DEI Hearing Erupts: Dems and GOP Clash Over Merit vs. Equity!

[0:00] Maybe your organization should look into these firings and see whether they were merit-based [0:05] or race-based or sex-based. Will you do that? If they were race-based or sex-based, [0:08] they would be illegal. At a heated congressional hearing on DEI, [0:12] lawmakers from both parties clashed over the future of diversity programs in America. [0:17] Republicans argued for merit-based decisions while Democrats pushed back, [0:22] saying systematic barriers still exist. Watch the fiery debate unfold right here. [0:27] Dr. Shires, what is DEI? Diversity, equity, and inclusion, as my colleague Mr. Gonzalez said [0:35] earlier, is none of those three things. It is an ideology that's based on a philosophy. It comes [0:42] out of the academic world. It's based on a philosophy that society is driven by our, we are driven by our [0:49] environment and our identity, and the world that we live in is constructed from it. As a result of that, [0:54] we are victims of the world around us essentially. And in that world, they divide people into oppressors [1:00] and the oppressed in the Marxist tradition to leverage power. Are DEI policies compatible with [1:06] meritocracy? They are not. Could you elaborate? Meritocracy is based on the idea that you measure [1:13] somebody based on what they're doing, not what they look like. DEI policies actually call for equal [1:19] outcomes for everyone. And so if I perform at a different level than someone else, they are automatically [1:24] placed in that same level. What do DEI policies mean in practice? In practice, it means quotas. It means that [1:33] racial quotas. It does. And just like the congressman mentioned, you know, the perception that people are [1:39] promoted to ranks without the adequate backgrounds, whether that's legitimate or not. In this case, I don't think it is. But [1:46] that is the perception that arises because you simply assign people status based on who they are and not [1:52] what they've done. Ms. Stepman, racial quotas seem un-American to me, don't they, to you? Yes, and they're [1:59] illegal. And they're illegal. Under DEI regimes, what races do colleges and universities typically least [2:05] prefer in their admissions processes? Whites, men, Asians. Men is not a race, obviously. But there actually [2:14] might be a little bit of reverse discrimination actually going against women now because women [2:17] so predominate on universities. But yes, whites and Asians primarily. Why do you think that it's [2:22] primarily those groups? Because they're in a war with the reality of these disparities. So if you want [2:29] to have a quota that comes out perfectly racially balanced at the end, the only way that these [2:35] universities have been able to achieve that is by discriminating on the basis of race and sex in [2:40] their admissions. And you mentioned that a lot of colleges and universities, you expect to fight [2:47] DEI restrictions. Why is that? You said that there was an ideological component there. Right. I think [2:53] my fellow witness correctly referenced the idea of the oppressor and the oppressed. There's this idea [2:58] that all differences in culture, disparities, outcomes, all of these are somehow immediately evidence of [3:07] discrimination and some kind of unjust system. And so if there's an ideological commitment to make sure [3:12] that they kind of force the world to look the way that they think it ought to. And unfortunately, [3:18] that's both immoral, discriminatory, and fortunately for us, it's illegal under the law of the United States. [3:24] Could you walk us through, practically speaking, what a DEI policy would mean for a college admissions [3:31] process? It means that in practice, they place a thumb on the scale for applications that may have no more or in fact [3:40] lesser qualifications than other applications purely on the basis of race. And by the way, we saw this in the data in [3:47] students for fair admissions. Harvard was absolutely discriminating against Asian and white applicants who are [3:53] comparably situated to other applicants. And we know that universities have been doing this for decades. [3:59] Mr. Gonzalez, BlackRock has a scholarship exclusively for a diverse student. That's their words. What do you think [4:07] diverse means in that context? Yeah, that is actually diversity should mean that you have people of [4:16] diverse backgrounds. Often enough, diverse means members of any of the so-called marginalized groups [4:23] alone, without any participation by Asian Americans or white Americans. That seems discriminatory, does it not? [4:32] And as Ms. Feltzer said, it's not just discriminatory. It's also illegal and immoral. [4:37] We see this across the corporate world. Starbucks has a training program for employees limited to, [4:44] quote, black, indigenous, and peoples of color BIPOC partners. Do you think that's discriminatory? [4:50] And illegal. I think the corporate world, I agree with Ms. Feltzer. I think the corporate world is, [4:55] in fact, trying to move away. I've heard many anecdotes of their goal at the time was for BIPOC [5:02] representation to be at least 30 percent at all corporate levels and at least 40 percent at all [5:08] retail and manufacturing roles by 2025. That sounds like a racial quota. That's a quota that's illegal, [5:15] that's immoral. However, since President Trump was elected, they're actually coming forward and saying, [5:19] hey, we're so glad you're making this elite. You're discouraging us from doing this. We didn't want to [5:25] do it in the first place. And so I agree with Ms. Feltzer that the corporate world is moving [5:30] at a much faster rate than the academy. Do you agree or disagree with Admiral McRaven, [5:39] General McChrystal, that these firings had nothing to do with merit? [5:44] No, I have no way of doing that. But there are only several bases on which it's illegal and [5:49] unconstitutional to fire someone. And that's the purpose of the hearing today, right? [5:54] Do you think these were merit? Were these merit-based firings? Is there any evidence to [5:59] suggest they were? The president, we elect a president, not generals, right? So he has to [6:04] have the legitimacy to choose. Should he fire them based on merit? He can make any decision he wants [6:11] for the people who are working under him because the American people elected him. Maybe your [6:14] organization should look into these firings and see whether they were merit-based or race-based or [6:20] sex-based. Will you do that? If they were race-based or sex-based, they would be illegal. [6:23] Why don't you look into them? I don't see any evidence of that. Why don't you do a report on that? [6:27] I don't see any evidence of the fact that it was race-based or sex-based. And those are the only ways [6:31] that is illegal to fire someone. The president can fire somebody for disagreeing with him. [6:35] Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back. In your view, what is the current state [6:39] of academia with respect to DEI programs? What's actually happening in there today? [6:46] On most campuses, DEI is still in full force. You see institutions, for example, that require [6:52] diversity statements for application have eliminated that. But yet every single website that helps you [6:58] apply for a job has information on how to circumvent not having it to make sure that they know that you [7:03] are aligned with DEI. Are we seeing the same issue in some federal agencies, even though the Trump [7:11] administration obviously has put out executive orders to unwind DEI practices in federal agencies? [7:16] Absolutely. It's important to remember that the universities and the academy are kind of the [7:20] epicenter for our professional workforce. And so as students graduate and have been indoctrinated in [7:26] this ideology, they carry it with them into the workplace. In these agencies and even in the [7:32] universities, what are some of the ways that they are rebranding DEI to try to basically kind of be [7:38] in the shadows away from the eyes of the American people? The most common one is if you see an office [7:43] of community belonging, it's where all the people that were in the DEI office now are on campus. [7:48] I'm sorry? Point of clarification for me, what is community belonging? It's what they call DEI [7:56] offices now. It takes the inclusion part of DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and it talks [8:02] about how you empower and enable students in these protected classes to be on campus and to be [8:10] engaged. But it's really the same operation that was there before about dividing the campus. [8:15] Why don't we just empower them to be in class and actually learn? Wouldn't that be empowering a student? [8:21] I believe it would be, yes. [8:23] Let me answer this question. I've never heard of this classification. Say that community... [8:28] Community belonging. Community belonging. Okay. I've never heard this term before, but that's okay. [8:33] That's why we're having this hearing. If this is what colleges and institutions are moving towards [8:38] to shield or to rebrand DEI, what are some metrics or some planks that policymakers need to be looking [8:46] out for so that while we continue to move towards a true colorblind society based upon merit, [8:54] that we are examining what's happening at institutions of higher learning who still want to [9:00] hold on to DEI programs by this name of community belonging? What should we be looking for? [9:06] Much we should be doing is enforcing existing law. I mean, current laws against discrimination [9:11] prevent universities from treating students differently. And yet on many campuses, we now have [9:16] separate graduations. Imagine if we'd had a graduation for white students only, for example, what the uproar [9:23] would be. And yet on many campuses, we have ethnically based graduations. And so we want to look at [9:29] enforcing current discrimination law. I think the civil rights focus for so long has been on opening the [9:34] door to opportunity. And we've allowed this engine to build overt discrimination through DEI. [9:40] Well, thank you for that. Ms. Stepman, your testimony was actually quite interesting. Quick question. [9:48] What are some of the, have you been studying or looking at what some of the current practices [9:54] in corporate America are around DEI? Is it something that corporate America is largely stepping away [9:59] from? Or are they trying to rebrand similar to what's happening on university campuses? [10:03] I think corporate America is, for better or worse, is a much less ideological environment [10:08] than the university campuses. I would expect universities to fight this tooth and nail for [10:13] ideological reasons. I've been much more encouraged. I think if you'd asked me that question [10:19] just a couple years ago, I would have given you a more pessimistic answer. I've been pretty [10:24] positively encouraged by the response of corporate America here, although they're definitely trying [10:29] their best to hide and memory hole all of the things they said in 2020 and 2021. Fortunately, [10:34] we have records of those statements, both external and internal, and those will be used for litigation. [10:39] But I do think that they are backing off of some of these commitments. We'll see whether that [10:47] commitment, new commitment to meritocracy, is maintained once this administration leaves power. [10:53] Interesting. Thank you for that. Mr. Gonzalez, do we have a reliable estimate on the cumulative [10:59] taxpayer dollars spent across the federal bureaucracy on DEI, personnel, contracts, and training programs [11:06] over the last five years? I'm sure that exists. I don't have it, but I can get it and forward it to [11:13] your office. No, I look forward to seeing that. You know, my take is these are about leveling out a [11:17] playing field that has historically not been level, where there are folks in this country who are all [11:22] running the same race, but for some people their lane has obstacles in it. It has hurdles, it has water [11:29] pits, and that is because of discrimination that was pushed, instituted, and facilitated by government [11:38] at every single level. So I want to start with you, Dr. Shires. You've written much about how DEI programs [11:46] fuel racial stereotypes. You talked here a little bit today about your opposition to these programs, [11:51] and I think that's consistent what we've heard from our Republican colleagues, as well as Vice President [11:56] Vance, who I believe called them a deliberate program of discrimination against white men. So [12:02] let me ask you this. Take a random white person in America today and a random black person. When they [12:08] go apply for jobs, when they apply for a home loan, when they're getting their home appraised, when they're [12:13] seeking higher wages, would you say that those two people are more likely than not to be on the same [12:18] playing field? Legally, yes. I have no clue what that means. In practice, are they likely to be on the same [12:26] playing field? I guess what I'm trying to understand is what playing field are you comparing them on? [12:32] I mean, in your metaphor, you talk about how some lanes on the track have obstacles and others don't. [12:39] The solution to that is to remove the obstacles. It's not to change the finish line. And DEI changes [12:45] the finish line, whereas the federal law against the discrimination are there to remove the obstacles. [12:51] So if you're asking, if the question is, how do I get to the situation where both of them have the [12:56] same access? The answer is removing the obstacles and enforcing the law. It's not changing the finish [13:02] line. Well, there are also DEI programs that remove the obstacles that the president has removed [13:06] from the federal government. But my question to you is, if a random white person in this country and [13:11] a random black person in this country go to get their home appraised, right, why is it that the black [13:16] person is much more likely to get a lower value on their home appraisal? Because they live in a [13:21] different neighborhood. Okay, great. We'll get to that in a second, because that's wrong. Black people [13:25] in this country were enslaved for at least 240 years. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And [13:31] after slavery ended, you had about 100 more years at least of Jim Crow and legal segregation, where [13:37] government at the federal, state and local level blocked black people from owning land, from getting [13:42] bank loans, from living in certain neighborhoods, from attending certain schools, all that happened too, [13:47] right? Yes. Okay, so my question to you is simple. Name the year that the playing field became [13:53] completely even. I want you to give me a date. Again, it depends on what playing field you're [14:00] talking about. I mean, if you're looking at- For home loans, you brought, I think we talked [14:05] about home loans and appraisals. For home loans, what year did it become equal? Well, according to the [14:09] DEI movement in 1991, when they imposed disparate impact. So you're telling me today that if a black [14:17] person goes and applies for a home loan, they have the same likelihood of getting accepted for that [14:21] loan as a white person does. I'm saying under the DEI rules, yes, that would be the case. We know in [14:27] practicality that people have different income profiles and experiences. If you're asking me a [14:31] person that lives next door to another person, if one is white and one is black and they go both apply [14:36] for a loan, do I expect different outcomes? No. And if there are, then it should be enforced under [14:41] discrimination laws. So you're talking about rules. I'm talking about outcomes. So let's play a game of [14:45] true and false. And let's start with wealth disparities. The median net worth of a white [14:49] household in this country is $285,000. The median net worth of a black household is about $45,000. [14:55] True or false? I don't know. Okay. You came here as an expert today in a DEI [14:59] hearing and you don't know that? Basic facts about wealth accumulation in this country? All right, [15:02] let's go to the next one. For every hundred dollars in wealth held by white families, [15:06] black families hold about $15. True or false? Again, I don't know those specific numbers. Okay. Well, [15:12] I have data here. It's true. So we know that the answer here isn't just that black people believe [15:17] in saving less than white people do, right? It's that government in this country has put one [15:22] set of folks in a better position to succeed than other people. And it was the law for a very, [15:27] very long time. And it became ingrained in our institutions. Government was part of the problem. [15:32] And so it has to now be part of the solution. So let's do this true or false game again for employment [15:37] and wages. Black workers are far more likely to be unemployed as white workers at almost every [15:42] education level. True or false? That is true. So do you just believe that black people are more lazy [15:47] or aren't as good at applications? Why do you think that data is the way it is? [15:51] I think the data is that way it is because our educational system has dramatically failed the [15:56] black community. And instead of solving it, we just let them into college where they then have a higher [16:00] rate of failure because they- I wasn't aware that there's a black education system and a white [16:04] education system. In my district, we have schools that are represented all races in there in the same [16:09] outcomes. The same school has different outcomes for black kids and white kids. My time is up. [16:14] But in short, if the government was part of the problem, the government now has to be part of the [16:19] solution. [16:21] For more content like this, stay tuned to Congress Clips and thanks for watching.