JUST IN: Brandon Gill Chairs House Oversight Hearing On Combating DEI In American Institutions

[0:02] This hearing of the Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Institutional [0:06] Abuses will come to order. Welcome, everybody. Thank you all for taking the time to be here. [0:12] Without objection, the chair may declare recess at any time. I recognize myself for the purpose [0:18] of making an opening statement. Good morning and welcome to today's hearing before the Task Force [0:25] on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Institutional Abuses [0:29] on the discriminatory, harmful, and often illegal nature of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion, [0:37] or DEI, policies. DEI is, by its very nature, an affront to the principles and ideals that define [0:44] our great nation and a rejection of the progress our predecessors made in ensuring civil rights [0:51] protections for all Americans. Our forefathers fought and died to ensure that this country [0:56] would be a place where every person has the opportunity to achieve great things as the [1:00] fruit of his or her own talents and hard work. Civil rights leaders of the 1950s and 60s fought [1:07] tirelessly in the pursuit of these same principles to ensure that America would not be judged by the [1:14] color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Today, DEI has become a euphemism for a [1:20] Marxist ideology which seeks to undo those very efforts by civil rights leaders like Martin Luther [1:26] King and his contemporaries. DEI represents a conscious effort to specifically judge people [1:33] by the color of their skin and other immutable characteristics. Not only is this an utterly [1:38] disgusting and racist ideology, but it is also a clear violation of the Constitution and federal law. [1:45] Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly prohibits unlawful employment practices that [1:52] discriminate against an individual because of such individuals' race, color, religion, sex, or [1:59] national origin. And the Supreme Court ruled in a 2023 case that the Equal Protection Clause of the [2:06] 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits racial discrimination in college admissions practices. [2:12] Meanwhile, DEI policies embody racist and stereotypical attitudes harbored by the left towards groups that [2:19] these policies purport to benefit. Do Democrats believe that these people, that people, excuse me, [2:25] would categorize, they would categorize as diverse, do not possess the skills to succeed in our society [2:32] without quotas or preferential treatment? Apparently, yes, we know this because the mask slips and they [2:38] admit this explicitly. New York Governor and Democrat Kathy Hochul patronizingly claimed in 2024 that [2:45] quote, black kids growing up in the Bronx don't even know what the word computer is, end quote. [2:52] I guess if you believe that nonsense, DEI makes a lot more sense. And as it isn't just prominent [2:58] Democrat politicians, some of the largest American companies brought in, bought into this absurdity. [3:04] For instance, companies such as Macy's, BlackRock, Starbucks, Disney, Google, Amazon, among others, [3:11] in recent history instituted aggressive DEI policies. In higher education, institutions have, [3:17] in open defiance of the Supreme Court, merely rebranded the racist DEI practices while continuing [3:24] to seek out novel means to racially categorize and then discriminate against individuals. To combat this, [3:31] the Trump administration has taken historic action to enforce federal civil rights law and ensure [3:37] all Americans are protected from discrimination. Despite this bold stance against discriminatory [3:43] practices, this committee is concerned that the DEI proponents in industry and academia are just [3:50] biding their time. The behavior of the radical left indicates that DEI is not truly eradicated from [3:57] our society, but merely lying dormant and licking its wounds until it has an opportunity to rise [4:03] again. If the left does not abandon this obsession, where will that lead our country? I look forward [4:11] to a discussion today on how we can work towards a society that has eradicated insidious discrimination [4:17] under the guise of DEI. And with that, I yield to the ranking member, Ms. Simon, for her opening statement. [4:23] Thank you. And good morning, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to the witnesses. Thank you all [4:28] for coming here today. And before I began my opening statement, I would, in thinking about [4:35] this hearing and thinking about the recent passing of one of my core mentors, Dr. Clarence Jones, [4:44] who was the attorney and speechwriter for Dr. Martin Luther King. Mr. Jones, for many folks [4:53] who have followed the civil rights movement, has been a seminal and clear voice of what is [5:00] in front of us as a nation. And I think of him and I think of his words and his teachings [5:06] as we move through today's conversation. So, you know, it's with that that I'm so thankful [5:12] that we are all here to have the conversation. And I do also think that it's extremely appropriate [5:18] that we're meeting today just weeks after the Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's effort [5:26] to redefine what it means to be an American, because that's the real issue at stake today. [5:33] That's what we're talking about today of who counts, who belongs and who deserves a seat at [5:39] the table. The question before us is simple. Will we welcome Americans who look and pray and [5:48] love or think differently? Or will we turn our backs on the diversity that has always made [5:54] this country stronger? Mr. Chairman, these questions we know are not new. Throughout our history [6:01] in this country, these arguments have been made by people convinced that they were defending [6:08] America. When Strom Thurmond held the floor on this campus for 24 hours against the civil rights [6:17] bill, he insisted that he hated no one and that he was only defending the Constitution. George [6:25] Wallace claimed he was preserving order when he said segregation now, segregation tomorrow and [6:32] segregation forever. In 1956, 101 members of this body stood and signed the Southern Manifesto [6:43] insisting that school desegregation was unconstitutional. Yes, school desegregation was unconstitutional. [6:53] And let me just say that one more time. It was 101 members of the United States Congress who stood [7:00] firmly with the ideals listed out in the Southern Manifesto. They believed that they were on the right [7:07] side of history. And that's not ancient history. That's the world that my own mother was born and [7:13] raised in in the deep rural South. I raised this history, Mr. Chairman, because the arguments before [7:19] us today, this morning, are from a mirrored pattern. Now, let me say something about the three letters [7:27] at the center of today's hearing. Our chairman cited those three letters as a pretext for discrimination. [7:36] That's not been the experience. In the institutions that I've served and some that I've run, [7:44] those three words meant ensuring that a veteran had the desk that they needed, that they could use. [7:51] That disabled veteran rallied for accommodations and they got it. It means a first generation student who [7:59] needed a mentor and a worker who knew how to report the abuse that they had received and they were heard. [8:06] None of that is quota. None of that takes a seat for anyone. The law forbades discrimination, [8:13] and it forbids it for all of us, every single one of us in this room. Today, the majority will speak [8:20] about fairness. But fairness means recognizing that for most of our history, there was one group of [8:27] Americans who had been ushered to the front of the line. That is not hyperbole. That is fact. [8:32] After generations, that head start began to feel something like an inheritance and sharing that [8:40] opportunity feels like loss. But acknowledging that head start, removing those barriers and expanding [8:49] opportunity, it's not discrimination. When someone sees a few more chairs at the table and calls it a [8:57] takeover. We hear discomfort. That opportunity is no longer reserved for those who have always and [9:06] already had it. But the opportunity belongs to every American. Wealthy and powerful people want to [9:13] weaponize that discomfort, to divide us, to divide you, to distract you, and to entrench the power that [9:21] they still hold behind the scenes. But justice does not diminish anyone. It simply makes room for [9:29] everyone. If my colleagues truly cared about the thumb on the scale, the record is waiting. Black workers [9:36] with the same credentials are still hired. This is fact and paid less with the same credentials of their [9:45] white counterparts. Students from the wealthiest one percent of families in this country are more than [9:52] twice as likely to attend top colleges than their middle class counterparts with similar test scores. [9:59] That is fact. At Harvard, a study found that three out of four legacies, donors, staff, recruited athletes, [10:09] those admittance would not have been admitted without those preferences. That's a thumb on the scale. The [10:16] heavy thumb on that scale has always been pressed for folks who needed it the least. So I have a question [10:24] as I close for every single witness that has come here today and the ones that will follow. If fairness is [10:32] truly your principle, are you prepared to challenge every unfair advantage or only the efforts designed to [10:40] expand opportunity for those folks who have too often been left out? Now, I love this country enough to tell [10:49] the truth about it. The signers of the 1956 Southern Manifesto in defense of school desegregation against [11:00] school desegregation were lawyers and they were statesmen and electeds as well. Sure of their footing [11:07] and the record kept their names. The record kept their names to place account on what they chose. There [11:16] will be a record of this morning as well read one day by people who will never, never meet our faces [11:25] and they will precisely, they'll know exactly what side we chose to defend. I've chosen mine. Mr. Chairman, [11:34] I would yield back. Thank you, Ranking Member Simon. And now, without objection, representatives Clay Higgins [11:45] of Louisiana and Mr. Miniferi of Texas are waved on to the task force for the purpose of asking questions [11:51] at today's hearing. I'd like to welcome our witnesses for being here and thank you for being here. First, [12:00] we have Mike Gonzalez, the Angeles T. Arredondo e Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow at the Heritage [12:07] Foundation. Next, we have Inez Felcher Stepman, Senior Policy and Legal Analyst at Independent Women. [12:17] We're also joined by Dr. Michael Shires, the Vice Chair of Education, Opportunity, Higher Education, [12:24] and Senior Policy Officer at the America First Policy Institute. So thank you all for joining us. [12:31] I'm really looking forward to hearing your testimony as well. [12:34] Pursuant to Committee Rule 9-G, will the witnesses please stand and raise the right hand? [12:41] Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole [12:50] truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. Let the record show that the witness is answered in [12:57] the affirmative. Thank you and you can take a seat. We appreciate you being here today and look forward to [13:06] your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statement and it will appear [13:11] in full in the hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to five minutes. As a reminder, [13:18] please press the button on the microphone in front of you so that it is on and the members can hear you. [13:24] When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes, [13:27] the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your five minutes have expired. [13:31] And we would ask that you please wrap it up. I now recognize Mr. Mike Gonzalez for his opening statement. [13:37] Chairman Gill, Ranking Member Simon, members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to [13:44] testify of the persistence of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs across American institutions. [13:49] My name is Mike Gonzalez. I'm a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this [13:55] testimony are my own. Two weeks ago, I spent 10 days in three European countries, starting with five [14:02] days in the United Kingdom. As I was able to witness, the country is still reeling from the recent stabbing [14:07] death of a young man, who died because police shackled him and allowed him to bleed to death [14:12] after his accuser, after his attacker accused him of having been racist. The police have been trained [14:18] in anti-racist practices, so they sided with the attacker and suppressed their natural instinct to [14:23] save a person bleeding to death. That man was Henry Nowak, and his death was caused by DEI. But entire [14:30] societies can become victims of DEI. On the 4th of July, the White House published a devastating report [14:37] on the Smithsonian Institution, revealing how DEI and DEI-type thinking has spread deeply into all [14:43] our cultural entities, including our museums. The report reveals that DEI permeates thousands of [14:50] exhibits that reframe America, recasting the founding as a story of pure evil. [14:56] The National Museum of American History held more than 400 DEI initiatives in 2023 alone. One of them [15:04] included a discussion of a toolkit that contained a chart that could have been written by Ibram X. [15:11] Kendi. It said the ultimate goal is to structurally transform museums into anti-racist multicultural [15:20] institutions in a transformed society. Which brings us to the question, what is DEI? The initials stand for [15:27] things we should want. However, the intention of these words has been distorted, as they now mean the [15:32] opposite. Diversity is now an identity-based approach that violates individual character, enforces [15:39] intellectual conformity, and demands quotas in order to attain community proportionalism. As for equity, [15:46] it means equality of outcomes, which is a violation of equality before the law. It sounds like equality, [15:52] but it now means its functional opposite, as candidate Kamala Harris demonstrated in November 2020 when she [15:58] tweeted, quote, there's a big difference between equality and equity. Equitable treatment means we [16:04] all end up in the same place, unquote. That is not the American ideal, but a Marxist promise written in [16:10] sand. Inclusion, meanwhile, means exactly its opposite, exclusion. We just saw an example of this when [16:16] baseball players for the San Francisco Giants were prevented from wearing references to Bible verses [16:22] on their caps. Inclusion is language codes. DEI is therefore illegal. It transgresses the American [16:29] understanding of the promise of equal treatment from which we must never deviate. DEI is also immoral, [16:36] as it demands that we treat people differently because of immutable characteristics, that is, [16:42] traits they were born into and which they can never change, such as race, sex, national origin, etc. [16:48] To do so is recognizably unjust. President Biden, or whoever controlled the levers of power during [16:55] his years in office, put this anti-American and moral insanity on steroids. The DEI regime did not, [17:01] of course, emerge with President Biden. DEI trainings go back over many decades, [17:07] but it has been over the past 15 years or so that the acronym has become standardized. DEI trainings are [17:13] nothing more than struggle sessions as practiced in China during the Cultural Revolution. These trainings [17:19] attempt to indoctrinate Americans and stop them from viewing their country as worthy of patriotic love [17:25] and see it instead as a place so structurally unjust that it requires system-wide transformation. [17:30] President Trump has tried to reverse this regime through executive orders that explicitly targets [17:36] President Biden's programs, directs federal agencies to eliminate DEI initiatives throughout the [17:41] federal government, and calls for increased scrutiny of DEI practices in schools and universities [17:47] that receive federal support. Most recently, OMB issued a new rule change that also fights DEI. [17:54] Unfortunately, schools and university administrators who remain intent on continuing to discriminate [18:00] based on race and sex have tried to figure out how to defy the precedent or to at least gain the system. [18:06] It is up to you to cement President Trump's actions into legislation. Thank you for your attention. [18:16] Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez, and thanks for staying within the time limit. I now recognize Inez Felter [18:22] Stepman for her opening statement. Chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of the task force, [18:28] thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I currently serve as senior policy and legal [18:34] analyst with Independent Women and Independent Women's Law Center. For almost 30 years, Independent Women's [18:39] unique methods and trusted brand have shaped public preferences, policies, and movements to create a better [18:44] future for men and women alike. Independent Women's Law Center supports that mission by advocating for [18:49] individual liberty, equal opportunity, and respect for the constitutional order. Today's subject matter, [18:54] in my opinion, is critical for all three of those missions. When I came here to testify on this exact [19:00] issue in 2024, I identified three major factors barring the promise of colorblind meritocracy and equality [19:07] under the law from being real in the United States. First, the enforcement of anti-discrimination law in [19:12] admissions and in the workplace had become hypersensitive to mere statistical disparities in outcomes [19:18] and alleged microaggressions while looking the other way as universities and companies announced [19:24] and then followed up on their intention to actively discriminate in favor of preferred racial categories [19:29] and against disfavored ones. Second, and related the legal doctrine of disparate impact, imagining systemic [19:36] racism as a kind of god of the gaps to be assumed anytime outcomes don't come out perfectly racially [19:42] balanced even in the face of total lack of evidence of any animus, had become baked into our legal [19:48] system in a variety of ways. Disparate impact is, or optimistically was, the legal enforcement arm of [19:55] the DEI empire. Third, the Biden administration building on groundwork from the previous Obama administration [20:03] redefined the basic word used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sex. Up until that point, from time immemorial, [20:11] sex had meant biological sex. And all of a sudden, under these administrations, it suddenly included [20:17] gender identity, so-called, as declared by the individual. That false definition was illegitimately [20:23] substituted and used to transform all of anti-discrimination law in the United States without a [20:28] single legislative vote. But now we're in 2026, more than a year and a half into the second Trump [20:34] administration. On day one, this president declared that the federal government was actually going to [20:38] enforce equality under the law, regardless of whether the thumbs on the scale benefited black [20:43] Americans or white Americans or anyone else. The promises of the president's roster of day one EEOs [20:48] have taken some time, and I'm sure a lot of hard legal and bureaucratic work across disparate agencies [20:53] to come to fruition. But now this ideal, that it's illegal to use characteristics like race and sex to [21:00] make important decisions about people's lives and work, is being shaped in real time. As I sit here before [21:06] you today, I'm pleased to be able to say that enormous progress on each one of these fronts has been [21:12] made. Although anti-white discrimination continues to exist in ideologically dedicated institutions, [21:17] as Mike testified, that they resist this kind of enforcement, in no era in my lifetime have more [21:26] strides been made towards the American ideal of being judged by merit rather than immutable characteristics. [21:32] It's a simple ideal but rare and one no less worth fighting for now that discrimination is against [21:37] whites and being laundered under the gauzy terms of diversity, equity, and inclusion than it was [21:42] during the first wave of the civil rights movement when racial discrimination was implemented against [21:46] blacks. As Chief Justice Roberts memorably put it back in 2007, the way to stop discrimination on the [21:52] basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. There is no diversity exception to this [21:59] just colorblind principle of our law. No matter our race, Americans should expect to be judged fairly [22:04] and on the merits, not on the basis of skin color, religion, or sex. We can either have civil rights [22:10] and just treatment for every American, or we can have a legalized racial hierarchy system and balkanized [22:15] resentful politics that puts us at each other's throats. Despite being considered controversial in some [22:20] of our elite institutions, this principle is very popular. Americans of all political stripes, from red Florida [22:26] to blue California and from all backgrounds agree that we ought to be judged by the content of our [22:31] character and what we have to offer on the basis of merit, whether we seek to offer that merit to an [22:36] admissions committee, an employer, or as a contractor working with the federal government. That's why [22:40] even in my deep blue home state of California, when voters are presented with the opportunity to reject [22:45] racial discrimination for any reason and embrace colorblind meritocracy, they overwhelmingly choose to do [22:51] so. The Trump administration is, for the first time in decades, enforcing the Civil Rights Act and the [22:56] Constitution equally for all Americans. But this laudable project progress is fragile. Equality under [23:02] the law and colorblind meritocracy need codifying from this body and protection from its highest court. [23:08] Now it's up to Congress and the Supreme Court to make sure that the principles of colorblind justice [23:12] and equality under the law, the only fair system in a multi-ethnic republic, continue to flourish. [23:17] Thank you. Thank you, and I now recognize Dr. Michael Shires for his opening statement. [23:26] Thank you, Chairman Gill, Ranking Member Simon, and members of the Task Force. [23:32] Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It's a privilege to be here, and I'm grateful for [23:37] your leadership and service to our nation. I'm honored to testify before you today about diversity, [23:43] equity, and inclusion, or DEI policies, and their devastating impact on one of our most important [23:48] national treasures, America's colleges and universities. I'm speaking today in my capacity as the Vice [23:53] Chair of Education Opportunity and Senior Policy Officer at the America First Policy Institute, [23:59] a nonprofit research institute whose focus is putting the interests of the American people at [24:04] the forefront of American public policy. I lead our extensive work in higher education, including [24:10] our work that shows how DEI undermines the quality of the education provided to millions of Americans [24:16] each day. I also speak as someone who spent nearly 40 years in higher education policy and leadership, [24:23] including 25 years as an administrator and professor at Pepperdine University, [24:27] and most recently three years as the founding Chief of Staff at the Free Speech University of Austin. [24:32] A few days ago, we celebrated the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, [24:39] the proclamation that launched America on a path to freedom, opportunity, and prosperity [24:43] unrivaled in human history. The central premise of that declaration is the notion we all know, [24:49] all men are created equal. And even though we haven't always lived up to that ideal, [24:54] pursuing it has fueled American success for the past 250 years. Yet today, our leading institutions, [25:01] including our colleges and universities, have set aside this principle, instead advancing a virulent DEI [25:07] ideology rooted in the belief that the United States is systemically racist and a white supremacist [25:13] project. DEI argues that certain disfavored groups, including whites, men, heterosexuals, [25:21] even political conservatives, are oppressors who must give up their privilege in favor of those who [25:26] are not. Today, this insidious ideology infects nearly every dimension of the academy, including hiring, [25:33] promotions, tenure, admissions, and even academic publishing. Over the past four decades, I have [25:38] watched this contagion metastasize on campuses. I've sat in university diversity committee meetings [25:44] where I was personally scolded by my peers for the color of my skin. I've been asked to draft loyalty [25:50] statements to this ideology in order to apply for jobs and explicitly told to hire candidates [25:55] because of their race or gender and not because of their ability to do the job. I've seen it devastate [26:01] careers and I've seen it close the door of opportunity to some of our best and brightest students. [26:06] This leftist monoculture undermines the very purpose of the American investment in higher education, [26:11] to equip the next generation of Americans to think, debate, and make the best decisions in a complex world [26:17] based on evidence, not prejudice. Unfortunately, the conversation on most university campuses is [26:24] more about indoctrination and advancing this leftism than promoting shared American values. [26:29] The leftists who have co-opted America's institutions tolerate only one perspective on campus, [26:34] theirs, undermining the very intellectual diversity needed for higher education to fulfill its primary [26:40] public purpose. Unaligned speakers are canceled. Students who disagree are failed. Faculty are [26:46] intimidated into silence or fired. Shoutdowns, hecklers, vetoes, violence, and even murder are used to [26:52] silence dissenting voices. The American people collectively rejected this anti-American discrimination [26:58] and divisiveness when they elected President Trump, and he responded taking bold steps to roll back the [27:05] left's DEI stranglehold on higher education by revoking the previous executive orders that [27:10] mandated it. He's aggressively enforced existing laws that ban discrimination in all forms, [27:15] including those demanded by DEI. He limited the use of disparate impact in civil rights law [27:21] and reformed accreditation to ensure institutions are transparent and accountable to the American [27:26] people who fund them. As a result, DEI forces today appear to be in retreat. Do not be deceived. [27:34] Many of these discriminatory processes are still at work, just reformulated or hidden for the moment. [27:40] AFPI supports and applauds the administration's actions to reinstitute merit and opportunity for [27:45] all Americans in higher education, regardless of race, gender, or other characteristics. To persevere, [27:52] these changes must be codified into law, and we welcome the opportunity to work with Congress and [27:57] the administration to ensure equal treatment for all Americans of every background in our colleges and [28:03] universities, much as our founding fathers would have envisioned 250 years ago. Thank you for this [28:09] opportunity, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Shires, and thank you to all [28:16] three of you once again for taking the time to to come here and testify before us. We're now going to move [28:22] on to the question portion of this hearing, and we're going to kick it off with the great Governor Byron Donalds [28:30] to begin. You're now recognized for five minutes. I appreciate the sentiment, Chairman. About 115 days to go. [28:39] Dr. Shires, thanks so much for for being here. I want to pick up where you left off. In your view, [28:44] what is the current state of academia with respect to DEI programs? What's actually happening in there today? [28:51] On most campuses, DEI is still in full force. You see institutions, for example, that require diversity [28:58] statements for application have eliminated that, but yet every single website that helps you apply [29:04] for a job has information on how to circumvent not having it to make sure that they know that you are [29:10] aligned with DEI. Are we seeing the same issue in some federal agencies, even though the Trump [29:17] administration obviously has put out executive orders to unwind DEI practices in federal agencies? [29:22] Absolutely. It's important to remember that the universities and the academy are kind of the [29:26] epicenter for our professional workforce, and so as students graduate and have been indoctrinated in [29:32] this ideology, they carry it with them into the workplace. In these agencies and even in the [29:38] universities, what are some of the ways that they are rebranding DEI to try to basically kind of be in [29:44] the shadows away from the eyes of the American people? The most common one is if you see an [29:48] office of community belonging, it's where all the people that were in the DEI office now are on campus. [29:55] I'm sorry? Point of clarification for me, what is community belonging? It's what they call DEI [30:02] offices now. It takes the inclusion part of DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion, and it talks about how you [30:10] how you empower and enable students in these protected classes to be on campus and to be engaged, [30:16] but it's really the same operation that was there before about dividing the campus. [30:21] Why don't we just empower them to be in class and actually learn? Wouldn't that be empowering a student? [30:28] I believe it would be, yes. Let me answer this question, because I've never heard of this [30:32] classification. Say that community... Community belonging. Community belonging. Okay, I've never heard this term [30:38] before, but that's okay. That's why we're having this hearing. If this is what colleges and institutions [30:43] are moving towards to shield or to rebrand DEI, what are some metrics or some planks that policy makers [30:52] need to be looking out for so that while we continue to move towards a true colorblind society based upon [30:59] merit that we are examining what's happening at institutions of higher learning who still want to [31:06] hold on to DEI programs by this name of community belonging? What should we be looking for? [31:11] Much we should be doing is enforcing existing law. I mean, current laws against discrimination [31:18] prevent universities from treating students differently, and yet on many campuses we now have [31:22] separate graduations. Imagine if we had a graduation for white students only, for example, what the uproar [31:29] would be, and yet on many campuses we have ethnically based graduations. And so we want to look at [31:35] enforcing current discrimination law. I think the civil rights focus for so long has been on opening the [31:40] door to opportunity, and we've allowed this engine to build overt discrimination through DEI. [31:46] Well, thank you for that. Ms. Stepman, your testimony was actually quite interesting. Quick question, [31:54] have you been studying or looking at what some of the current practices in corporate America are around [32:02] DEI? Is it something that corporate America is largely stepping away from, or are they trying to rebrand [32:07] similar to what's happening on university campuses? I think corporate America is, for better or worse, [32:12] is a much less ideological environment than the university campuses. I would expect universities to [32:18] fight this tooth and nail for ideological reasons. I've been much more encouraged. I think if you'd ask me [32:23] that question just a couple years ago, I would have given you a more pessimistic answer. I've been [32:29] pretty positively encouraged by the response of corporate America here, although they're definitely [32:34] trying their best to hide and memory hole all of the things they said in 2020 and 2021. Fortunately, [32:40] we have records of those statements, both external and internal, and those will be used for litigation. [32:45] But I do think that they are backing off of some of these commitments. We'll see whether that [32:52] commitment, new commitment to meritocracy, is maintained once this administration leaves power. [32:59] Okay. Interesting. Thank you for that. Mr. Gonzalez, do we have a reliable estimate on the cumulative [33:05] taxpayer dollars spent across the federal bureaucracy on DEI, personnel, contracts, and training programs [33:12] over the last five years? I'm sure that exists. I don't have it, but I can get it and forward it to [33:19] your office. No, I look forward to seeing that. Listen, I want to thank you all for taking the time [33:24] to come. Chairman, thank you for leading this effort to make sure that the United States is focused on [33:29] true merit between all people, regardless of race. I think that's going to be critical to the future of [33:35] the United States, and I yield back. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr. Walkinshaw from Virginia for five [33:42] minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General CQ Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the [33:49] former Chief of Staff of the Air Force, a fighter pilot, commander of all Air Force operations in the [33:55] Indo-Pacific, recipient of the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Air Force Distinguished Service [34:02] Medal, and a Bronze Star, among others. Fired, not for cause, not because he lacked the experience or [34:12] the qualifications to lead. Rather, he was fired by President Trump amid an ideologically motivated [34:19] purge of military leaders. After, by the way, Secretary Hegseth suggested that he got his job due to race. [34:29] Kind of ironic from someone who got his job based on being a cable news celebrity. Admiral Lisa Franchetti, [34:38] Chief of Naval Operations, a former surface warfare officer, former commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, [34:46] deputy commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and U.S. Naval Forces Africa during the 2018 strikes against [34:53] Syrian chemical weapon facilities. Again, fired without cause. My colleagues here today want to [35:01] spin a false narrative. They want to claim that diversity efforts are at odds with merit-based [35:06] policies. But these firings did nothing to bring or restore merit to our armed forces. President Trump's [35:16] policies are removing the best of the best from positions of power. Not because they lack [35:22] qualifications or experience, but because this administration is hostile to seasoned leaders [35:30] whose views differ from theirs, perhaps, and whose backgrounds don't fit their specific stereotypes. [35:37] And when this plays out in the institution of our armed forces, readiness suffers. But don't take my word for [35:44] it. In the words of Admiral McRaven, the four-star who oversaw the raid that killed bin Laden, [35:53] there is, quote, no doubt that General Brown and Admiral Franchetti were war fighters committed to the [36:00] cause through and through. If President Trump and my Republican colleagues and our witnesses here today [36:08] want to talk about advancement based on merit, they owe the American people an explanation for dismissing [36:16] two, and I'm just talking about two here today, exceptionally qualified military leaders while [36:21] the President is starting wars of choice across the globe. In the words of General Stanley McChrystal, [36:30] the four-star who oversaw the Joint Special Operations Command during the Iraq War, [36:36] these efforts are a complete distraction, a waste of time, and in fact, run counter to the concept of [36:43] a meritocracy. What they're really about, as General McChrystal observes, [36:49] is making the U.S. military an exclusive organization that only values service from [36:53] people of a certain gender and of a certain race. Admiral McRaven goes on, these recent firings raise [37:04] a risk that senior officers will be overly cautious about providing their best advice, [37:10] and therefore the risk of military miscalculation, and wow, have we had some miscalculations lately, [37:17] will grow dramatically. So let's call it what it is, efforts to exclude qualified women [37:29] and people of color from positions of power. They're not doing away with DEI, they're just doing [37:36] racism and sexism, and the American people will suffer as a result. Ms. Felcher Stepman, you expressed [37:46] concern that this administration's, quote, new commitment to meritocracy might be lost in a future [37:54] administration. Do you agree or disagree with Admiral McRaven, General McChrystal, [38:02] that these firings had nothing to do with merit? No, I have no way of doing that, [38:08] but there are only several bases on which it's illegal and unconstitutional to fire someone, [38:13] and that's the purpose of the hearing today, right? Do you think these were merit-based firings? [38:20] Is there any evidence to suggest they were? The president, we elect a president, not generals, [38:24] right? So he has to have the legitimacy to choose. Should he fire them based on merit? [38:29] I, I, he can, he can make any decision he wants for the people who are working under him because [38:34] the American people elected him. Maybe your organization should look into these firings [38:38] and see whether they were merit-based or race-based or sex-based. Will you do that? [38:42] If they were race-based or sex-based, they would be illegal. Why don't you look into them? [38:45] I don't see any evidence of that. Why don't you do a report on that? [38:48] I don't see any evidence of the fact that it was race-based or sex-based, [38:51] and those are the only ways that is illegal to fire someone. The president can fire somebody [38:55] for disagreeing with him. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back. [39:00] Thank you, and I'll now recognize myself for five minutes for [39:06] the purpose of asking questions. Dr. Shires, what is DEI? [39:12] Diversity, equity, inclusion, as my colleague Mr. Gonzalez said earlier, is none of those three [39:19] things. It is an ideology that's based on a philosophy. It comes out of the academic world. [39:24] It's based on a philosophy that society is driven by our, we are driven by our environment and our [39:31] identity and the world that we live in is constructed from it. As a result of that, we are victims of the [39:37] world around us, essentially. And in that world, they divide people into oppressors and the oppressed in [39:43] the Marxist tradition to leverage power. Are DEI policies compatible with meritocracy? [39:49] They are not. Could you elaborate? Meritocracy is based on the idea that you measure somebody [39:55] based on what they're doing, not what they look like. DEI policies actually call for equal outcomes [40:00] for everyone. And so if I perform at a different level than someone else, they are automatically placed [40:06] in that same level. What do DEI policies mean in practice? In practice, it means quotas. It means that [40:14] racial quotas. It does. And just like the Congressman mentioned, you know, the perception that people are [40:20] promoted to ranks without the adequate backgrounds, whether that's legitimate or not. In this case, I [40:26] don't think it is, but that is the perception that arises because you simply assign people status based on who [40:32] they are and not what they've done. Ms. Stepman, racial quotas seem un-American to me, don't they? [40:38] To you? Yes, and they're illegal. And they're illegal. Under DEI regimes, what races do colleges and [40:45] universities typically least prefer in their admissions processes? Whites, men, Asians. Men is not a race, [40:53] obviously. But there actually might be some, a little bit of reverse discrimination actually going [40:58] against women now because women so predominate on universities. But yes, whites and Asians primarily. [41:03] Why do you think that it's primarily those groups? Because they're in a war with the reality of [41:09] these disparities. So if you want to have a quota that comes out perfectly racially balanced at the [41:14] end, the only way that these universities have been able to achieve that is by discriminating on [41:20] the basis of race and sex in their admissions. And you mentioned that a lot of colleges and universities, [41:27] you expect to fight DEI restrictions. Why is that? You said that there was an ideological component there. [41:33] Right. I think my fellow witness correctly referenced the idea of the oppressor and the oppressed. [41:39] There's this idea that all differences in culture, disparities, outcomes, all of these are somehow [41:46] immediately evidence of discrimination and some kind of unjust system. And so there's an ideological [41:52] commitment to make sure that they kind of force the world to look the way that they think it ought to. [41:58] And unfortunately, that's both immoral, discriminatory, and fortunately for us, it's illegal under the [42:04] law of the United States. Could you walk us through, practically speaking, what a DEI policy would mean [42:10] for a college admissions process? It means that, in practice, they place a thumb on the scale for [42:18] applications that may have no more or, in fact, lesser qualifications than other applications purely on [42:25] the basis of race. And by the way, we saw this in the data in Students for Fair Admissions. Harvard [42:30] was absolutely discriminating against Asian and white applicants who are comparably situated to other [42:36] applicants. And we know that universities have been doing this for decades. Mr. Gonzalez, BlackRock [42:43] has a scholarship exclusively for a diverse student. That's their words. What do you think diverse means [42:49] in that context? Yeah, that is actually diversity should mean that you have people of diverse backgrounds. [43:00] Often enough, diverse means members of any of the so-called marginalized groups, [43:05] alone, without any participation by Asian Americans or white Americans. That seems discriminatory, [43:12] does it not? And as Ms. Felster said, it's not just discriminatory, it's also illegal and immoral. [43:18] Mm-hmm. We see this across the corporate world. Starbucks has a training program for employees [43:24] limited to, quote, black, indigenous, and peoples of color BIPOC partners. Do you think that's [43:30] discriminatory? And illegal. I think the corporate world, I agree with Ms. Felster. I think the corporate [43:36] world is, in fact, trying to move away. I've heard many anecdotes of- Their goal at the time was for BIPOC [43:43] representation to be at least 30 percent at all corporate levels and at least 40 percent at all [43:49] retail and manufacturing roles by 2025. That sounds like a racial quota, doesn't it? That's a [43:55] quota that's illegal, that's immoral. However, since President Trump was elected, they're actually [44:00] coming forward and saying, hey, we're so glad you're making this illegal, you're discouraging us from [44:05] doing this. We didn't want to do it in the first place. And so I agree with Ms. Felster that the corporate [44:10] world is moving at a much faster rate than the academy. Thank you. And my time is up, so thank [44:17] y'all. And I'd now- Mr. Chairman, a UC request? Yep, without objection. I asked unanimous consent to [44:23] enter into the record a February 21st, 2025 article from Military Times titled, Ending Military Diversity [44:31] Efforts Will Cost Us Talent and Readiness, Which Shows Active Duty Service Members Believe Dismantling [44:36] Programs Is Undermining Military Readiness and Recruitment of Diverse Talent. Without objection. [44:41] Asked unanimous consent to enter into the record a March 27th, 2026 article from NPR titled, [44:46] Defense Secretary Hegseth Intervened to Stop Promotions of Black and Female Officers. Without [44:52] objection. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to enter into the record an article from the Hill called, [44:57] Asian American Students Were Victims of Racial Discrimination, as well as another article called, [45:04] The Left's Incurable DEI Addiction. And with that said, I will now recognize Ms. Presley from [45:12] Massachusetts for five minutes. Thank you. Today's hearing is irrational. Today's hearing is [45:21] irrational. It is misguided. And it is consistent, consistent with the Republicans' war on diversity, [45:27] equity, and on inclusion. Now Republicans control the White House. They've rigged the Supreme Court. [45:32] They have majorities in both chambers of Congress. And they are using the full weight of that power, [45:39] the full force of that, and your taxpayer dollars, might I add, of this federal government in this [45:44] moment to enact precise harm on working families. There are no oversight hearings on high unemployment [45:51] and the rising costs. And there are no hearings on protecting voting rights or affordable health [45:57] care coverage. Instead, Republicans have decided to focus on attacking everyday people who are just [46:03] trying to make ends meet. Their agenda is anti-black, it is anti-immigrant, it is anti-LGBTQ, it is anti-worker, [46:15] and again, since we're talking about DEIA and the dismantling of it, it is also anti-veteran, [46:24] it is anti-rural, it is anti-disabled, and it most certainly is anti-woman. Diversity, equity, [46:33] and inclusion of initiatives were created to promote fairness. Because there are real biases [46:39] in America that disadvantage specific groups of people. That is a fact backed by mountains of data. [46:47] While there has been progress, the work is unfinished. Actually, the work is piling up [46:52] due to Republicans emboldening greater discrimination while simultaneously dismantling civil rights [46:58] protections. For example, women face systemic gender discrimination. I know you can't tell by [47:03] looking at the Republican Party, but women make up 50 percent of this country. And we deserve equal [47:08] rights. So I'm going to start with a simple question. And Ms. Feltzer-Stattman, I'm going to [47:13] begin with you. Because actually, the fact that your women's form even exists, some might even consider [47:19] that to be a DEI initiative. But let me just ask you a question. Do you believe America should have [47:26] gender equality, meaning that women and men should have equal rights under the Constitution and our laws? [47:32] Yes or no? I believe that women and men can and do have equal rights under the Constitution. Yes or no? [47:38] Yes or no? One more time to keep it clean here. Do you believe America should have gender equality, [47:43] meaning that women and men should have equal rights under the Constitution and our laws? Yes or no? [47:47] I believe they should have equal rights. Yes. Okay. And Dr. Shire? Yes or no? [47:52] Yes. Mr. Gonzalez? Yes or no? All right. Well, unfortunately, the Constitution is silent on this topic. [48:01] And that is why I've introduced legislation to add the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment, [48:06] enshrining it as the law of this land. Now look, y'all, every Democrat in the House has signed on to [48:11] my bill, but I'm still waiting on my Republican colleagues to join. So until we are able to codify [48:16] gender equality in the Constitution, diversity, equity and inclusion policies have supported women [48:21] in every aspect of their lives. For example, women have served in the military for more than 200 years, [48:26] yet Republicans in your anti-diversity campaign have denied multiple women promotions just because [48:32] they are women. Not to mention those that have just been fired. Women get paid less money for [48:37] doing the same work as men, but since Republicans are anti-equity, the EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity [48:43] Commission, has weakened enforcement of pay discrimination laws, maintaining and widening our [48:48] gender wage gap by the day. Y'all have any daughters? Not to mention black women making 65 cents on the dollar [48:57] to white men. And finally, women are underrepresented in medical trials to find cures for diseases that [49:02] affect us. But because Republicans are attacking inclusion, they cut funding for women's health [49:07] research projects. So let me sum it up. Anti-DEI is anti-woman, and those harms are compounded by attacks [49:17] on voting rights like the so-called Save America Act that Republicans are fixated on passing, which could [49:22] disenfranchise nearly 70 million women simply because their last names on their ID no longer match their [49:28] birth certificates after being married, which pro-family people seem to care about. Not to [49:35] mention the attacks on bodily autonomy. As women, our bodies are treated as a debate and Republicans [49:40] are passing laws that restrict what we do and when we do it, something men have never had to struggle [49:45] with. So when it comes to Republicans on this committee who are all men enacting more harm on [49:51] women through anti-DEI hearings like this one, we need to call it out and fight back. Mr. Chair, [49:56] I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this June 2026 article from Afrotech titled, [50:01] Civil Rights Organizations and Nonprofits Signed Letter Demanding Transparency and Response [50:06] from the Trump Administration Regarding DEIA Ban. Without objection. So y'all, since Donald Trump [50:11] is so loud and proud about these efforts to dismantle and defund DEIA, why do you think the Trump [50:16] administration is hiding all the data on their firings? Okay, I guess that's my time. All right, [50:23] then. Thank you. Thank you. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Thank you, Congresswoman. And I'd be [50:31] happy to look at your equal rights amendment and read through it. I guess my biggest question was, [50:35] does it define what a woman is? We'll take a look at it. I just was hoping for some analytical clarity, [50:46] but thank you. We'll take a look at it. And I've got some UCs as well. DEI has jeopardized air safety. [50:57] DEI policies threaten medical excellence. Uncovering radical efforts to disguise DEI. Justice [51:09] Department investigation determines UCLA's medical school discrimination based on race and admissions. [51:18] And with that said, I have you a request, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I asked unanimous consent to enter [51:25] into the record, January 26, 2025, an article from CNN entitled, Trump gutting of federal DEI programs [51:33] will hit rural poor communities, which shows to push. Without objection. Okay. It's right here. [51:43] I'll now recognize Mr. Menifee for five minutes for the purpose of asking questions. Thank you very much, [51:50] Mr. Chairman. Good morning. You know, we've heard a lot today about y'all's views on diversity, equity, [51:57] and inclusion programs. You know, my take is these are about leveling out a playing field that has [52:02] historically not been level where there are folks in this country who are all running the same race. [52:07] But for some people, their lane has obstacles in it. It has hurdles. It has water pits. And that is [52:14] because of discrimination that was pushed, instituted, and facilitated by government at every single [52:24] level. So I want to start with you, Dr. Shires. You've written much about how DEI programs fuel racial [52:30] stereotypes. You've talked here a little bit today about your opposition to these programs. And I think [52:36] that's consistent what we've heard from our Republican colleagues, as well as Vice President Vance, [52:41] who I believe called them a deliberate program of discrimination against white men. So let me ask you [52:46] this. Take a random white person in America today and a random black person. When they go apply for jobs, [52:53] when they apply for a home loan, when they're getting their home appraised, when they're seeking [52:57] higher wages, would you say that those two people are more likely than not to be on the same playing [53:02] field? Legally, yes. I have no clue what that means. In practice, are they likely to be on the [53:10] same playing field? I guess what I'm trying to understand is what playing field are you comparing [53:15] them on? I mean, in your metaphor, you talk about how some lanes on the track have obstacles and others [53:22] don't. The solution to that is to remove the obstacles. It's not to change the finish line. [53:27] And DEI changes the finish line, whereas the federal law against the discrimination are there to remove [53:34] the obstacles. So if you're asking, if the question is how do I get to the situation where both of them [53:40] have the same access, the answer is removing the obstacles and enforcing the law. It's not changing the [53:45] finish line. Well, there are also DEI programs that remove the obstacles that the president has removed [53:50] from the federal government. But my question to you is, if a random white person in this country [53:54] and a random black person in this country go to get their home appraised, right, why is it that the [53:59] black person is much more likely to get a lower value on their home appraisal? Because they live in a [54:04] different neighborhood. Okay, great. We'll get to that in a second, because that's wrong. Black people in [54:09] this country were enslaved for at least 240 years. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, and after slavery [54:16] ended, you had about 100 more years at least of Jim Crow and legal segregation, where government at the federal, [54:22] state and local level blocked black people from owning land, from getting bank loans, from living in certain [54:28] neighborhoods, from attending certain schools, all that happened too, right? Yes. Okay, so my question to you is [54:33] simple. Name the year that the playing field became completely even. I want you to give me a date. Again, it [54:42] depends on what playing field you're talking about. I mean, if you're looking at- For home loans, you brought- I [54:48] think we talked about home loans and appraisals. For home loans, what year did it become equal? Well, according to the [54:53] DEI movement in 1991, when they imposed disparate impact. So you're telling me today that if a black [55:00] person goes and applies for a home loan, they have the same likelihood of getting accepted for that [55:05] loan as a white person does? I'm saying under the DEI rules, yes, that would be the case. We know in [55:10] practicality that people have different income profiles and experiences. If you're asking me a person [55:15] that lives next door to another person, if one is white and one is black and they go both apply for a loan, [55:20] do I expect different outcomes? No. And if there are, then it should be enforced under discrimination [55:25] laws. So you're talking about rules, I'm talking about outcomes. So let's play a game of true and [55:29] false and let's start with wealth disparities. The median net worth of a white household in this [55:33] country is $285,000. The median net worth of a black household is about $45,000. True or false? [55:40] I don't know. Okay, you came here as an expert today in a DEI hearing, you don't know that? Basic facts about [55:45] wealth accumulation in this country? All right, let's go to the next one. For every hundred dollars in wealth [55:49] held by white families, black families hold about $15. True or false? Again, I don't know those specific [55:55] numbers. Okay, well, I have data here. It's true. So we know that the answer here isn't just that black [56:00] people believe in saving less than white people do, right? It's that government in this country has put [56:05] one set of folks in a better position to succeed than other people. And it was the law for a very, [56:11] very long time. And it became ingrained in our institutions. Government was part of the problem, [56:16] and so it has to now be part of the solution. So let's do this true or false game again for [56:20] employment and wages. Black workers are far more likely to be unemployed as white workers at almost [56:25] every education level. True or false? That is true. So do you just believe that black people are more [56:30] lazy or aren't as good at applications? Why do you think that data is the way it is? I think the data is [56:36] that way it is because our educational system has dramatically failed the black community. [56:41] And instead of solving it, we just let them into college where they then have a higher rate of failure [56:45] because they were- I wasn't aware that there's a black education system and a white education [56:48] system. In my district, we have schools that are represented all races in there in the same [56:53] outcomes. The same school has different outcomes for black kids and white kids. My time is up. [56:58] But in short, if the government was part of the problem, the government now has to be part of the [57:03] solution. The government's time is expired. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr. Jack for five minutes. [57:09] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge my friend, [57:12] John Bonk, and his wife, Laura, who are in the audience with us today. I wanted them to see a committee [57:16] hearing, and I wanted them to see, Mr. Chairman, what a freshman can do when they excel in this [57:21] committee, as you no doubt are exemplary proof. When you are a great freshman, you have a chance to [57:27] lead in Congress and get a gavel, and that's exactly what you've proven. So today, Mr. Gonzalez, [57:32] I'd like to start with you. I'd like to learn a little bit more about the history of DEI and some of [57:38] the initiatives we've seen in the corporate workplace. Could you help us understand what- from where this [57:43] emanated and who developed these initial ideas to implement these policies? Representative Jack, [57:51] thank you for your question. So they have been around for many years. As initially, they were a [57:56] response to the Civil Rights Act. They wanted, you know, throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s, [58:04] they wanted to make sure that companies were doing the things that the government demanded, [58:13] first of contractors, government contractors, than of just any business. Very quickly, [58:19] these degenerated into practices and trainings that were part of a larger framework that saw [58:30] America as being basically racist. And that's when, especially since in the last 15 years, [58:38] when the acronym has become more defined, they became, they began to look a lot more like the [58:45] struggle sessions that practice, as practiced, and the Cultural Revolution in China, which were meant [58:51] to change the thinking of a whole society. And I'm just curious, over those past 15 years, [58:57] I mean, what's, what's really precipitated the acceleration of this? It seems like it's, it's [59:01] commonplace now and something that we're trying to identify. We're having a congressional hearing on it [59:05] today. Was there a, is there funding that's going toward this? Are there groups that are trying to [59:11] sow division and discord vis-a-vis this initiative? Yeah, you can see a lot of studies have been made [59:19] on the use by newspapers and the academy of the terms of DEI, whiteness, systemic racism, etc. And they [59:28] really spike in, they begin to really spike in 2014. And I have associated that with the beginning of the [59:35] Black Lives Matter movement in 2013, the second, in June 2013. And then the Ferguson riots in 2014, [59:44] when we, we really began to, the country began to change enormously. And that obviously culminated in [59:50] 2020, which is when really old, you know, the diversity trainers were brought here to Congress. [59:58] Robin DeAngelo met with members of one party, nearly all of the members of one party and gave a training [1:00:04] session. But so that, so you had two spikes, 2014, and then a huge spike in 2020. [1:00:11] Dr. Thank you very much for your testimony. Dr. Shires, I'd like to talk a little bit about [1:00:15] what the Trump administration has accomplished with respect to shutting down DEI policies at over [1:00:20] 300 colleges and universities. But it seems like some of these academic institutions are just changing [1:00:24] the name or trying to rebrand the effort to comply with some of the executive orders. Could you expound on [1:00:29] that for us? Dr. Absolutely. It's important to remember that the students for fair admissions [1:00:34] ruling came down during the Biden administration. And the Biden administration did effectively nothing [1:00:39] to implement the idea that we were supposed to have colorblind admissions in universities. And so [1:00:47] the Trump administration has been open and transparent. It shined the light of sunshine, [1:00:52] if you will, on the actions of these institutions. We see the lawsuits with the Department of Justice [1:00:57] against the medical schools right now, the engagement with the ABA. It's literally just [1:01:02] raising the conversation to say this discrimination is happening and we need to stop. And so the main [1:01:09] actions have actually been these negotiations with high profile institutions. The administration [1:01:14] offered a compact to talk about creating transparency around these issues. I was part of the accreditation [1:01:20] rulemaking where they added complying with civil rights laws as part of the responsibilities of [1:01:25] accreditors to ensure that universities respond to federal law. So it's kind of a full court press. [1:01:31] Most recently, the administration issued new guidance on disparate impact rules and how they're used. [1:01:37] And again, this is Department of Justice guidance. It still hasn't been tested in the courts yet. [1:01:43] And in our closing 30 seconds, what more could Congress do to help accelerate and codify some of these [1:01:48] actions that the Trump administration has led on? Well, I think the first is to codify the disparate [1:01:53] impact changes. And I know Chairman Gill has a bill on this that would touch those issues. [1:01:59] I think beyond that, it's a lot about transparency and it's about enforcement. I think Congress [1:02:04] should revisit the Higher Education Act and take some of the issues around civil rights and the public [1:02:09] interest in higher education. For example, having intellectual diversity on campus as a key dimension [1:02:15] to why the government funds higher education. And those should be codified in the Higher Ed Act. [1:02:20] I think that continued conversations and rulings around our hearings around these issues as well. [1:02:25] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. [1:02:27] Mr. Chairman, I have a U of C request. [1:02:28] Go ahead. [1:02:29] I ask you. Thank you, sir. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record [1:02:33] an article from Time Magazine, February 25th, 25, how Trump's attack on DEI are hurting communities [1:02:40] that voted for him, which describes how his initiatives have hurt programs in West Virginia. [1:02:45] Without objection. Thank you, sir. I now recognize Mr. Min for five minutes. [1:02:50] Thank you, Chair Gill, Ranking Member Simon for hosting this hearing. I just want to note again, [1:02:56] this is a task force anomaly created to defend constitutional rights and expose institutional abuses. [1:03:03] I'm still waiting on the hearings on, say, the constitutional rights protecting people against [1:03:07] illegal search and seizure from political motivated prosecutions, or on article one, [1:03:13] and it's clear edicts that Congress and only Congress can declare war, appropriate funds, [1:03:17] or levy taxes. But I guess we'll keep waiting for those hearings. Now, before getting into politics, [1:03:22] I was a law professor. My research focused on banking and corporate governance. I actually served [1:03:27] on the admissions committee for two years. So I have some insights on diversity and inclusion here. [1:03:32] And I think people often falsely frame diversity and merit as competing concepts. And that is not [1:03:39] typically the case. This is about expanding opportunities, about leveling the playing field. [1:03:44] And as someone who's on the admissions committee before the Harvard case, where the Supreme Court [1:03:48] overturned and nullified affirmative action, but post Bakke, which you're all familiar with, where we were [1:03:54] allowed to use race as a factor, we used it as a factor. It could not be dispositive. There were no quotas. [1:04:00] And I also know there's a lot of misinformation about what diversity, equity, inclusion actually looked [1:04:05] like, say, in higher ed. I know that was also the case in workplaces, in government hiring practices, [1:04:10] and the like. We were allowed to use it as a factor. Now, one thing I will just point out [1:04:14] is that we actually much more explicitly used ideological diversity as a proxy because we wanted to have [1:04:20] a diverse institution. We didn't want to have all liberal students. So we actually pushed up a lot of students [1:04:26] that probably would not have qualified because they were outspoken conservatives. And I just want to make that point [1:04:31] that I think a lot of folks in this room have problems with diversity, unless this includes, [1:04:35] say, their viewpoints. And their viewpoints, let's be honest, for a long time were underrepresented [1:04:39] in higher education institutions, in the workplace, because by pure numbers, people who were outspoken [1:04:45] conservatives were not typically measuring up and getting into places like Harvard or Yale. So they had [1:04:50] to adjust and try to get people in. I will also note that the research is pretty clear that diversity is [1:04:58] associated with better outcomes, whether it's the workplace, whether that's in decision making, [1:05:03] in academic institutions, whether that's in research, and certainly in the boardroom, which is [1:05:07] what I'm familiar with. And you're probably all familiar with the litany of research out there that [1:05:12] not just suggests, but very clearly shows a correlation between diversity in boards, corporate boards, [1:05:17] and ROI. And so the McKinsey study is one example of the many, many studies out there. I think McKinsey [1:05:23] found that on average, firms in the top quartile, top 25% of diversity on their corporate boards were [1:05:31] 27% higher ROI than their counterparts. That is typical of the findings we have. And the reasons [1:05:37] for it's not just theoretical, it's because we have a lot of outcomes associated when you don't have [1:05:42] diversity of groupthink, you have echo chambers, these have all been well documented, you have the [1:05:47] problem of yes men. I just want to highlight something that I think is a very clear example of this [1:05:50] today. Pete Hegseth is probably Secretary of Defense, probably the most notorious example of [1:05:56] someone who has tried to get rid of diversity in the name of pursuing, I don't know, something that [1:06:01] looks more like him, that people that look like him, that talk like him. He has notably apparently [1:06:06] fired or prevented the promotion of a number of African Americans and women. And yet I think by all [1:06:11] accounts, what we have seen to date in less than two years is an absolutely disastrous Department of [1:06:17] Defense. We have a Secretary of Defense that is more concerned about facial hair than constitutional [1:06:23] violations. There appeared to be no exit plan, no strategy when he went into Iran. This is the [1:06:28] problem when you have groupthink and you're just trying to promote people that look like you, you [1:06:32] create that echo chamber. And I think this is a very clear example. I will also just note that across [1:06:37] the board in my district in Orange County, which is one of the most diverse places in the country, [1:06:42] where we have one of the most booming economies in the country, I invite you all to come visit. [1:06:45] You can see it's really great when you can go get boba or an In-N-Out burger in the same day, [1:06:50] like across the street from each other. A lot of great outcomes associated with the diversity that [1:06:54] is being so vilified here. And Orange County, I think, benefits from that diversity in our institutions, [1:07:01] among our entrepreneurs, among our elected officials. And the problem right now that we're seeing is as [1:07:06] diversity is being stripped out of so many agencies across the board at the federal level, I have heard from [1:07:12] just so many of my different stakeholders, whether it's pharmaceutical companies, whether it's [1:07:16] construction companies, that they have difficulty now because the expertise that was in place at [1:07:21] agencies like the FDA, USDA, whatever else they're dealing with, no longer there because in an effort [1:07:27] to strip out diversity, the Trump administration has stripped out expertise. Now, with that, I don't [1:07:32] really have any questions for you because I think we've heard your comments. I just want to close by [1:07:35] saying diversity matters. It is the heart of this country. It is what has made America so great to [1:07:41] begin with. As a son of immigrants, I will say that proudly. I believe that the reason our military, [1:07:46] our institutions are so much more powerful and effective and lethal than any other countries in [1:07:50] the world that don't have that diversity is because that diversity gives us strength. And with that, I yield [1:07:55] back. Mr. Chairman, you recognize? I have a unanimous consent request without objection. Mr. Chairman, I would [1:08:03] like to enter into the record three items. First, I'd like to enter into the record from the U.S. Department [1:08:08] of Education. A press release entitled U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights launches [1:08:14] Title VI investigation into Fairfax County Public Schools. Without objection. I'd like to enter into the [1:08:19] record an article from Fox News. Watchdog urges DOJ probe of top research university over alleged illegal [1:08:26] DEI practices defies common sense. Without objection. And lastly, I'd like to enter into the record [1:08:32] an article from America First Legal, which is, CMS removes Biden era DEI framework from kidney [1:08:39] transplant program following America First Legal's rulemaking petition. Without objection. [1:08:44] Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a May 8th, 2025 article from CNN, [1:08:50] which describes how the Trump administration's anti-DEI push has gutted critical medical [1:08:54] Without objection. It's titled, Trump's diversity purge freezes hundreds of millions in medical [1:08:58] research at universities across the country. Without objection. Thank you. [1:09:02] Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a [1:09:07] March 12th, 2025 article from the Real Deal titled, Doge Cancels Affordable Housing Deals and Anti-DEI [1:09:13] Push. Without objection. And second, a December 5th, 2022 research article from the Brookings Institute, [1:09:20] How Racial Bias and Appraisals Affects the Devaluation of Homes in Majority Black Neighborhoods. [1:09:25] Without objection. Thank you. I now recognize Miss Simon for her five minutes. [1:09:31] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate us having this conversation today, [1:09:37] because what we're lifting up is it seems like a lot of anger and frustration with the way that things [1:09:42] are in this moment. And I would agree the American people all over the country from sea to shining sea, [1:09:48] they're angry and frustrated and afraid as they see the cost of living skyrocket under the administration. [1:09:56] Prices are up and families across the country are struggling to make ends meet. [1:10:02] We all know if you go to the grocery store right now the price of ground beef or orange juice. [1:10:07] We're talking about DEI. But I have a couple of questions as it relates to what is actually germane [1:10:14] to most folks in this country in this moment. Mr. Gonzalez, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has found that [1:10:22] the price of everyday goods like food and housing and clothes has increased more than four percent [1:10:29] over the last more than four percent over the last 12 months. Mr. Gonzalez, yes or no? Is DEI the reason [1:10:36] that Americans can't afford clothes or groceries? No, I believe Biden was. Okay. No, I'm asking you [1:10:44] right now is DEI. Groceries. You know, I don't think that DEI has anything to do with it. I think [1:10:52] President Biden's policies did. I'm going to move forward. What about housing? Is DEI the reason why [1:10:59] two teachers working in any state in this country can't afford to buy a house? Again, I would say Biden. [1:11:06] Okay. Biden is the reason why. But not DEI. So Biden. I don't think DEI has anything to do with [1:11:11] the question. But Biden is not the president right now, but we'll move forward. Ms. Stepman, [1:11:17] and if I mispronounce your name, I really apologize. The American families, American families on average [1:11:25] paid $310 more for groceries in 2025 under the current administration than they did in 2024. [1:11:35] Yes or no? Did DEI cause that? No, there are, in fact, other issues under the sun. Thank you. [1:11:40] Dr. Shires, under our current administration, gasoline prices have increased by more than 50% [1:11:49] since this disastrous war. Is DEI the fault of that? I don't believe so. Thank you, sir. This is why, [1:11:58] you know, I think all of us, many folks who are watching, are struggling with the conversation today, [1:12:05] city after city, in rule space after rule space. Folks are struggling with the realities of gas, [1:12:12] gas, and grocery prices. Just a few days ago, a family called my office, not from my state, [1:12:19] from a red state, requesting resources because their child's clinical trial was cut by this [1:12:27] administration, that baby who is struggling with cancer. The clinical trial is over. The port has [1:12:33] been taken out of her chest. She will go home to die. And we are talking about inclusion, and equity, [1:12:43] and diversity. While SNAP benefits are cut, folks can't afford their mortgage. And we're having a [1:12:54] conversation about the lexicon of diversity. But okay, did DEI make the president's approval rate [1:13:05] fall to 39%? Is DEI the reason that Republicans can't pass any of their bills on the floor this week? [1:13:14] Is DEI the reason that the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship? Did DEI kill the dinosaurs? [1:13:21] I don't think that the American people are buying this attempt to divide and distract and scapegoat. [1:13:29] Because what I would say, Mr. Chairman, it's feeling and sounding a lot like 1967 in this room. [1:13:37] If you know, you know. We know what's happening. We know what this conversation is really about. And [1:13:46] none of us have any real answers about what we're doing today, outside of having a conversation that [1:13:52] is set to break the commitment to include all Americans. To uplift the fact that we look different. [1:14:00] We have different languages. We may pray differently. But the assault on that beauty, [1:14:08] that's what we're litigating. Okay. But it's disgusting. And you want to blame DEI, [1:14:14] you want to blame foreigners, you want to blame people of color for the price of gas, [1:14:21] for the inaffordability in this country, and the fact that literally right down the street, [1:14:30] folks who are working two and three jobs can afford to take their baby to daycare. And I'll yield back. [1:14:37] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this conversation today. Thank you, Ms. Simon. And I [1:14:44] would just note that DEI policies are what drove the United States allowing foreigners to buy up [1:14:50] homes with FHA loans. I think they did drive up the price of housing. Mr. Chairman, [1:14:55] Mr. Chairman, do you want to talk about the GI Bill in the Stanford study? I'm happy to talk about anything [1:15:02] anything you'd like to talk about. That literally showed tens of thousands of mortgages being taken [1:15:07] out and less than one percent of those GI mortgages are one percent. What our side of the aisle is hoping [1:15:13] for is for college admissions and business hiring decisions to not be based on race. I don't think [1:15:19] that white men are in the minority of any of the top ten colleges. I don't either. I never suggested that. [1:15:24] With that, and without objection, all members have five legislative days within which to submit [1:15:29] materials and additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses. [1:15:34] If there's no further business, without objection, the task force stands adjourned. Thank you.