respected, and and feels like they belong. Historically, policies like slavery and Jim Crow laws and redlinining have 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've 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 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 isn't just an ideal. It is a necessity for the future of this nation. Diversity and and and and education in our classrooms, our campuses and
curricula 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 the
progress that we've made. It's 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 want to just take a
moment to specifically address the harmful effects these anti-dei efforts have had on historically black colleges and universities, H.B.CU. These are institutions which I hold dear. uh these attacks on DEIA
initiatives, universities like my alma mater, North Carolina ENT 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. And 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 cancelled. As Morgan State uh recently found out, the school center for equitable artificial intelligence and machine learning systems would seeks to create a trustworthy AI that draws on research
and is federal funding. They had it cut. Work to eliminate AI hallucinations, a problem that that we all know exists, is defunded because the word equitable was in the center's title. For H.B.CU. these cuts are especially devastating. H.B.CU
have long played a critical role in 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, HB.CU 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. And these funding cuts are not just numbers on a page. They represent real consequences for students. Without these resources, our H.B.CU 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. And the
truth is, all institutions are grappling with a crisis as they navigate an evershifting 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. So 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 and I yield back. Thank you so much. Um I will now turn to the introduc introduction of our four distinguished witnesses. Uh first Sorry. Okay. Pursuant to community rule
8C, 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 5:00 p.m. 14 days after this hearing. Without objections, the hearing records will remain open for 14 days to allow for
statements and other material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official um hearing record. I will now turn uh to introduction of the four the singles witnesses. Uh our first witness is Dan Mort uh Morino, the
executive director uh for American Civil Rights Project in Dallas, Texas. Our second witness is Dr. Sean Harpert, the Provos Professor of Education, public policy, and business at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles,
California. Our third witness is uh Miss Renee Moroff Mor Morin G, a fellow uh for the Manhattan Institute in New York City. And the fourth witness is Dr. uh Kurt
Meelli, uh the medical director for no harm in Glenn and Glenn 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 uh you each limit your oral present presentation to three
minute sum summary uh of your written statement. As committee members uh may have with the questions for you, the clock will countdown for three minutes. Pursuant to committee rule 8D, the community p committee practice, however, is it will not cut you off your testimony until you reach the five
minute mark. I'd like to remind the witnesses to be aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. I will first recognize uh uh Mr. Mornoff for your testimony. 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 non-discrimination 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 non-discrimination first in its Baky
decision in 1978 then in the Grder decision with an actual majority in 2003 specifically only for the admissions decisions of institutions of higher education. Despite how narrow those opinions were, many of our institutions
subsequently adopted an over broad misreading of the cases to create a generalized trump card which would overrule the linkian constitution wherever the talisman of
diversity was invoked. Um, 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 non-discrimination for the admissions decisions of higher educational
institutions. It it it should have, but by all appearances, it didn't. The evidence that continues to acrue 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 collect our non-discrimination laws. The
signature example here would be NIH's first program which provided funding only for hirings that would violate Title 7. Uh as well as more generally the federal government incentivizing broadly directly and indirectly
violations of our non-discrimination laws. The new administration has begun to address these issues. There's 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
accredititors from using their control over access to Congress's purse to compel violations of non-discrimination law. I would also point out only Congress can actually deauthorize and defund programs like the first program.
There is much more to say. I've said much of it in my written testimony. I look forward to talking with you about these issues. Thank you for having me. Thank you so much. I now recognize Dr. Harper for your testimony. Thank you for inviting me. I'm here
speaking in my capacity as a researcher and a tenure professor in three schools 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 cancelled. All of this destruction is in 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 post-secary 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,
overfunded, 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 US 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 US Department of Education. More recently available
federal statistics show similar patterns across the eight Ivy League institutions. On average, 96% of students graduated within six years. It was 95% for black students and
94% 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,
white 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, accredititors
have become too woke. Five, DEI offices are overfunded and excessively 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. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Our third witness is uh Miss Renee Mojigi Mccuri. Makochi. Thank you. I appreciate it. Sorry about that. Chairman Owens,
Ranking Member Adams, and all other members of this distinguished body. I'd 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'm here to address the negative impacts of
DEI in higher education. But before I do, I want to call attention to two very recent and significant developments in the history of racial preferences in the US. First, the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in students for fair admissions versus President and Fellows of Harvard
College or SFA, 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 SFA and the principles of colorblindness and equal opportunity articulated therein. Unfortunately, many universities have continued to engage in illegal racebased 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 twothirds of the country's top 65 universities included a diversity, identity, or adversity related question on their application in 2024, up from 42% in 2020
and 54% in 2022. In a similar vein, an April 16th report from parents defending education noted that 245 universities still have institutionwide 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, Sher Anne Charleston.
Racial preferences and DEI programs are not only unlawful and wrong, but 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 Rutgers University found that rather than ease racial tensions among college students, the anti-racism and anti-opression teachings of Ibram X Kendi and Robin D'Angelo to prominent DEI scholars
increased feelings of hostility and prejudice toward dominant groups on campus. Moreover, in an amicus brief filed in SFA, a grassroots 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 US have sounded the alarm on how DEI pedagogy not only excludes Jews but actively faments anti-semitism on their
campuses. Yet 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 intellectually 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 frequent frequently affiliated with university DEI offices, such as race preferences, mandatory diversity statements in hiring, and segregated graduation ceremonies. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion in
SFA, "Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges vested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin." Accordingly, racial preferences and DEI should be rejected.
Full stop. Thank you. Thank you. U my last witness, Dr. Melli for your testimony. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today. My name is Kurt Miselli, 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've 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 a well-intentioned effort to foster inclusion has devolved into an
ideology that prioritizes group identity over merit. It stifles open dialogue and encourages racial division. It undermines professionalism. I've 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 lensure 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. Past fail grading systems, admission standards where merit plays a secondary role in 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 in health outcomes stem from structural racism. The
evidence doesn't support this. Studies on so-called racial concordance matching patients with doctors of the same race haven't proven the point. Rather, systematic reviews show no improvement in quality outcomes. Other studies on racial concordance have been debunked.
Yet, the narrative prevails amidst the current climate. Fortunately, there is cause for optimism. Courts have ruled against racial discrimination at various levels. Accreditation agencies like the Accreditation Council 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'm happy to answer questions you have. Thank you. Thank you. Little echo here. Okay. Under committee rule nine, we will now question witnesses under the five-minute rule. Uh I will recognize myself for the
first five minutes. Um Dr. Melli, uh I was shocked to hear that 77% of medical school mission statements could be characterized as supporting DEI and even standardized tests like the MCAT that is some questions with progressive
buzzwords as such as social justice or institutional racism. uh you might have covered this in your statement before I wanted to want to highlight it again. DI in medicine seems to be based on the idea of racial concordance. Medical treatment from one person of the same race is automatically
better for the patient. Uh how does this uh research how does the research debunk this racist claim? Yeah, thank you for the question. I think it's important to understand that the highest level of research we can look at are systematic reviews, right? Those are compilations of the evidence that's out there. And
when 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's no difference in outcome based on racial
concordance. There's no difference in the utilization of care. There's no difference in the quality. There is one study, one of those five, that does show there's some benefit to communication. I I will say I question some of the methodology that was done in that systematic review. uh it includes or
excludes some studies that some of the other systematic reviews have not. But nonetheless, there are four out of five systematic reviews that show that racial concordance does not improve quality. In fact, we 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% of black individuals when surveyed want highly competent physicians. That's what everyone wants. It makes sense. The other thing is when we look at specific studies, when we look at there's 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. This is in the case of babies being delivered in infant mortality. And it looks at white doctors caring for those black patients as well. And the original publication of that study had had claimed that black doctors did
better for black babies than white doctors. It turned out in 2024 actually the uh colleagues at the Manhattan Institute had been able to to get the data from the authors and reran it but they looked at a at one key element and that's low birthw weightight babies. That wasn't taken into account in the
2020 publication of the study. And when you look at low birthw weightight babies you find that that racial concordance difference goes away completely. There is no difference whether the doctor is black or white. And and I think that's something that's really so critical to remember. And one of the challenges that we've seen in our literature and in
academia is the first study that I mentioned from 2020 was cited more than or almost 800 times. And that second study that actually shows that you really need to look at low birthw weightight babies was only cited less than 10 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. Uh, thank you. I'm gonna have to I want to pass on to one real quick before we run out of time here. Uh, Miss uh Mukaj,
uh, unfortunately, we know many DI officers just change the title on the buildings, uh, but keep the same staff and ideology. Uh, what are some examples of strong anti-dei reforms that can prevent this from happening? 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 uh 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're 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 ceremonies. This was also something that President Trump took great care to do that I noticed in his executive orders. So 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. Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm now going to see right here. I have
I have a few seconds left. Miss uh uh Mr. Mounoff supporters of the hide behind the vague positive words of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Can you talk about how these vague positive words have resulted in illegal discrimination? We just have a few seconds left, but hope you can.
Of course, I don't terribly care what label is used. What I care is whether there are activities unfolding which violate our non-discrimination laws. Are people being intentionally treated differently in violation of title six or title 9? Are people being hired or
promoted on the basis of their demography in violation of title seven? Thank you. Thank you so much. Uh I now recognize Mr. Dano from California. Is it okay? I'm sorry. Uh Miss McBth from
Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say to each of you that are our guests today, thank you so much for your your testimony. Um, I have read your testimonies. Um, I don't have any questions for you today, but I just want to make it abundantly clear to the
American people, uh, 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 health care to child care 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 t taxpayers important time. The answer's really simple. House Republicans know that Americans don't
want to lose their health care insurance or be forced into debt, but they don't 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. And while we have not always been able to live up to that promise, it's the fact that we are always striving toward that ideal that makes the promise of America truly great. But 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. And with efforts like today's hearing and the budget bill Republicans
scheduled for debate in the middle of the night to hide that they're ripping away health care 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're
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 don't support cuts to these vital programs and won't 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, don't be deceived.
Don't be 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. Thank you. Uh and I'd like to u recognize the chairman of the full committee, my good friend from Michigan, Mr. Walp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me just say uh in in response to my good friend and colleague
from Georgia, having just come through that uh long rules committee markup, it was very clear that uh when the truth comes out, 77 million people asked us to do what we were doing in that very um
one big beautiful bill. And um when it's seen in its totality, I think that that group of 77 million people will say thank you. And that I think that goes along with what we're talking about today as well with
DEI. Dr. Myelli, thank you for being here and thank you for your position in promoting quality medicine regardless. I'm very concerned about the role accreditation plays in promoting DEI and medicine.
Given that accredititors are supposed to measure program quality, how do DEI accreditation standards run counter to the proper role of accreditation? 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 accredititors maintain standards. And it's important standards in 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've seen that with the liaison committee on medical education which is the accrediting body for the MD schools. We've seen that in terms of the one of the standards that they have and I'll just sort of read it here and it's
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. And we see where that has has led. It is the accreditation agency that is that is nodding to this notion of DEI and it is
the schools that then accept it and then these DI DEI programs get propagated and such. I think there is fortunately some light the the ACGME the accreditation council for graduate medical education which is the accredititor for our uh
hospitals that train residents and such they've actually they've actually uh paused their 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 for
all of us after they finish their training. And so it it's essential that these accreditating bodies, all of our medical schools in this country are accredited uh bodies. Residents go to accredited programs. It's 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. Thank you. Um followup. Uh many of my Democrat colleagues have complained about the cancellation of certain federal medical research grants with DEI in them. uh can you share how so-called DEI research funded by the federal government does
more harm than good? Thank you for the question. I think it's important to recognize what is the role of of research and the role of research really is to to move us to a better tomorrow to engage in understanding those things that we wouldn't otherwise know and 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 and 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. And 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. Absolutely. Thank you. Uh Mr. Mournoff, you mentioned how the narrow exception to discrimination in gutter has been misread to apply to a range of illegal discrimination. Why has grudder been misapplied so often
to be charitable? I think that those overreading grder 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. So they grabbed language the Supreme Court had
mouthed in a very particular setting and simply pretended that it applied more broadly than it conceivably could have done. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my
friend from Oregon, Miss Monichi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the ranking member, and thank you to the witnesses. Uh I agree with Representative McBth with the question, why is this committee focusing today on uh attacking diversity, equity, and inclusion when there's so many issues in
higher education and other fields that need urgent attention? Uh as you heard uh starting at 1:00 this morning in the dark of night, the House Rules Committee met to push uh forward uh not a big beautiful reconciliation bill, but a big bad reconciliation bill. The headline
was wealthy gain lowincome people lose from GOP mega bill. That was the news this morning. But here we are uh in in this educ uh higher ed subcommittee. Um so this reconciliation bill will also strip federal aid opportunities for
millions of students. So maybe we should be having a hearing that convenes students and parents. Let's talk about what cutting PEL eligibility and eliminating subsidized loan programs will mean for their futures. Right now, Secretary McMahon is testifying in front of the Appropriations Committee, Labor
HHS Education Subcommittee. Perhaps you should come over here and talk to this committee about how the mass layoffs and grant terminations she's leading are harming students and institutes of higher education across the country. Why are they proposing to eliminate the Department of Education? Let's ask her
how the Small Businesses administration is going to manage a $ 1.6 trillion student loan portfolio when number one, that's not the SBA's mission, and more than 40% of the SBA staff has been laid off. That would be a good thing to talk about today. But 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 K12 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 can't de teach which is as we on this committee know uh not the job of the federal government. It's 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 uh in this building and in the courts. Uh 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 don't have a clear definition of what constitutes
diversity, equity, and inclusion that they are trying to ban. So if my colleagues who are complaining about DEI truly cared about equality of opportunity and students civil rights, they would support the office of for civil rights within the department of education, but they've 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 US 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 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? I
appreciate your question. Um, so regarding the ambiguity, it has created such a frenzy on many campuses, institutions that were doing honest lawabiding work to make campuses safe, equitable, and inclusive for all
students and all employees. So 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's a lot at stake for lowincome Americans from rural environments, including poor white students. um 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's not just DEI programs aren't just about students of color. They're also about veterans. They're also about equitably serving students with
disabilities. So, you know, really all of those uh populations that make campuses diverse are at risk of being even further underserved by those institutions.
And so, who would be most hurt? Honestly, funding was was blocked. Honestly, our entire democracy will be most hurt. I I appreciate that and and and I do yield back. I just want to note sometimes it feels like somebody's 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. Is that okay? I don't know. So the the ambiguity uh and and this approach is completely
unacceptable. And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. Um I now recognize my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh thank you to all of you on the panel. We apologize several of us popping in and out but involved in the judiciary markup at the
same time. So um but uh 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 uh certainly has been front and center of the news. I did have the privilege even though I didn't hear all of the opening testimonies to read uh your
written testimonies that were submitted ahead of time. And uh Mr. Mournoff. Uh, in your written testimony, you mentioned how many institutions were continuing race-based scholarship. So, I want to ask you, does Title Six of the Civil Rights Act allow institutions to
maintain scholarships or other programs explicitly based on race? No. So 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? Yes. You see, I think it's 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. and Mrs. uh Mukerji, did I pronounce that correctly? Um, proponents of DEI say that a range of educational benefits can only come from a quote diverse student
body. Do you agree with that statement? Thank you for the question, Congressman. I'd 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 crossracial understanding
the breaking down of stereotypes. The Supreme Court that was in the Grutder 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 amorphice.
And because they are amorphous, it's not easy to measure them. They're not measurable or subjected to judicial scrutiny. So when you're 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 Supreme Court litigation has borne out, you need to make sure that these supposed benefits of diversity are specifically tied through your use of racebased discrimination, the means, and are specific to the university at hand. So,
for example, Harvard, Yale, UNCC, 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.
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.
Well, thank you. In fact, you you answered my second question about DEI policies that did not actually provide these benefits. In fact, recently we've seen the tide begin to turn on DEI policies as schools figure out that they aren't helpful or popular. For example,
just a year ago, uh the UNCC system made the decision to save $17 million by eliminating 59 DEI positions. We need to see more schools follow suit, I believe. Mr. Chairman, with that, I'll yield back my time. Thank you. And I would like to
recognize my friend from from Virginia, ranking member. I mean, I'm sorry, Mr. Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Melli, did um I'm sorry I came in late. We were at
another meeting. Did you were indicating that uh you did not think DEI in research was appropriate? Is that what I got from your um testimony? I believe it's important for research to
really focus on generating a hypothesis and certainly in the realm of health care, it's essential that we look at health care matters and we look at the importance of what we can do to advance care in that regard. So I think the priority really So it is not important
to have a diverse um sample of people in terms of pharmaceutical research in terms of research that looks at populations. I mean absolutely you want you want to look at America to understand that. But I I think when we look at DEI that's something that's very
different than than than what um you might be saying there. Well I'm trying to figure out what you're saying there. Right. So, so I would say that when you look at research that is focused specifically on driving um researchers and placing them based on
identity politics as opposed to merit and we've seen that through NIH programming uh whereby identity politics and looking at the research population based on their identity is prioritized. We also see that research is important to have if you're the research
population is it important to have that diverse? I believe it's essential to have that research population intellectually diverse so that there are multiple theories and multiple thoughts that come about. It's important for us to test our hypotheses. It's important for us to to make sure that there's there's um
there's merit, there's transparency, there's evidence that that really guides the It's not important to consider DEI in research when DEI is is a destructive and divisive ideology that splits people off and that puts people into camps. I think
that aspect is is really unacceptable in research. It places an ideology within the research as opposed to looking at the research itself. Right. Um Dr. Harper, can you say something about the benefits of diversity on campus and who
benefits in uh with the diversity? Sure. But 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 disperate effects on Americans who make America diverse. I just think that that's really important in terms of the educational benefits uh
of diversity and inclusion initiatives. Uh, 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. And if you um can you have a diverse
student body and also a merit-based student body? Absolutely. You most certainly can. Right. So, one other fundamental misunderstanding about diversity and inclusion is that it's either.
um millions of students who make campuses diverse help us understand that both and are both are indeed achievable, right? Not hypothetically, but actually we actually see this on campuses where
let's take Ivy League universities and our nation's most highly selective post-secondary institutions. There are students there who have proven that they absolutely can do the work. Um and simultaneously they are diversifying
those institutions that historically and in fact contemporarily um have often excluded them. And some admission standards have a discriminatory impact whether intentional or not um like standard some standardized
tests. How fair is it to keep inflicting this discriminatory admission standard on people? One of the things that I find incredibly promising, I'm a person who values evidence. During the pandemic, many colleges and universities were
forced really to put aside the standardized admissions test requirements um because of all sorts of logistics um 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 in over reliance really on standardized test scores be admitted and succeed academically. Um so I don't know
why we keep going back to standardized test scores as really a single measure of deservingness for a slot in incoming class at a highly selective institution. Have those tests been shown to have
discriminatory impact? They have. Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my friend from Wisconsin, Miss Crawmer. Thank you. Um, I read a book by Christopher Rufo uh recently, America's Cultural Revolution, and they talked about
uh the hard left thinking up DEI in the early 70s uh in 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 America against each other by income level and create
hatred for the for the wealthier people. Uh but this was the fall back position. They wanted 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 of m uh all these people from different backgrounds succeeding beyond what the European descendants uh succeed here. So the evidence there's
probably never been a less racist country in the history of the world, the United States right now. So you're left to think the only reason they push this DEI stuff is because they intentionally want to divide Americans. Now, I'll give you an anecdote. a uh member of the
board of regions told me in Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin, that they had let in uh some people of color in the medical school who did not do well on the MCATs. And I I felt so sorry for them
because apparently three or four years into medical school, you got to take a test. And these people all flunked the test. I'm sure their parents were so proud of them when they told them they were getting into medical school and my son's going to be a doctor and they really didn't have a chance. I is this
uh a common um result of uh when you try to let people into colleges and universities other than merit. Is this uh something that you hear in other places? We'll
give either one of you a chance. Thank you for the question. Applying to medical school is a big decision and um and you know after you certainly apply wow if as you go through the coursework four years later you'll be a physician. You'll be the one
who at midnight will get the pager ringing in the hospital system and answering the call to to help that patient. And it's 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've worked with folks of all different But but 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 with lower qualifications wind up not making it
through the graduate school or medical school or whatever? Well, I I think what we see is we know that performance on the MCAT, the test for for admissions, does actually correlate with performance during one's time as a as a student. And that performance as a student does correlate to how well you will be as a
physician. And 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. So, I mean there is a correlation to the to the merit that one achieves. And so we do see that it's
absolutely important for folks to to be qualified so that we can have the very best of quality when folks are in those hospitals and outpatient worlds. Okay. Thank you. Uh Miss Muggier G, uh I'll ask you a question. I guess you are what my Democrat friends would refer to a
person of color. Um have you experienced prejudice or could you comment? Like I said, I think these people come from all around the globe and succeed here. Do you feel you have a different viewpoint if say
you applied to medical school because your ancestors I take it were from somewhere other than Europe? Do you have like a whole different Where did your ancestors come from? India. India. Do you feel that the Indian viewpoint to medicine or Indian viewpoint to
architecture uh creates genuine diversity or do you kind of feel like everybody else in Were you raised in America? Yes, I was born and raised here. Don't you feel like just a regular American kid or do you really feel that uh you you bring a different whole viewpoint to things because your
ancestors were from India? I really appreciate the question congressman and to answer it frankly no I don't I don't want anyone to look at me or my mother or father who both immigrated to the US from India as did my grandparents to find opportunity here because they knew
there would be much more. I don't 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. Um so so yes and and and the the people who are trying to destroy America and I think that's 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 or whatever. Do you feel you bring a different viewpoint because of where your long dead ancestors are from? 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. Thank you for be thank you um my friend from California, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh thank you to I want to
thank all the witnesses for being here today and I want to ask Dr. Dr. Harper. Um, do students and faculty benefit when an institution of higher education is socioeconomically and racially diverse? Absolutely. How so?
Well, for one, um, let's talk about research. When there is diversity represented among the researchers, people are able to uh bring different points of view for sure, but they're 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 population. So it is really important to have people at the
table uh to hold us accountable for thinking about Americans who make institutions diverse. So that's this one. Secondly, um 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? But that implicit bias is reduced as we have more sustained meaningful interactions with people uh from different groups. So you
know that helps us to not go into say students right it students don't go into the professions then reproducing sexism racism homophobia transphobia and so on because they've had the benefit of interacting with people from those
various groups when they were undergraduate students. So that ultimately has positive effects not just on the campuses themselves but also on our economy and on our democracy. So that's another way of saying that uh conversations that happen in a classroom
can change pre uh prejudgments uh prejudice of fixed notions we might have had about certain types of people. They have to be repeated, sustained and high quality. So uh do only racial minorities
benefit from a diverse institution? 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. Wonderful. So, why might an institution want to cultivate a student body, faculty, and curriculum that intentionally includes diverse perspectives? because that institution would not want to be responsible in
sending college graduates into the world underprepared to live, learn, and work and lead uh diverse teams, right? Um I think higher education institutions really have a responsibility
um to ensure that students are prepared. Well, great. So, the University of my district, the University of California, Riverside, UCR, is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse universities in the nation, and I'm proud to say was ranked number one 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 of California Riverside success is in part due to the robust
support that these students get as they navigate college, including through the campus ethnic and gender uh gender uh centers, uh 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? Yeah, I'm 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 um 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. So those kinds of centers and spaces are critically important to the retention and success of highly qualified academically capable uh college students who make campuses diverse. Um I was
going to ask you why is it important to make those resources available to students but you've pretty much answered that question. Uh, as a followup, I wonder if you wouldn't 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 uh with robust longitudinal peer-reviewed study today. Sure. In the two seconds that we have remaining, I will just say that there are three books that are about this big uh titled How College Affects Students.
uh Pascarella and Teranzini were the original authors and uh 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. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back and I appreciate your forbearance. Thank you so much. Um, I'd like to now recognize my friend from
Missouri, Mr. Andrew. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. You know, I would like to echo something that, uh, Congressman Growthman said earlier. I 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 not per we are not there perfectly in 250 years is just
overwhelming. Uh 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 peritious discrimination on race. Even if you label it some sanitary condition like DEI it's still pernitious
discrimination based on race. Um, Mr. Harper, let me ask you, is it fair to discriminate against Asian students? No. Is it fair to admit a patient, a uh a
student of different ethnicity over an Asian student who is more qualified and is better at better test scores? The answer categorically is no. But I will also say, what do you mean by more qualified? Are we talking just test
scores? Better grades, better ACT scores, better SAT scores. You see, the research makes again irrefutably clear that holistic admissions that consider factors inclusive of high school GPA and test
are. So, let me ask you, let you Mr. ask you, Mr. Harper, have you ever heard of a a Supreme Court decision called Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard? Of course I have. And your employer is USC. Of course it is. Are you abiding by
that decision? As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am representing myself. I am not a spokesperson for the University of Southern California. You draw a paycheck from the University of Southern California. I am not here as a represent. I know that. Do you yes or no draw a paycheck from the University of
Southern California? Of course I do. And what is your position at the University of Southern California? I am a tenure professor in three schools there. Okay. So in are you do you have any administrative position? I do not. You do not. Is USC abiding by students for
fair admission versus Harvard? Or do people people who in who have your opinion about these issues, are they looking for ways to get around the laws enunciated by the Harvard case? Two things. I've come in here standing on 50
years of research. I've not brought my opinion to this hearing. And secondly, for maybe the fifth time, I am here representing myself. I'm not here as a spokesperson of USC. Um, let me read to you a quote you may have heard of. Maybe
you haven't. It goes something like this. I have a dream. I have a dream that someday my little children will be judged by not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Do you agree with that quote? I absolutely agree with that quote. For
those who understand what Martin Luther King actually meant by it, Martin Luther King Jr. was staunchly opposed to racism, he was staunchly opposed to poverty, he was staunchly opposed to
discrimination. So when Asian students are discriminated against and not admitted to Harvard, even though by traditional criteria including grades, test scores, extracurricular
activities, isn't that discrimination? The Supreme Court decided it was. You disagree, it seems. I don't 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. So do you believe standardized tests are discriminatory? Some research. Do they have any any use
at all? because there is abundant research that they correlate very well with student performance, with grades, and with graduation rates. Should they be dis should standardized tests be discarded? For the record, it should be noted that that evidence is indeed mixed. That's mixed. So someone with a
perfect ACT score is is is no more likely to graduate from Harvard or any place community college than someone who has a lower SAT standardized test score. Yeah. No, I think this is a really important question as I attempt once
again to help us all understand um what the research shows about holistic admissions. It's not just high school grades and test scores that determines who ultimately succeeds at America's colleges and universities. Pericious discrimination on the basis of race is
pernicious discrimination on the basis of race. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. I'd like now to recognize my friend from California, Mr. Sar. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um so many thoughts come to mind
listening to this uh George Santiana 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
uh but I'm reminded of work by a Princeton professor I I think it was James Bworthy wrote the myth of marri tocracy and about how the founders of this country didn't want to replicate the British system of cast but they did
like the a higher education system and that we inherited that and they built that into it. The founders all believed in higher education the Virginiaians and the northerners but his work is uh as you can imagine by the title is very
connected to higher education. There's a myth that people who get there get there based on merit. And yes, there's a principle to that. Um, but I think we delude ourselves when we think those of us who are fortunate enough to go to college that there isn't a reality for
many Americans that not because of their merit, but because of their background, they cannot get into it. There's another book, a very steep study in who gets into Harvard and Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School called The Chosen. And clearly 67 60 to 70% 80% of
the people are chosen are based on various forms of legacy. Um I don't think George W. Bush would have accepted the MBA program or Yale undergraduate if it weren't for his father and his grandfather. And I to Santa Diana's observation for those who people for
those people who think that that was all merit. Now having said that what America attempts to do is very hard to do. We're 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 elorum out of many one and to me that accepts diversity embraces it and inclusivity and equity I don't understand why anyone wouldn't be for that the experiences we all bring when they're respected and honored uh create
this wonderful gestalt when it works of us all being together out of many one voice. I'm reminded of 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. Miss Muji, I see that you and I went to the same undergraduate Jesuit college in Worcester, Massachusetts. Yes, Holy Cross. Clar Clarence Thomas was a senior
when I was a freshman. So, a lot of diversity. Um, but my mom used to tell us these stories about how the anti-Irish, Italian, Eastern European, it's just another history repeating itself. And when she got older and she
had moved to San Francisco, where I had moved to, and I'd go take care of her, and she would complain about her caregivers, God bless her, and she didn't like the way they looked or where they came from. And I'd say, "Mom, you know, this sounds a lot like the stories you used to tell about Irish need not
apply." And I say that anecdotally is my own life experience. It's one that when Americans talk about this honestly, they embrace it. And there's a certain joy to that. And to your comment, be honest about your background. I think it's wonderful your background. I
mean, having gone to Holy Cross when there weren't many people who weren't Irish Catholics going there. Um so I say that just as an observation and then Mr. Harper I I think we all want the one one thing but we approach it from different biases
and perspectives and as you said Mr. Harvard, another great book, Bias by a Stanford professor, just talks about police bias. Um, 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. And as a response to historical inequality, if you ask me, and as a white male of somewhat privilege, I feel like what's wrong with diversity? I actually embrace it. Um, I think it's better for the country. So, I want to talk about one particular
population that's dear to my heart briefly, the disabled community. The Medicaid cuts are going to disa devastate them. Three prominent Republican presidents led legislation, Nixon, Reagan, and Gerald Ford. We've talked in this committee about IDA that
Gerald Ford signed, the in Individuals of Disability Educations Act to make sure that there was accessibility. So when you talk about diversity, inequality, and um uh equity, what about the disabled community? Can you speak to what's
happening to them? And I'm wrapping up my time, so you'll have to be succinct. Yeah, 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. So as those things are eliminated, the wellness and safety of those students is placed at risk. Thank you, doctor. Thank you. Um like to now recognize my friend from California, Miss Conley. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. And uh I'm glad the uh the Democrat uh minor minority in the committee has uh chosen a witness from my home state of uh of California uh because California uh has actually led the way in a sense when it comes to the
principles of uh equality before the law uh and uh and non-discrimination uh that this hearing uh seeks to advance. California does not always lead in the best ways. Uh but in this way uh it actually did. In 1996, California voters
passed uh Proposition 209 enshrining the principles of equality before the law and non-discrimination into our constitution. Now, of course, these principles are deeply rooted in our national identity that are famously articulated in our Declaration of Independence. uh at the most important
moments of our history uh when our country has been propelled forward. We've reaffirmed our commitment uh to those principles as with passage of the 14th amendment, 14th amendment uh the civil rights movement uh and uh and other uh important moments in our
history. And uh so California uh had a moment of that nature in 1996. It passed Prop 209 uh which states simply as follows. The state 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, equality before the law, and non-discrimination. They voted to place a uh to overturn
that constitutional provision to place a proposition on the ballot uh to simply reverse uh this provision that had been in place for over 20 years. The vote in the legislature was 60 to4 saying we want to reverse the principles of
equality before the law and non-discrimination. But it then needed to be voted on by the people of California. And even though it passed the legislature uh with you know over 75% uh of the vote when it went to the voters voters said something had
rendered a very different verdict by a vote of 57.2% to 42.8% 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 non-discrimination as part of our constitution and as part of our state's character. And by the way, the spending advantage in that race was 13 to1. It was 24 million to 1.8 million in favor of those who wanted to overturn these
principles in favor of the yes campaign. Uh and despite that massive spending advantage, despite California being an overwhelmingly blue state and sorry, the legislature voting 3 to one to reverse this, the voters of California overwhelmingly uh had other ideas. Uh
so, Ms. uh Mukerji, um what does it tell you that there's this enormous disconnect between uh the people of this country and the politicians and perhaps those who are in charge at universities? Thank you, Congressman. Decades of
public opinion published by outlets such as Gallup 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 when uh Pew Research Center conducted a poll 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's 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 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. And 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 Asian Asians, their constituents, the four grassroots parent organizations
said no, we don't support affirmative action. So you are absolutely right that the American public does opposes this policy and that there is a disconnect between our elites and what the people actually want. Thank you. Thanks very much. I agree. But I think that the uh the will of the people is ascendant and
we're at a moment where we have a chance to really uh vindicate those founding principles once again that have been so uh vital to us becoming uh the greatest country uh in the world. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate you calling this hearing. I yield back. Thank you so much. Um and now I'd like to to
recognize the ranking member from North Carolina, Miss Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the witnesses. But uh it it's been um a little frustrating for me listening to uh a number of the things that that have been said. But let me
just uh I hope I didn't hear uh references made to the fact that uh if you are member of of a diverse group, whether it's African-American or or Asian, Hispanic, etc., that that you don't represent excellence. I I really
resent that. Uh but let me 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're inseparable because DEI for me and as it should be for all
of us represents diversity, excellence, and inclusion. uh as as uh I have been uh a college professor for 40 years, I tell you I've seen firsthand the talent uh that talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not. And DEI exists to
close that gap. Now, earlier this week, I heard from STEM educators who reminded me that holistic student support, DEI included, isn't just about fairness. It's about building a workforce that that reflects the country that we live
in and the world that we lead. We are in a global race, whether it's AI or biotechnology or clean energy. And yet, this conversation today feels more like focused on politics than preparedness. And we should be asking, are our
students ready for the world ahead? Are our institutions creating pathways for for all of them to succeed? So let me just turn uh to you Dr. Harper. Uh today's hearing is titled Restoring Excellence, but it implies that previous
systems before DEI was somehow more effective or fairer. So I'd 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? No, they have not. All right. Uh, yes or no. Have all educators had the same level of training and resources to deliver those opportunities? No, they have not. All right. And finally, do traditional
markers like GPA and resumes always predict who becomes the strongest leader in the workforce or or have you seen individuals from from non-traditional backgrounds like mine uh out outperform once given the opportunity? No. to the
first part and absolutely to the second. Okay. So, this committee uh hears a lot about workforce uh readiness, but what we often don't hear is what employers are demanding, especially the Fortune
500. More than 90% of Fortune 500 companies have some form of DEI strategy. They do it not because it's trendy, but because it works. So my question, Dr. Harper, is do how do DEI
programs align with what the modern workforce is demanding from our higher education institutions? 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 uh spanning a multitude of industries. And one of the things that I consistently find is that leaders want workers who are who appreciate diversity, who are able to work on diverse teams and lead
diverse teams. Uh they recognize that it is good for global business when people understand what their implicit biases are and they've had an opportunity to address those implicit biases. employers understand that high quality
professional learning equips leaders, managers and workers with the skills. So, so let me move on and ask um uh how do DEI practices help ensure that students from all backgrounds, rural, urban, lowincome, how are they are they
prepared not just to keep jobs but to lead? Yeah, you know, I appreciate that you raised earlier that, and I'm 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're bad for our work forces, for our workforce, and for our democracy. Um, we
need college students who become college graduates um to really appreciate equity, diversity, and inclusion and to lead from those standpoints when they transition into their lives after college. So, finally, um, you know, DEI
efforts some people claim are no longer necessary, that we've evolved past uh, uh, the need for intentional inclusion. I I disagree with that. I've spent a lifetime in education and I know that students today still face barriers that
data alone cannot explain. I yield back. Thank you. Thank you so much. Um okay. Well, we're now uh we'll move on to our closing remarks. I'd like to recognize Miss Adams for her closing remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh thank you once again to our witnesses for speaking
with us today. And so, as we conclude today's hearing, I I want to leave this committee with this one message. diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, DEIA, are not partisan talking points. They're pillars of just
and equitable education systems. And so, we've heard today about the devastating impact that the roll back of DEI initiatives has has had, especially on institutions like historically black colleges and universities, H.B.CU. 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. So 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're telling veterans and and 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 uh preferences. It's about fairness. It's
about recognizing that students from all walks of life can succeed on campus and and making sure that they are not roadblocks that are visible to some, but not all. It it's it's about ensuring that that every student has a real shot
at success that regardless of your zip code uh that you grew up in or the color of your skin. And it's not just the right thing to do, it's 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 backwards. I thank you and Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Uh thank you so much. Uh I've been really looking forward to this this
opportunity uh because I've seen our country go come so far and I'm going to make sure we never go back. Uh Miss Mukuchi uh you you you made a statement that I just uh I felt like standing up and applauding uh when talking about your
parents yourself that you never want to be looked at because you're color given respect for what you've done in life. That was my parents' generation. uh they would they would fight you if you c consider them a victim. They work too hard to get respect from across this
country. And at the time I was growing up in the 60s, uh my first exposure, by the way, to white America wasn't until I was six years old. So I was 16 years old. But 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. What we've come to today is an affront to that generation. We're now saying instead of instead of us going out and competing because of my color, I want to get a 10 yard head start or 100 yard head start. That is not
America. It's about excellence, by merit. And our race can do it just as well as anybody else. For those who don't know the history of the black community, um here's something I want you to take home and and just just understand how powerful it would it is when any community that's in this
country uh decides they want to be proud Americans be respected as such. The black community the 40s, 50s, and 60s led our country in the growth of middle class. Led our country men from college because H.B.CU were going to make sure our men went out and competed and won
the battle of intelligence. We led our country in and the commitment to to marriage highest percentage of marriage was in the black community and the most and and the highest percentage of entrepreneurs because we didn't go outside our community. We had our business owners building within. So not
only did they have a legacy of business ownership taking risk 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 think, we cannot compete, we can't, we don't have the
intelligence that we need to lower the bar. No one else. We have all this other exper We're 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 didn't make it. Because we've been lied to. This is an opportunity. I'm 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 by what we have inside by our tenacity by our dream power overcoming and becoming a better people. That's what's always made our country
what it is and it does that's 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, growing through the process and and and reaching back. And this is the message of America. It's not about the
struggle. It's what we do with the struggle. The message is if I can do it, you can do it. The message is not you can't do it because you're black. You can't do it because you had slavery in your background. America is a place of
promises of hope. And if we can't as adults give our kids hope, we are failing them big time. So, I'm so thankful that we're getting rid of this racist racist DEI mess. I don't want to be judged by my color, guys. Somebody comes to me say, and by
the way, that's that happened in my lifetime. I was the third black to go to University of Miami. I was the first fourth black to go in high school. This this school this to integrate this high school. I know what it is. be told that I cannot become a biology mine biologist because of my
color. I was told that. They had no idea what my grades were. I had no idea what my my background was. I was told I could not succeed because I was black. And it's time for us to stop this process of putting our race down intellectually. By the way, when was the last time DEI was
put on the sports field? When was the last time we ever had a football team or basketball say we're gonna we're gonna do DE DEI here? We don't do that because blacks have always been looked at as being very physically had physical
prowness. The hit was we could not do it intellectually. And 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 to the principle of n of of uh of um
nonviolence because they want to show Americans that we were we were confident, we're articulate, that we controlled 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's
also respect as equals that America that black Americans had to other people. We've come so far and we're not going back. Last thought, I grew up in the 60s. As I mentioned, my family today represents black,
Hispanic, American Indian, Trinidadian. My grandkids call each other cousins. If we ever s found in my family the DEI thought process, I know that somebody's failing them big time and it will not be if they're parents. They look at each other from inside out,
not outside in. They love each other because they're family. That's what the American concept is all about. So, let's continue to get this cancer, racist cancer out of our system. Uh thankful that President Trump and his team is doing what they're doing, getting rid of us, guys. Let's 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 can do it." With that, uh, I'd like to thank our witnesses again for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee today. Without objection, uh, there's no further business, the subcommittee
stands adjourned. Thank you so much.