[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                   DIVISIVE, EXCESSIVE, INEFFECTIVE:
                       THE REAL IMPACT OF DEI ON
                            COLLEGE CAMPUSES

=======================================================================


                                HEARING

                               Before The

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
                        AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 
                                WORKFORCE
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________


             HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 7, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-38
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
  

  
  
  
              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
              

              


        Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov        
                                 ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

56-497 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024 













                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia,
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania           Ranking Member
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia                 Northern Mariana Islands
JIM BANKS, Indiana                   FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          MARK TAKANO, California
BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   MARK DeSAULNIER, California
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan               DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MARY MILLER, Illinois                PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
MICHELLE STEEL, California           SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RON ESTES, Kansas                    LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
KEVIN KILEY, California              ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
AARON BEAN, Florida                  HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York           
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana

                       Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
              Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director 
              
                                 ------                                

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE 
                             DEVELOPMENT

                     BURGESS, OWENS, UTAH, Chairman

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania         FREDERICA WILSON, Florida,
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin              Ranking Member
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana                   PRAMILA,JAYAPAL, Washington
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, 
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York             Northern Mariana Islands
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina        SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
                                     ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina 












                                     
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on March 7, 2024....................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Owens, Hon. Burgess, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher 
      Education and the Workforce Development....................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     4
    Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon:...........................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8

                               WITNESSES

    Smith, Dr. Erec, Associate Professor of Rhetoric, York 
      College of Pennsylvania, Research Fellow, Cato Institute...    10
        Prepared statement of....................................    12
    Murphy, Dr. James, Director, Career Pathways and 
      Postsecondary Policy, Education Reform Now.................    22
        Prepared statement of....................................    24
    Goldfarb, Dr. Stanley, Chair, Do No Harm.....................    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    30
    Greene, Dr. Jay, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage 
      Foundation's Center for Education Policy...................    42
        Prepared statement of....................................    44

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Chairman Owens:
        Statement of B'nai B'rith International dated March 7, 
          2024...................................................    88
        Article dated December 10, 2023, by Danielle Allen.......    90
    Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon:
        Article dated March 20, 2024, from diverseeducation.com..    97
        Multiple submitted statements dated March 2024...........   102
        Testimony from the Legal Defense Fund....................   159
        Statement from the Southern Poverty Law Center...........   175
    Fernandez Leger, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico:
        Article dated December 18, 2023, from insidehighered.com.    59
    Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina:
        Article dated March 7, 2024, from the The Charlotte 
          Observer...............................................    79

 
                   DIVISIVE, EXCESSIVE, INEFFECTIVE:
                       THE REAL IMPACT OF DEI ON
                            COLLEGE CAMPUSES

                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, March 7, 2024

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 
                                       Development,
                  Committee on Education and The Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 a.m., 
Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2175, Hon. Burgess Owens 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Owens, Grothman, Stefanik, Banks, 
Good, Williams, Houchin, Foxx, Jayapal, Leger Fernandez, 
Manning, McBath, Bonamici, and Scott.
    Also present: Walberg, Miller, Kiley, and Bean.
    Staff present: Nick Barley, Deputy Communications Director; 
Mindy Barry, General Counsel; Hans Bjontegard, Legislative 
Assistant; Solomon Chen, Professional Staff Member; Isabel 
Foster, Press Assistant; Daniel Fuenzalida, Staff Assistant; 
Sheila Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Amy Raaf 
Jones, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Georgie 
Littlefair, Clerk; Hannah Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; Audra 
McGeorge, Communications Director; Rebecca Powell, Staff 
Assistant; Mary Christina Riley, Professional Staff Member; 
Brad Thomas, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services 
Policy; Maura Williams, Director of Operations; Ni'Aisha Banks, 
Minority Intern; Nekea Brown, Minority Director of Operations; 
Rashage Green, Minority Director of Education Policy & Counsel; 
Christian Haines, Minority General Counsel; Emanual Kimble, 
Minority Professional Staff; Suyoung Kwon, Minority AAAS 
Fellow; Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications Director; 
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Olivia Sawyer, 
Minority Intern; Maile Sit, Minority Intern; Clinton Spencer, 
IV, Minority Staff Assistant; Jamar Tolbert, Minority Intern; 
Adrianna Toma, Minority Intern; Banyon Vassar, Minority IT 
Administrator.
    Chairman Owens. The Subcommittee on Higher Education and 
Workforce Development will come to order. I note that a quorum 
is present. Without objection, the Chair is recognized to call 
a recess at any time. I also welcome the Committee members who 
are not members of the Subcommittee and are waving onto this 
process, I welcome them to today's hearing.
    Today's hearing addresses a long-growing cancer that 
resides in the hearts of American and academic institutions. 
Unfortunately, it is spread through foundational institutions 
in the whole of western liberal society. It is called 
diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI for short.
    Most Americans over the last two or 3 years have heard the 
term DEI, but may not know exactly what it is. There is no 
better way to describe it than to quote from one of DEI's most 
famous proponents, Ibram X. Kendi, and I quote. ``The remedy of 
racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only 
remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination. The 
only remedy for present discrimination is future 
discrimination.
    I could summarize the definition--this definition in two 
words, demeaning and racist. Demeaning due to total lack of 
intellectual or moral common sense. Racist because anyone who 
accepts this irrational mindset is guaranteed to become a 
bigot. There are only two areas of measurement in which I 
believe DEI can be considered really successful.
    It is an industry that has created multimillionaires from 
previously unknown and non-peer respected authors. It is also 
an industry that has successfully steered hundreds of thousands 
of our youth away from the visions of our founding fathers. 
That vision was one of beginning a more perfect union, one in 
which the citizenry improves with each generation to judge each 
other based on our content of character, not by race, creed or 
color.
    The Marxist Center DEI on the other hand has a jaded view 
of America and Americans. It views our Nation as a pyramid 
composed of race oppressors and race oppressed. It attributes 
all of America's ills and flaws to the white Judeo-Christian 
male. To remedy all past perceived racism and injustice 
perpetrated by this sect of Americans, DEI prescribes a healthy 
injection of black racism, and black injustice.
    The bureaucrats are hired not only to control 
conversations, but also to stifle free speech and open 
discourse, by asserting leverage on every aspect of university 
management, personnel, curriculum, policy and college 
admissions. It proceeds to attack the foundational pillars of 
academic freedom.
    DEI is not a concept, it is instead practical applications 
used in almost every college campus throughout our country, 
both public and private. It seems as universities use race as a 
plus factor in admissions, instead of intellectual competition 
and competency, it is skin color that is deemed the winner or 
loser, pitting racists against each other.
    The impact of DEI has seen an indoctrination of students as 
they undergo mandatory racial bias education. Based on their 
race, each student is deemed a redeemable oppressor, or a 
member of hapless, hopeless, and weak oppressed. To my Jewish 
friends, if you wonder about the surprising outgrowth of 
antisemitism that is raging on college campuses, this is the 
genesis.
    The DEI teaches that at the very top of oppressor pyramid 
is the Jewish race. There is no empathy in the DEI space once 
identified as an oppressor, only disdain. At the core of DEI is 
also the soft bigotry of low expectation. It teaches black 
Americans as members of the oppressed race, we are weak and 
incapable of standing and sitting independently.
    That we must wait for the success wand to be waved over us 
by white Americans. Or even better, we should wait for the 
promise of slavery reparation. DEI reports that Black Americans 
like myself, who can muster the tenacity and grit to succeed 
are the exception, not the rule.
    Once again, DEI is both demeaning and racist. DEI also is 
heartless and unforgiving. Scholars who dare to publish 
research that challenges the liberal orthodoxy are often 
canceled or pushed out of the academic profession. From 
professors who love teaching and seek to earn a tenure, they 
are forced to take a loyalty oath in which they either promise 
to adhere to the principles of DEI or find another profession.
    DEI movement is at its core divisive. It judges others 
based on our immutable characteristics like color, race and 
past industry, which we have no control of. Instead of becoming 
a more perfect union that turns our schools to cities and to 
cesspools of the abyss of hate and intolerance.
    I look forward to discussion on DEI today from its Marxist 
roots to modern day DEI industry that siphons millions of 
dollars from education and workforce budgets. For those who 
want to know how much it costs us--costs the country, these are 
a few examples here.
    According to College Fix, University of Michigan, 30 
million dollars a year. Texas A&M University, 11 million 
dollars. Ohio State University, 20 million dollars. University 
of Wisconsin, 16 million dollars. What is the result? More 
hatred, more anger, and more racism.
    I am looking forward to addressing this, and I want to 
thank everybody again for joining us, and I want to yield now 
to the Ranking Member for her closing statements--or opening 
statements.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Owens follows:]
   
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
to the witnesses for being here today. Once again, instead of 
having a productive conversation about addressing student's 
mental health needs, ending campus hunger, protecting student's 
civil rights, Committee republicans have determined it would be 
a better use of our time to malign campus diversity, equity and 
inclusion, or DEI programs.
    Mr. Chairman, I am still processing that you are trying to 
equate this with cancer, which to me is baffling, and pretty 
offensive to anyone who has had cancer. As the population 
grows, and access to higher education expands, college campuses 
are becoming more reflective of our society.
    According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 
white students accounted for nearly 80 percent of college 
undergraduates in 1980, and 54 percent in 2020. Hispanic and 
Latino students increased from 4 percent of the undergraduate 
population in 1980, to slightly more than 20 percent in 2020.
    Thanks to Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, campuses are more accessible to women, to other racial 
groups, as well as students who identify as LGBTQI+, 
international students, students with disabilities. Although 
this is to be celebrated, increases in campus population are 
not necessarily indicative of change, attitudes or closely held 
beliefs.
    In 2020 the U.S. saw 517 reported hate crime instances on 
college campuses with more than half of them motivated by race. 
These are only the reported incidents. Discrimination is also 
not limited to race, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, 
and even disabilities. Students face discrimination based on 
their religion as well.
    This is why DEI programs exist. No two programs are alike, 
but DEI offices exist to address student needs, to give 
strategic support to faculty, to institutional leaders, to 
identify hurdles, and assist faculty and staff in serving, 
educating, and meeting the needs of increasingly diverse 
populations, many of whom are first generation college 
students.
    Regrettably, some republican led State legislatures have 
decided that DEI offices are too costly, and yet these programs 
barely affect many university budgets. As a result of this 
legislation, significant cuts have been made to DEI programs.
    For example, in 2023 Wisconsin State Legislature proposed 
cutting 188 DEI jobs from the University of Wisconsin's 13 
campus system, for a total of 32 million, but the DEI employees 
account for less than 1 percent of the overall number of UW 
employees, and they are employees that the university 
determined were important to hire.
    Last week the University of Florida fired 13 DEI officials 
out of its 19,000 employees in accordance with an anti DEI 
initiative championed by Governor DiSantis. Now I am sure our 
colleagues will be able to provide some one off examples, or 
anecdotes of instances at school, where DEI programming is not 
fully living up to its mission, and not making all students 
feel safe and welcome on campus.
    To the extent that that is occurring at schools, by all 
means we should challenge their DEI programs to improve and 
change, but that's not a reason to end the DEI programs 
entirely. Rather than condemning programs that are attempting 
to rectify inequities, this Committee should be focused more on 
the root causes that lead to inequities in the first place.
    Thank you, witnesses, for being here, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Bonamici 
follows:]

 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. I just want to make a 
quick comment. With all due respect, I am a cancer survivor, 
and so when I equate to cancer it is the real deal. It is a 
cancer to the soul of our Nation, as we will be seeing as we 
talk through this process today. I am so thankful again that we 
have an opportunity to bring this to the Americans attention.
    That being said, pursuant to Committee Rule 8-C, all 
members who wish to insert written statements into the record 
may do so by submitting them to the Committee Clerk 
electronically, and in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m., 14 days 
after this hearing, which is March 21, 2023.
    Without objection, the hearing records will remain open for 
14 days to allow statements and other materials referenced 
during this hearing to be submitted for the official record 
hearing. I now turn to the introduction of our four 
distinguished witnesses.
    Our first witness is Dr. Erec Smith, who is Associate 
Professor of Rhetoric at York College of Pennsylvania, and a 
CATO Research Fellow. He is located in York, Pennsylvania.
    Our next witness is Dr. James Murphy, who is Director of 
Career Pathways and Postsecondary Policy at Education Reform 
Now, located in Washington, DC.
    Our third witness is Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, who is Chair of 
the Do No Harm, and is located in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Our 
final witness is Dr. Jay Greene, who is a Senior Research 
Fellow at Heritage Foundation's Center for Education Policies. 
It is located in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
    I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. 
Pursuant to Committee rules, I would ask that you each limit 
your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary of your written 
statement. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be 
aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information 
to the Subcommittee. I will first recognize Dr. Smith for 5 
minutes.

      STATEMENT OF DR. EREC SMITH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF 
        RHETORIC,  YORK COLLEGE OF PENNSYLVANIA, RESEARCH 
        FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE, YORK, PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Smith. Hello, thank you. Chairman Owens, Ranking and 
distinguished members of the Higher Education and Workforce 
Subcommittee, my name is Erec Smith, and I am a Research Fellow 
at the CATO Institute. Thank you for giving me a platform to 
speak on the issue of diversity, equity and inclusion in higher 
education.
    I have been faculty. I have been a writing program 
administrator. I have even been a diversity officer. 
Contemporary DEI is built upon a foundation whose very mission 
is to perpetuate racism. Contemporary DEI is not an extension 
of the Civil Rights movement. It is under rooted by a quasi-
Marxist ideology, called critical social justice.
    The salient tenant of critical social justice is this. The 
question is not, did racism take place, but rather, how did 
racism manifest in this situation? According to clinical social 
justice, racism is always already taking place. There is no 
need to think for oneself. The narrative, one of perpetual 
oppression does the thinking for you.
    Another underlying concept of critical social justice is 
prescriptive racism. The prescribing of certain values, 
attitudes, and behaviors on to someone based on race. To shirk 
these values, attitudes and behaviors is to be inauthentic, to 
not be a true member of a particular racial group. Questioning 
of this ideology is considered a form of racism.
    I have many stories to tell, but I will share one, maybe 
two, that illustrate these concepts and the general absurdity 
of critical social justice back at DEI. A prominent figure in 
my field, which is rhetoric and composition, wrote a mass email 
requesting that people boycott an academic organization because 
he and others experienced racism during a committee meeting.
    However, neither he nor anyone else would actually explain 
what happened. I was not going to boycott an influential 
organization based on incomplete information, so I asked a 
simple question, what happened? For this, I was vilified by my 
colleagues, and colleagues of all colors, and accused of 
perpetuating white supremacy, merely asking the question what 
happened was considered a form of racism.
    You have seen here that an accusation of racism cannot be 
questioned. Remember, the question is not, did racism take 
place, but rather how did racism manifest in that situation? 
Another story involves two professors who always allow their 
black students to write in black vernacular, African American 
vernacular, some people say Ebonics.
    However, the student's refusal to do so because they were 
there to learn standard English, was seen by the professors as 
a form of self-hatred, and internalized racism. A prominent 
figure in the field, one who is self-proclaimed as a Marxist, 
went as far as to say these students were being selfish and 
immature, his words, for wanting to write in standardized 
English because that would just perpetuate the status quo of 
whiteness.
    As black students who wanted to write in standard English, 
they shirked the attitudes or values these professors 
prescribed to them as black students. Their desire to write in 
a standard English was treated like a kind of pathology. 
Whenever I hear stories like this, I always say the same thing 
to myself, thank God these were not my professors when I was in 
college.
    I would be steeped in negative emotionality, and learning 
helplessness. If I had hopes and dreams, I would not have the 
courage to chase them. I know some people out there are trying 
to do DEI in a way that does not assume racism at all times, 
does not prescribe behavior based on race. It does not shirk 
critical thinking to abide by a narrative.
    Those doing DEI created by critical social justice, and 
there are many, are not fighting racism, they are perpetuating 
racism. I do not know if you have all noticed yet, but I am 
black. I am against this DEI. Why? Because I really like being 
black. This ideology is infantilizing, it is anti-intellectual, 
and since I am a mature, intellectual person, it does not align 
with me.
    I am too good for contemporary DEI, and so are many others. 
I hope we can have a good conversation today. Thank you.
    [The Statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
    
     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
      
    
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. Thank you so much, Dr. Smith. I 
would now like to recognize Dr. Murphy.

      STATEMENT OF  DR. JAMES MURPHY, DIRECTOR OF CAREER 
        PATHWAYS AND POSTSECONDARY POLICY, EDUCATION RE-
        FORM NOW, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Murphy. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Bonamici, and 
distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on diversity, equity and inclusion 
programs today, and the valuable contribution they make to 
institutions of higher education and the students who attend 
them.
    My name is James Murphy, and I am the Director of 
Postsecondary Policy and Education Reform now, where I work on, 
among other things, improving college access for under-
represented students. It is an honor to be given the 
opportunity to clear up some myths about DEI, and to talk about 
some of the actual work that DEI staff members do.
    I should be clear that I have never worked in a DEI office, 
and my comments today are based on research, facts and 
conversations with people who work in the field. It is an 
approach I strongly recommend. DEI offices may feel new or 
confusing to some, but they are a natural development of the 
need to serve the changing demographics of higher education 
going back to the 1960's.
    As time went by, ad hoc practices became more formalized 
and professionalized, but even as that happened, DEI never 
cohered into a monolithic institution built around an 
ideological consensus. Any attempt to define the real impact of 
DEI must begin with an acknowledgement that there are hundreds 
of colleges and universities that employ staff working to make 
their campuses more welcoming, fair and inclusive.
    Unsurprisingly one finds considerable variation in the 
scope, mission, practices and authority of those offices. That 
alone should give us pause in speaking about DEI as if it were 
a single thing, let alone an ideology, and remind us to be 
very, very careful not to let anecdotes masquerade as analysis.
    At some institutions DEI work is carried out by fostering 
community engagement and dialog, at others it entails the 
creation and transmission of guidance or recommendations on 
putting fairness and diversity at the center of the range of 
practices from admissions and instruction to recruitment and 
hiring.
    At some institutions DEI offices play a central role, a 
role demanded by law in ensuring that their college is in 
compliance with Title VI, Title IX in the Americans with 
Disability Act. What few, if any DEI offices, actually do is 
provide direct instruction to students, let alone indoctrinate 
them into any set of beliefs.
    As Mitchell Chang, interim Chief Diversity Officer at UCLA 
recently wrote, Chief Diversity Officers spend their days on 
administrative duties and functions, not advocating their own 
political views. If anyone is trying to tell students what to 
think, it is legislators who want to ban these offices 
wholesale or write bills to make it illegal for university 
employees to say phrases like unconscious bias, or cultural 
appropriation.
    College, we are all doctors here, is for debating ideas. It 
is not for protecting students from words. I want to spend the 
remainder of my time talking about a few words. Let us start 
with diversity. The educational benefits of campus diversity 
include the following: Training future leaders, preparing 
graduates to adapt to an increasingly pluralistic society, 
promoting the robust exchange of ideas, and producing new 
knowledge stemming from diverse outlooks.
    Chief Justice Roberts wrote that list, and he called those 
benefits I quote, ``commendable goals, and plainly worthy,'' in 
the majority opinion in the student's admission's decision last 
June, a decision I did not agree with, but was glad to see the 
Chief Justice call out the importance of diversity on campus.
    When I think of diversity, I am reminded of something, of a 
conversation I had years ago with a friend, a lifelong 
Republican by the way. He had just graduated from West Point, 
or he had graduated from West Point. After serving in the Gulf 
War, he earned an MBA at Emery University, and just completed 
it.
    When I asked him skeptically like what on earth could a 
business school teach him about leadership after he led a 
combat unit in Iraq? He told me that getting an MBA was 
incredibly useful for him because it was the first time he had 
ever worked with women in his life.
    That is the value of diversity. Learning with people who 
come from different racial, ethnic, religious and ideological 
backgrounds not only lets us all share in the richness of the 
American experience, but also prepares today's young people for 
the 21st Century workplace.
    Let us talk about equity. A much used word, very little 
understood. Here is what it does not mean. Equity does not mean 
pursuing equality of outcomes. That is a ridiculous idea, that 
has been repeatedly cited by opponents of DEI offices. No one 
can promise equal outcomes.
    Equity is about the quality of opportunity and fairness. 
Equity does not mean treating everyone like they're the same. 
It means treating everyone with the same level of respect and 
dignity, which brings us to inclusion. When DEI staff talked 
about inclusion, they are talking about removing unnecessary 
and unfair barriers to success on campus for students of color, 
for students with disabilities, for veterans, for adult--for 
returning students with children, for a range of students.
    We all perform at a higher level after all when we feel 
like we are working in an environment that values us for who we 
are and treats us all fairly. That means things like providing 
winter jackets to students with Pell Grants who come from the 
south. That means providing avenues for students from a rural 
background, or students of color to meet with other students of 
a similar background.
    Or it might mean helping professors to identify their own 
biases in faculty hiring. I will close by saying that the 
current wave of attacks on DEI offices should be understood for 
what they are, excessive, divisive, ideological assaults on 
some of the basic principles of our democracy and of academic 
freedom.
    I am confident they will ultimately prove to be 
ineffective. Thank you.
    [The Statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
   
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
      

    Chairman Owens. Thank you, Dr. Murphy. I would like to now 
recognize Dr. Goldfarb.

        STATEMENT OF DR. STANLEY GOLDFARB, CHAIR, DO NO 
                 HARM, BRYN MAWR, PENNSYLVANIA

    Dr. Goldfarb. Thank you, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member 
Bonamici, and members of the Committee for the invitation to 
address this Committee. My name is Stanley Goldfarb. I am a 
board-certified nephrologist, former Associated Dean of 
Curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of 
Medicine, and Chair of the medical nonprofit Do No Harm.
    I have practiced medicine for over 50 years, and I care 
deeply about the State of American medicine. My message today 
is simple. DEI is dangerous everywhere, but it is most 
dangerous in medical school. Americans need to know exactly 
what is happening. Your future doctors are learning about 
divisive politics at the expense of lifesaving care.
    They are being taught to discriminate by race, not treat 
patients equally. Ultimately, your future doctors are being 
trained to be an activist, but you do not need an activist when 
you are sick, or suffering from a life-threatening disease. You 
need a doctor. If we do not restore medical school to its real 
mission, Americans will inevitably suffer a diminished quality 
of healthcare.
    I have had a front row seat to the corruption of medical 
education. Precious classroom and clinical time is now devoted 
to issues such as climate change, homelessness, policing, and 
other social issues that doctors cannot change. The idealogues 
behind this trend know it, but they do not care. They want 
doctors who will march into hearing rooms like this one, to 
support political causes.
    They do not want doctors. They want lobbyists in white 
coats. Consider what every medical student is now required to 
learn. The Association of American Medical Colleges, which 
effectively controls medical education, now forces medical 
schools to teacher intersectionality, oppression, colonization 
and white supremacy among other core DEI topics.
    These are not throw-away lines in a 1-day seminar. They 
infuse everything from the first year of medical school to the 
last year of residency. Every minute students spend on 
colonialism is one they do not spend on cancer. When they study 
global warming, they do not study geriatric care.
    One medical student recently told my organization I have 
learned more about pronouns than I have about how the kidney 
functions. Patients should be concerned. DEI dominates far 
beyond the classroom. The Association of American Medical 
Colleges has compiled a list of 89 DEI policies that it wants 
to see in medical schools.
    Through Freedom of Information requests, my organization 
has found that most have implemented at least 81 percent of 
these demands. Many are close to 100 percent. For instance, 
medical schools routinely demand that faculty and staff sign 
DEI loyalty oaths. The goal is to weed out anyone who opposes 
DEI. To see where that leads, look at Washington University's 
Medical School, where a lecturer threatened students not to 
debate her on critical race theory.
    This is the essence of compelled speech. Medical schools 
are lowering admission standards in the name of diversity too, 
some have abandoned requiring the MCAT for all applicants, even 
though the MCAT is the best predictor of a student's ability to 
become a doctor.
    By recruiting, excuse me, less qualified students, medical 
schools are producing less qualified physicians. Medical 
schools openly discriminate by race. We found numerous medical 
scholarships and fellowships that bar white and Asian students 
from applying, and we recently blew the whistle on UCLA Medical 
School's requiring students to segregate by race. nationwide 
schools are dividing students into race-based classes and 
groups. They are violating Federal civil rights laws, and they 
do not care unless called out. Worst of all, medical schools 
now support the resegregation of healthcare itself. DEI holds 
that patients should see physicians with the same skin color. 
Over 60 studies have shown that segregated medicine has no 
benefits, yet medical schools are pushing it anyway.
    Everything I have described is happening in red and blue 
State medical schools alike, Missouri, South Carolina and 
Indiana as well. Medical students deserve better. Having 
educated thousands, I know that young people become doctors 
because they want to save lives. They deserve an education that 
empowers them, not indoctrination that corrupts them.
    Most of all, patients deserve better. They need doctors who 
will treat their illnesses, and cure their diseases, not 
discriminate by race and advocate for divisive political 
demands. DEI puts American's lives at risk. The best way to 
save lives is to get DEI out of medicine now.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions and hope to see 
congressional action in the days ahead.
    [The Statement of Dr. Goldfarb follows:]
    
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
  
    
    Chairman Owens. Thank you, Dr. Goldfarb. I appreciate that. 
Last, but not least, I would like to recognize Dr. Greene.

       STATEMENT OF DR. JAY GREENE, SENIOR RESEARCH FEL-
         LOW, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION'S  CENTER FOR EDU-
         CATION POLICY, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS

    Mr. Greene. Thank you, Chairman Owens, for inviting me to 
address this Committee. My name is Jay Greene. I am a Senior 
Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Before joining 
Heritage, I was a Distinguished Professor of Education Policy 
at the University of Arkansas.
    Diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, may sound like a 
set of benign values. In practice, DEI bureaucracies advance a 
world view that undermines diversity, promotes exclusion, and 
opposes the equal treatment of individuals based on merit. 
These DEI bureaucracies have grown quite large and powerful.
    In a recent report, my co-author, James Paul, and I 
analyzed a number of DEI staff at 65 universities that were 
members of the Power Five Athletic Conferences. We found that 
the average university had 45 DEI bureaucrats, or more than one 
for every 33 tenured track faculty members.
    DEI bureaucrats are not professors engaged in the primary 
academic functions of teaching or research. Instead, they 
articulate and enforce an ideological orthodoxy on contested 
matters of race and sex. Rather than foster inquiry and debate 
in search of the truth, as universities have traditionally 
done, DEI bureaucracies are designed to stifle inquiry, and end 
debate with the ostensible purpose of protecting marginalized 
populations.
    As the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher 
Education describes their own goals, they seek to build ``a 
system of shared beliefs, values, norms, habits and 
assumptions'' to advance DEI efforts. Bureaucratically enforced 
ideological orthodoxies like these shared beliefs, may be 
desirable for religious organizations, or political parties, 
but they are not appropriate for universities.
    Even worse, the radicalism of DEI orthodoxies makes them 
more like those of cults than religious organizations, or more 
like revolutionary movements than those of political parties. 
DEI orthodoxies are informed by critical race theory and tend 
to divide people into oppressor and oppressed categories, based 
on their group identities.
    According to this world view, oppressors deserve to have 
their privilege taken away, while the oppressed deserve 
restitution for collective or historic wrongs. Justifying 
unequal treatment based on group identity can yield horrific 
results. We have particularly seen this in the recent spike of 
antisemitism on college campuses.
    If classification of a group as oppressor or oppressed is 
determined by its over or under representation, the relatively 
high rate of Jews in universities supports the classification 
as oppressors. This is then used to justify imposing limits on 
opportunities for Jews in the name of equity. Harsh treatment 
of Jews can be justified as tripping them of privilege.
    Protestors on college campuses chanting antisemitic slogans 
are not just using the language promoted by DEI. We have also 
unfortunately seen DEI officials actively involved in promoting 
hatred toward Jews. Their professional commitment to inclusion 
apparently does not extend to Jews.
    These are not isolated incidents. James Paul and I analyzed 
the Twitter accounts of 741 university DEI staff to gauge their 
attitudes toward Israel, and for comparison, toward China. We 
found that university DEI staff are obsessed with Israel and 
display such vehement hostility toward the Jewish State that it 
clearly crosses the line into serious antisemitism.
    DEI staff tweet almost three times as often about Israel as 
they do about China. When DEI staff tweet about Israel, 96 
percent of those tweets were critical of the Jewish State, 
which 62 percent of their tweets regarding China, were actually 
favorable toward that Communist country.
    That obsessive hatred toward Israel was evident not only in 
the disproportionate hostility DEI staff displayed toward 
Israel, but also in the excessive language typically used to 
criticize the Jewish State. DEI staff often used terms like 
Apartheid, colonialism, genocide and ethnic cleansing when 
discussing Israel.
    DEI has not only exacerbated hostility toward Jews, it has 
also generally inflamed racial tensions on campus. According to 
surveys of news at several universities, students report that 
campus climate is worse at universities with larger DEI 
bureaucracies, for example, the students at the University of 
Michigan, with 163 DEI staff report being less satisfied with 
campus conduct than those in Mississippi State with only 12 DEI 
staff.
    Compliance with the civil rights obligations of 
universities can be done without gigantic DEI bureaucracies. 
Given that DEI has no legitimate purpose, and serves to inflame 
intergroup tensions, we need to dismantle it. At a minimum, we 
need to starve universities of the funds that they use to build 
DEI bureaucracies. Thank you, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Greene follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chairman Owens. Thank you, Dr. Greene. Appreciate that. 
Under Committee Rule 9, well now question witnesses under the 
5-minute rule, and I will begin the process. Dr. Goldfarb, 1 
year ago an article caught my attention that showed that new 
dimensions of critical race theory and DEI had not yet been 
seen.
    Columbia University received incident backlash when a video 
surfaced from 2021 showing medical students reciting an altered 
version of the Hippocratic oath during a white coat ceremony.
    In the video students chanted. We also recognize the acts 
in the systems of oppression effected in the name of medicine. 
We take this oath of service to begin building a future guarded 
in truth with restoration. Equity to fuel medicine's capacity 
to liberate. Dr. Goldfarb, this Hippocratic oath is a 
foundational statement for every student. Am I correct on that? 
Is that they take this at the beginning of this journey?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Yes, that is correct.
    Chairman Owens. Is there anything about the standard oath 
that has mentioned systems of oppressed in medicine before now?
    Dr. Goldfarb. No, sir.
    Chairman Owens. Is it an important part of education--is to 
learn about medicine to liberate?
    Dr. Goldfarb. No, sir.
    Chairman Owens. I think this is interesting, and just a 
little quick background. I majored in biology and chemistry. In 
my last course, they were two of the hardest in my life, was 
something called organic chemistry. I did a pass/fail because I 
wanted to not get a grade on that one. At the end of the day 
what I realized was those who truly mastered it were able to 
predict certain things. There is a math that is predictable. 
There is a science based on God's laws that is very 
predictable.
    This is hypothetical, but as a physician, do you think that 
if some point if a patient is seriously injured, or dies due to 
this practice of DEI liberation sciences instead of clinical 
science, that there will be possibly malpractice lawsuits, not 
only for the physician but for the med schools that trained 
them?
    Dr. Goldfeld. Yes, sir, that is quite hypothetical, and 
certainly beyond my pen. I do think that it is really important 
that it be viewed as a profoundly academic activity, medical 
school. That the treatment of patients is really an academic 
activity that as you say, physicians must keep a lot of 
information in their head, sort through it, understand human 
variability, and be able to apply it to that individual patient 
with that individual patient's problems.
    This is a very academic kind of activity. That is why I 
feel so strongly that it is academic achievement that ought to 
be the basis for acceptance into medical school, and for the 
ability for physicians--for applicants to become physicians. It 
really is a profoundly intellectual process that really needs 
to be done in the best way possible for the patient's well-
being.
    Chairman Owens. I think we can all agree that this is one 
profession that meritocracy should be the primary focus. I will 
say this, advice to any personal injury lawyers that are 
listening in, please pay attention to words like DEI in 
medicine, if they are ever in the same sentence, same 
paragraph, or the same book when it comes to medicine, I think 
you might have a good professional movement if that is the 
case.
    Dr. Greene, first of all I appreciated your comments about 
the oppressor and oppressed. Help me understand, just real 
quickly, the impact it is having on the Jewish community that 
we are now beginning to see across the country when you have 
this idea, this indoctrination that there is a race that is 
truly oppressed, the oppressor of everybody else?
    Mr. Greene. Well, thank you for the question. Once we 
deviate from the principle that we are going to treat everyone 
equally as individuals, and start treating people differently 
based on their group identification, it is then a question of 
which group do the Jews get placed in.
    Are they placed in a group of oppressors or oppressed? The 
determination of which group people are placed in is largely 
based on their over or under representation, so any group that 
is considered overrepresented is considered an oppressor, and 
the group considered underrepresented is considered oppressed. 
Jews, because they have thrived despite oppression, are 
overrepresented in many of these instances, and therefore are 
treated roughly as oppressors.
    It is an intellectual justification of their rough 
treatment in academic environments.
    Chairman Owens. Okay, thanks. Dr. Smith, real quickly, I 
read something you said here. DEI is harmful to the very people 
it claims to help. It is--and it is certainly anti-black. As a 
black academic I have been called a white supremacist by whites 
and blacks alike.
    By the way, welcome to the crowd. I have been called a KKK 
member by the Salt Lake Tribune in Utah, believe it or not, for 
trying to empower black students. Can you expound on that a 
little bit in the last few seconds we have.
    Mr. Smith. Yes, I can. That speaks to the prescriptive 
racism, something I talked about during my original testimony. 
Prescriptive racism basically says that there is a list of 
characteristics that you have to abide by if you are going to 
be an authentic member of a group, let us say black Americans.
    If you do not abide by that script, then you are called 
inauthentically black. I had the misfortunate of hearing a 
keynote address at a conference a few years ago that really 
started this journey. The speaker had the argument that it was 
inherently racist----
    Chairman Owens. We have to kind of wrap it up because we 
just have the last few seconds if you can tie it down.
    Mr. Smith. Oh, okay. It is not inherently racist to teach 
standardized English.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. Now I would like to turn 
it over to the Ranking Member.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I am 
disappointed to see the DEI programs are the newest target in 
my republican colleagues politicized culture war. Mr. Chairman, 
I am grateful that you were able to overcome cancer, I am just 
baffled to think that a program that is intended to help 
students would be equated with such a dreadful disease.
    Diversity, equity and inclusion offices at colleges and 
universities are intended to support and encourage students 
from all backgrounds and help them to be and stay safe as they 
come together on campus to learn and grow.
    Certainly, we could have, and should have a conversation 
about how these offices could better serve their students, but 
villainizing the entire concept and the dedicated individuals 
who are doing this work to advance a political narrative, which 
feels like is happening today, is an unacceptable use of our 
time here.
    We have been told that DEI offices are malevolent 
bureaucracies intent on indoctrinating students in 
controversial political ideologies. Dr. Murphy, what are the 
actual functions that DEI offices perform, and why are they so 
important for college students' academic success?
    Mr. Murphy. Thank you for the question. It is almost hard 
for me to say what the actual functions are that DEI offices 
perform because there is such variety in the field, right. I 
alluded to one of the functions as sort of in the UC system. 
Most of the equity of the DEI offices there handle compliance, 
right? They are required by law to exist.
    They are making sure that the university is in compliance 
with Title IV, Title IX and the Americans with Disabilities 
Act. They make sure that students who feel threatened, or have 
been threatened based on race, color, religion, importantly, 
disability, have recourse, right? Have essentially an office 
they can go to, to make, you know, to file a complaint.
    It is an important part of some DEI work. That is not true 
at all institutions. At some institutions it is a much smaller 
unit at the university, and they will handle things like 
freshman orientations, right, recruitment practices and 
admission's offices, creating infinity groups. It is not that 
infinity groups are all race-based infinity groups.
    Like an important infinity group on many campuses. A 
growing one is first generation, low-income students, right. 
Very often that is through the DEI office because these 
students often feel isolated on campus. They are not showing up 
with a cohort of their friends from Harvard Westlake, they are 
showing up as the only kid in their school to ever go to a 
place like this.
    They perform a range of functions, which makes the attack 
on them, I think sort of nonsensical.
    Ms. Bonamici. Dr. Murphy, are DEI programs a threat to the 
civil rights of students on college campuses, and are there 
issues that are real threats to the civil rights of students on 
campuses?
    Mr. Murphy. DEI offices, it is hard for me again to say. 
Like are DEI office is a threat? No. Could it be possible that 
somebody working in a DEI office does something that is illegal 
or wrong? Yes. The same is true in medical school. The same is 
true in the rhetoric department.
    If some individual, or an individual department is in 
violation of the law, then yes indeed, that person should face 
the consequences. You know the more realistic threats to the 
civil rights on campus is shutting down student's voices, 
right? Shutting down faculty or trying to serve them.
    Ms. Bonamici. Right. I absolutely agree with that. I want 
to urge my republican colleagues to consider constructive ways 
that we as policymakers can protect students from 
discrimination and hostile learning environments, and that 
includes students who have been victims of antisemitism on 
college campuses, and we have had really several discussions 
about that, and I wish we were working together to find a way 
to address that in a constructive way.
    Specifically, we should be focusing on increasing funding 
for the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, 
because as we know they have the responsibility to enforce the 
law. They investigate and intervene in instances of 
discrimination, and I want to note that we should all be 
standing together against the 25 percent proposed cut to the 
Office of Civil Rights Budget, and instead provide the office 
with the funding they need to protect and serve our Nation's 
students.
    We should reject political narratives that focus more on 
stoking culture wars than assuring student success and safety. 
Dr. Murphy, you are talking about how DEI programs are 
different on different campuses, why is that? Should those 
colleges be able--and universities, be able to design their own 
DEI programs, and not have the government telling them what 
their DEI program should look like?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes, they are different for the same reason 
that English departments are different from campus to campus. 
They are different for the reason that student services are 
different from campus to campus. Sometimes I find myself 
annoyed with the autonomy that we give to universities, and I 
wish I could have all the universities behave in a way that I 
would like them to.
    That is not how we designed American education. Our higher 
education system is the best in the world in part because we 
grant universities the autonomy to determine what is the best 
way to deliver a powerful, strong, transformative education to 
students. Yes, that is essentially the sorts of the 
differences.
    Ms. Bonamici. Would there be a logical reason, Dr. Murphy, 
why the DEI office, say for example, at the University of 
Michigan might look different from the DEI office of the 
University of Mississippi?
    Mr. Murphy. Oh, absolutely right. I mean a whole sorts of 
reasons. One would be State funding, right? How much money does 
an institution have? Who are the students they serve is a 
crucial question of course here. What are the priorities of 
administration? Looking simply at the size of the faculty does 
not really tell us that much.
    I mean I would note that, you know, the report that we 
heard about earlier, suggested that there were 29 University of 
Florida students who--or DEI employees or work, 29 people who 
work in DEI at the University of Florida. Well, 13 people got 
fired. It is hard to sometimes put your finger on this, right? 
How many people.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Thank you. As I yield back, I just 
want to say I wish we had time to talk with Dr. Greene, your 
interesting research about taking students on field trips to 
museums, which I think would be much more constructive than 
this conversation. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my 
friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes. Dr.--I cannot read your name, Goldfarb, 
okay. I have heard two physicians tell me that they feel 
American medicine peaked out about 7 years ago because of this. 
In part because of the issues, we are talking about today. Do 
you think that is true? Are we seeing a decline in the quality 
of medicine?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Thank you for the question. You know I think 
what we are definitely seeing is a dramatic change in the 
character of medical education, which if it has not played out 
yet in demonstrating a change in the quality of healthcare, it 
will in the very, very near future. I think, you know, I think 
the issue is here to make sure that we have the highest quality 
medical workforce that we possibly could have.
    Mr. Grothman. That is no longer what we are emphasizing. 
Did you say that there is an ideology out there that it is 
important that like people of Asian ancestry have Asian 
doctors, and Native American ancestry have Native American 
doctors, and that is superior?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Yes. Thank you for the question. This is the 
concept of racial concordance, and what this is really all 
about is the fact that there are real healthcare disparities in 
healthcare outcomes.
    Because of this medicine, like any field that is 
enlightened, would seek to improve those kinds of disparities 
and outcomes. I am sorry, that is not a solution to the problem 
of disparities because that is not the basis of healthcare 
disparities.
    Dr. Greene here next to me has conducted a study that is 
clearly shown that racial concordance, there is no evidence in 
the medical literature about benefits.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, I would think not. I want to read, and 
I am sorry for talking over you, but they only give us 5 
minutes. In other words, there is an ideology that says if I am 
a Native American, I would rather have a doctor who maybe got 
30 or 40 points lower on the MCATs, but it was a Native 
American, rather than an Asian doctor, who did superior on the 
MCATS because--is that what that ideology lives to?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Yes. That is basically.
    Mr. Grothman. You would have to really be a sicko to really 
think that that is the way we should operate our medical 
schools. That we would want a doctor who has not done, and 
performed as well, but just because of racial reasons. I would 
like to meet that person who would say I would rather have 
somebody with lower MCATs treat me because they look like me.
    That just--I assume there are a couple people out there 
like that, but that is just beyond belief. Next question. Dr. 
Smith, there is--I want you to comment on this. There is an 
ideology here that what you bring to a job, today we have new 
Taiwan Medical School, or education, but it could be anywhere, 
is colored by where your ancestors come from, right?
    If some guy has got a grandmother who was born in Norway, 
and somebody else has a grandmother that was born in Honduras, 
that that colors their world view of being different, better or 
worse, or bring something different to the engineering firm or 
what not. What do you think about this idea that the way you 
think is determined by ancestors who you may never had met.
    Maybe their grandmother died before I was born, but still 
these DEI professionals want to break you out and say you are 
different.
    Mr. Smith. DEI undergirded by critical social justice 
skirts individuality. It is all about group consciousness. 
Group consciousness is necessary for this ideology, because if 
you have individuals, then we have individual people with their 
own individual lives and histories that cannot be predetermined 
based on their skin color.
    We have to look at somebody as a member of a group, an not 
an individual. That is necessary for this to work. Your example 
is about race. Other examples are about sexual orientation, 
with other samples it is about ability. Everybody is a group 
member, and not an individual, and that is the issue.
    Mr. Grothman. Right. You must hang around with these people 
or talk to them. What goes on in their mind? How, for example, 
they think somebody who has spent their whole live in the 
United States but had a grandmother from Honduras thinks 
differently apparently than--and I do not know what they do 
with people who are adopted, because they might not even know 
where they are from.
    I guess it is purely a genetic thing. How do they justify 
that? Do they really believe that if I have a grandmother from 
Honduras, I view the whole world differently? Somebody who I 
have never met, have never spoken to? Sorry?
    Chairman Owens. A quick answer.
    Mr. Smith. Okay. It is a fabricated ideology based on 
standpoint epistemology, meaning that based on your race and 
your experience, you see the world differently than somebody 
else. Even about objective reality.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my 
friend Ms. Leger Fernandez from New Mexico.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and 
Ranking Member, and thank you witnesses for being here today. 
Once again we are here, and the Education Committee is looking 
backward, not forwards. They are stoking the fear and 
divisiveness of the culture wars. Thankfully, we just saw the 
11th Circuit Court of Appeals with two Trump appointees drag 
down Ron DeSantis's so called Stop Woke Act.
    These attacks against diversity are looking back to a time 
when white males dominated our institutions. We simply cannot 
go back. We need our institutions to reflect the strength of 
our country, diversity is our strength, and can and should be 
celebrated.
    To those who think our Nation has moved beyond to a 
colorblind society, I am going to quote Kevin McCarthy, Speaker 
Kevin McCarthy at the time, who said--no, not at the time, but 
who said in regard to the 2019 State of the Union, ``I look 
over at the democrats and they stand up. They look like 
America. We stand up, we look like the most restrictive country 
club in America.''
    Check out the State of the Union tonight and see if things 
have changed. My own story as the first Latino to represent my 
district is indeed a DEI story.
    As a Latina from rural New Mexico, at a small school that 
didn't have AP classes, or normally send students to the Ivy 
Leagues, I was recruited to attend Yale by someone who saw my 
promise and my SAT scores. Besides the few Latinos and black 
students similarly recruited to diverse by the student body, it 
was generally wealthy, white and still mostly male.
    In my study spot in the library, I received notes telling 
me that I did not belong there. If I ate lunch with my Latino 
and black classmates, my white classmates would complain about 
the mere fact that we were eating together. The University did 
not at that time provide the range of DEI programs that so many 
students benefit from today.
    I worked hard to create opportunities for my classmates to 
learn more about my community and broaden their perspectives. I 
invited Cesar Chavez to speak on campus, and we packed the 
halls. It was white students who were there with the Latinos. 
They wanted to know more about what was happening with the farm 
workers. What was happening in my Latino communities.
    Research shows that all students perform better when 
classrooms are more diverse. Mr. Chair, I would like unanimous 
consent to enter into the record the article, Report Stem 
Classes with Racial Socioeconomic Representation Boost Student 
GPA.
    Chairman Owens. No objections.
    [The information of Ms. Leger Fernandez follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Dr. Murphy, I really want to thank you 
for your emphasis on facts and research, not just anecdotal. I 
want to thank you for your emphasis on respect and opportunity 
and dignity. Could you share with us how DEI initiatives 
actually strengthen student bodies, rather than divide them?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes. I think it comes back to again that 
feeling that research shows, but everyone's human experience 
shows as well. When you are in a place where you feel 
respected, and as good as everybody else, you perform at a 
higher level.
    When we are looking at highly selective colleges, the 
colleges some people now call highly rejective colleges because 
there are so few students that can get into them, a lot of the 
success that students get from that experience is being around 
other students, right?
    Being around students who are not like them, right? 
Learning about sort of the richer American experience and 
gaining from those different perspectives. In fact the emphasis 
on simply inclusion, just that one element there, is a crucial 
part of how DEI actually drives success, right? Retention and 
completion onward into a career.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. The idea that we would want our 
leaders, because if you are going to a university, you are 
going to be a leader, whether it be in business, or here in 
Congress. Do we want them to be curious about, and know more 
about their diverse communities?
    Mr. Murphy. Absolutely. If you look at private industry you 
will see diversity officers, or DEI officers in a huge portion 
of private industry, right. These are private corporations that 
are choosing to hire somebody because they are recognizing the 
value of having somebody essentially there who can make sure 
that these issues are always at the table. Not running the 
table, but at the table.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. When we all are at the table, we can 
be more respective of each other. I think I have 6 seconds 
left, and I will end on that. Respect and dignity include all 
of us. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Owens. Okay. Thank you so much. I would like now 
to recognize my friend from Indiana, Mr. Banks.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Goldfarb, the 
Association of American Medical Colleges has called for 
advancing diversity, equity and inclusion in medical education. 
How does DEI help medical students become better physicians?
    Dr. Goldfarb. I do not think it does and thank you for that 
question. Again, the problem that medicine is trying to correct 
is this problem of disparate outcomes in healthcare. The 
question is what is the basis for it, rather than decide that 
it is an ideological problem, and that there is bias on the 
part of physicians treating patients.
    The real issue is access to care, and patients getting 
access to care, and patients accessing care appropriately. Once 
you decide that the problem is because physicians are biased, 
then all of this DEI regimen flows from that, and it is very 
unfortunate because it is wrong, and it is wasteful of time, 
which is one of the arguments that I tried to portray in my 
testimony that we are wasting time in medical school, teaching 
more and more about these issues for which physicians have no 
agency whatsoever.
    It also does not benefit the communities whose disparities 
we are trying to improve. Those communities need better access 
to care. They do not need the faculty of a medical school going 
to anti-bias training.
    Mr. Banks. This seems real dangerous. Harvard's Medical 
School's diversity statement says, ``We celebrate the multiple 
dimensions of diversity that each member of our community 
offers, including, but not limited to, gender identity. Do you 
think, Dr., that celebrating gender dysphoria violates the 
Hippocratic oath?
    Dr. Goldfarb. I think general dysphoria and its treatment 
has been a terrible problem in this country. In the face of 
European nations that have now all--almost as a bloc have 
decided that so-called gender affirming care has turned out to 
be more harmful than beneficial and have restricted it 
substantially.
    In this country, it is continued to be advocated at the 
highest levels of American medicine, and I think my 
organization has been pushing very hard against children 
having--being put through these programs. We make no position 
about adults. That is not our concern. Our concern is saving 
children who cannot possibly consent to this kind of treatment 
with irreversible outcomes that will influence the rest of 
their lives.
    We feel very much that that should not be part of medical 
education and should not be part of the medical care of 
children.
    Mr. Banks. Would you say that gender mutilation of children 
violates the Hippocratic oath?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Yes, it does.
    Mr. Banks. Yes. I would agree. Transgender surgeries and 
related medical treatments can cost hundreds of thousands of 
dollars. Do you think there are--could we talk about the 
financial incentives to the medical industry to perform those 
types of surgeries?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Yes. You know, the insurance has been--
insurance companies have been paying for this kind of care. The 
military insurance system has been paying for this sort of 
care. Our organization has a bill that we're promoting that 
will help those many children who have decided to detransition, 
and seek medical care for that, and that unfortunately there 
are no billing codes, for example, for that kind of care.
    This has become an economic issue as well as a moral and a 
medical issue as well.
    Mr. Banks. Yes. I mean to sum it up since medical 
professionals are told not to believe in biological sex, what 
kind of impact does that have on the medical practice at large?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Well, again this has been a very contentious, 
and I know, very unfortunate area of contention. Our 
organization again focuses very much on the issue about gender 
care for children. Children cannot possibly understand what 
they are getting into when they agree to these kinds of 
treatments. Their parents, unfortunately, have been sort of 
coerced into this by being told that suicide is the outcome if 
they do not support their children in their gender transitions.
    Literature now shows that none of that is correct, and that 
in fact these children should be treated with psychological 
care, and I know there have been hearings in this building 
before about this. These children need psychotherapy, they do 
not need surgery.
    Mr. Banks. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate what you do. I yield 
back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would now like to recognize my 
friend from North Carolina, Ms. Manning.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 
witnesses. I want to focus today on a pernicious form of 
discrimination that this Committee has recently focused on, and 
that is antisemitism. This Committee's previous hearings, and 
roundtables have highlighted the fact that antisemitism is a 
major problem on college campuses, and frankly across the 
country.
    Just last week we had nine very brave Jewish students from 
nine different universities come forward and describe to us, 
really unbelievable instances of antisemitism that are taking 
place in their schools by students, by faculty, by 
administrators. If DEI is the right place to address 
antisemitism, then those DEI programs have been failing the 
Jewish students.
    We know from the ADL's findings that while 55 percent of 
university students have previously completed DEI training, 
only 18 percent of them say they have had any training that is 
specific to anti-Jewish prejudice. There are lots of reasons 
for the antisemitism that we see rising.
    Antisemitic conspiracy theories promote the idea that all 
Jews are powerful, that they do not need or deserve protection 
as a minority. Some might not understand, in fact most do not 
understand the origins of antisemitism, or how pervasive it is, 
or frankly, how unique a form of discrimination it is. Many 
people do not understand that Jews are a diverse and 
multiracial community, that there is no one way to look Jewish 
or practice Judaism or live as a Jewish person.
    I am concerned, however, that the failure of DEI or 
universities in general to protect Jewish students, is being 
exploited to denigrate the value of diversity, and the value of 
DEI programs on campuses that are doing the right thing to make 
minority students feel welcome and included.
    I am wondering in fact whether DEI needs to be fixed 
instead of thrown out, so that it does make all students, all 
minorities feel protected, and that would include Jewish 
students, and minority students and LGBTQ students. I want to 
start, Dr. Murphy, with you.
    Do you believe the DEI programs are capable of including 
segments to educate students and faculty members about the 
origins, the long history and the dangers of antisemitism?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes.
    Ms. Manning. To your knowledge, do most DEI programs 
address antisemitism?
    Mr. Murphy. I do not have enough knowledge to say. I do not 
have enough knowledge to say whether or not they do.
    Ms. Manning. Do you know whether there has been any studies 
to determine whether DEI programs include antisemitism?
    Mr. Murphy. I am not personally familiar with them.
    Ms. Manning. I went on the websites of some of the schools 
whose students spoke at our roundtable, and I was unable to 
find anything in their DEI programs that addressed 
antisemitism. Dr. Murphy, is there anything structural about 
DEI programs that would prevent or impair those programs from 
addressing antisemitism?
    Mr. Murphy. To the contrary, right, these programs are 
intended to respect the rights and dignity of all students, and 
to ensure typically to ensure that they are not discriminated 
based on race, color, religion, disability, national origin, so 
no. There is nothing structurally in DEI programs.
    I guess, I do want to return to the idea of like we need to 
be careful about talking about DEI as if it is this monolithic 
structure. It is not.
    Ms. Manning. It seems that if we had some structure, and 
some standards for what DEI programs included, that might be a 
better use of DEI?
    Mr. Murphy. I think addressing the institutions that are 
failing on this front is a very important task to take on.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. I have found throughout my 
education and my career, that I can learn an enormous amount 
from colleagues whose backgrounds and life experiences are 
different from my own, and what I learn has impacted the way I 
behave, the way I make decisions in my own life, and in the 
work I do.
    I would just like to ask Dr. Greene, because you addressed 
this issue as well. Do you believe the DEI programs properly 
done could address antisemitism?
    Mr. Greene. I think inherent--thank you for the question. 
Thank you for your statements about the problems with 
antisemitism and the neglect of Jews and the bureaucracies, but 
this is not an accident. It is a feature of the world view of 
DEI bureaucracies.
    They are informed by the belief that people should be 
treated as members of groups and treated differently by their 
group membership based on oppressor or oppressed status, that 
it inevitably puts Jews in contests for actually being 
considered oppressed, and I think it is bad for Jews to enter 
the oppression Olympics and attempt to be served by the 
bureaucracies.
    Ms. Manning. Sadly, my time has expired, and I yield back. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you, I appreciate that. I would like 
now to recognize my friend from Virginia, Mr. Good.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with what Dr. 
Murphy said a few moments ago. He said it is hard to say why 
DEI offices exist. I certainly agree with that, and yet in his 
2021 report, Diversity University, DEI Bloat in the Academy, 
Dr. Greene found that large public universities average about 
45 DEI personnel, ranging from Stanford University with 80, 
Virginia Tech with 83, Ohio State with 94, University of 
Virginia in my district 94, and then the biggest one that I 
noted Michigan, the University of Michigan with 163.
    Dr. Green, in your testimony, you site the millions of 
dollars that various universities spend on DEI offices, and you 
State that there is indeed ``nothing to show for these 
expenditures.'' Can you elaborate on that? What do you mean by 
there is nothing to show for these expenditures?
    Mr. Green. Sure. We have heard claims that DEI is meant to 
make students feel included, improve retention and graduation. 
We have not heard any evidence of that, and there is a reason 
for it. I do not believe that evidence exists, and in fact the 
systematic evidence that I have collected is that campus 
climate is no better on campuses, and in fact is worst, 
according to student surveys, at universities with larger DEI 
bureaucracies, and the antisemitism is associated with DEI 
bureaucracies as well.
    Millions of dollars are being spent, and it is actually 
exacerbating group tension, not helping.
    Mr. Good. Yes. If you had a--let us say an average of 100 
on the college campuses for round numbers, and the average 
cost, full benefit back is 200,000, that is 20 million dollars 
a year. Where is all that money? You do not find any evidence 
that it is actually benefiting in any measurable way is what 
you are saying?
    Mr. Greene. That is exactly right, yes.
    Mr. Good. Well, the DEI offices do serve to divide, 
discriminate, differentiate how people are treated based on 
race, and this is 60 years after the Civil Rights Act, 57 years 
after the first black Supreme Court Justice, with two others 
who followed behind are still on the Court today.
    Sixteen years after our country elected the first black 
President, and now 3 years after our Nation elected our first 
minority Vice President. As you noted, the DEI jobs on college 
campuses are not low-paying jobs, are they? As a matter of 
fact, at the University of Virginia in my district, the Vice 
President for DEI and community partnerships makes $340,000.00 
at University of Virginia.
    $340,000.00. Double that of a Member of Congress, and I 
realize most people think that we are overpaid, but it is also 
double the average of a university professor at UVA, which is 
about $175,000.00. Is there anyway you could justify that, or 
explain why we would pay the head of DEI double what we pay a 
college professor at UVA, or a school like that?
    Mr. Greene. No. I do not think there is any justification 
for it. This is money being wasted, and in fact money that is 
hurting the legitimate purposes of higher education.
    Mr. Good. You have already noted that you have seen no 
measurable performance metrics that demonstrate the difference 
that it is making, other than perhaps the jobs program for the 
individuals that are in those DEI offices?
    Mr. Greene. I think that is right. Yes.
    Mr. Good. Again, DEI offices, they do create and perpetuate 
high paying job opportunities with little in the way of 
meaningful performance measurements, other than to continue to 
perpetuate racial division for woke liberals who believe our 
country's irretrievably and systemically racist, and I would 
again argue that a job's program for these individuals does not 
justify their existence.
    To make matters worse by the way, on who is hiring to these 
jobs, the Assistant VP for Equity Inclusion Excellence at 
again, University of Virginia in my district, was recently seen 
on a video discussing how people, including white people, are 
``Dying of whiteness, and dying prematurely in their 20's.'' 
Clearly, that sentiment I guess justifies her exorbitant 
salary.
    Thankfully, Mr. Chairman, we have a Supreme Court that is 
beginning to dismantle the mythical need to continue to treat 
people differently based on race, and I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my 
friend my Georgia, Ms. McBath.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Chairman Owens and Ranking Member 
Wilson. I have read your testimoneys today, so thank you so 
much to our witnesses. Five months to the day of the deadliest 
attack on Jewish civilians since the Holocaust, Jewish students 
across the country and across the world continue to face hate, 
and vitriol, and our somehow being considered collectively 
responsible for the actions of the State of Israel, a country 
they may have never lived in, or possibly even visited.
    This is textbook antisemitism, and it simply cannot be 
allowed to continue unchallenged, or at our universities. 
However, it is wrong to use the very real threat of 
antisemitism as a political tool to oppose policies that you 
simply don't agree with. It is disappointing to see the 
majority today, attempt to use the very real pain that is 
caused by this conflict and the scourge of antisemitism as a 
vehicle to push an extreme political agenda, that is determined 
to erase any mention of the words, diversity, or equity on 
campus.
    Instead of dismantling these programs, we should commit 
ourselves to improving them, to ensuring that every student 
feels welcome on campus, and that all of the stories that we've 
heard from, from these students, are being treated with the 
care and the respect and dignity that they deserve, but that 
cannot come at the cost of dragging us backward, and undoing 
the important progress that we have made as a Nation.
    The fact of the matter is that black Americans and students 
of color have historically been denied access to universities, 
despite being just as qualified and willing to learn as their 
white peers. As much as my colleagues would like to say 
otherwise, this is the reality, and it is one that occurred 
relative recently during my lifetime, and many other members of 
this Committee's lifetimes as well.
    One whose impact cannot simply be forgotten about or 
corrected overnight. It is the reality for people that look 
like me every single day, and the reality that continues to 
spur the need for policies like this in the very first place. 
My republican colleagues cannot have it both ways. You cannot 
claim to be protecting free speech and diversity of thought, 
while simultaneously trying to deny our history, which is the 
history of America, and it is the inclusive history of America, 
and dismiss the stories that make us who we are as a Nation.
    Stories like my father's who was the Branch President of 
NAACP in Illinois at the height of the civil rights movement. 
This refusal to have difficult conversations to just sweep what 
makes you uncomfortable under the rug, and act like it is not 
there, or did not happen, is a disservice to our students, and 
to our Nation. It is a disservice to those who lived these 
realities, and to the heroes like my dad and John Lewis, and so 
many countless others who put their lives and reputations on 
the line to help this country live up to its promise of liberty 
and justice for not just a few people, but for all people.
    Dr. Murphy, could you please use the time that we have left 
to discuss the importance of ensuring that students from groups 
such as racial and ethnic minority students, the LGBTQ+ 
students, or first-generation college students have equitable 
access to colleges and to universities?
    Mr. Murphy. It is tremendously important. I mean we have 
made great strides. I do not want to take, to diminish that in 
any way whatsoever, but the diversity on campuses, particularly 
more selective campuses, still lags far behind the country. I 
believe that some Ivy League institutions, if you look at the 
percentage of black students on campus now, it is lower than it 
was in the 1990's.
    Progress needs to be made there. An emphasis needs to be 
put on the importance of diversity on campus. In part because I 
guess what I am hearing a lot in the criticism of DEI programs, 
is a viewpoint that I reject wholeheartedly, which is that 
there is a dearth of talent out there, right, that there just 
are not that many talented people.
    Every single one of the most talented people is going to 
rise to the top and be seen for their talent. The reality is 
all of us who have succeeded in life can point to numerous 
people on the pathway who have lifted us, right? I think DEI 
helps us keep that in mind, right, to keep in mind who has had 
the opportunity, who has had the resources, and how that has 
impacted their experiences.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much, and I am out of time.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize my 
good friend from New York, Mr. Williams.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first would like 
to associate myself with the comments and concerns of my 
colleague across the aisle, Representative Manning, 
particularly in the correlation between antisemitism that is 
rising on our university campuses, and the chilling 
participation of the DEI offices in their failure to look out 
for all students, and often seem to be a facilitator, or a 
protector of antisemitism as it grows and expands on our 
campuses.
    Dr. Goldfarb, are you still at the University of 
Pennsylvania?
    Dr. Goldfarb. No. I am retired now, sir.
    Mr. Williams. Was your decision to retire from UPenn 
related at all to perhaps the reaction of your being outspoken 
on this topic? Would you say that that created an environment 
that made retirement a bit more attractive?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Well, it was time to retire. However, I 
certainly did receive an unfortunate sort of canceling. My name 
was taken off the website by the University of Pennsylvania. My 
name was taken from the history of one of the kidney divisions, 
of which I was once the co-director.
    I did receive the opprobrium of my colleagues over my 
activities.
    Mr. Williams. Then this was because of medical malpractice, 
I mean because of something you did wrong in the practice, or 
teaching of medicine?
    Dr. Goldfarb. No, sir. This was because of my political 
ideas, or my general ideas about medicine and healthcare and 
medical education.
    Mr. Williams. That is disappointing and shocking to hear. I 
am sorry that you had that conclusion to a very distinguished 
career. You comment pretty broadly about medical schools, and 
the application process. I want to expand that a little bit. 
Would you say that the effects of DEI, as you described, the 
harmful effects of DEI are limited just to medical school 
application boards, or admission boards?
    Or is there a broader issue, you know, with you know, maybe 
it is accreditation, maybe it is you know, medical associations 
or other interest groups, and professional groups around 
medicine. Is DEI just on the campus, or does it have a broader 
impact?
    Dr. Goldfarb. No. Certainly, it has had a very broad 
impact. American medicine, for reasons that are peculiar at 
best has decided that it is been a profoundly racist activity, 
without evidence really for that. I think this all started in 
earnest when George Floyd was killed, and it has really 
blossomed, if you will, since then, and more and more 
organizations have taken up this cry that they need to purge 
themselves of what has been a traditional focus on meritocracy 
and focus very much on the issue of diversity.
    Diversity is fine, it is just that we have to worry about 
patient welfare. That is our main concern as physicians, and 
not the benefit of the practice of medicine, and the benefit of 
people who practice medicine, but on patients. Unfortunately, 
that requires focusing on allowing the best and brightest 
individuals to be the ones who practice medicine.
    Mr. Williams. Have you had other doctors, you know, talk to 
you about your experience, you know, being shown the door, or 
at least being erased from the history of UPenn? Has it chilled 
other people in the medical practice, the medical profession, 
from speaking out on this meritocracy, or speaking in defense 
or support of meritocracy?
    Have you had--you do not have to name names, but have you 
had private conversations that this has had a ripple effect, 
even for people not brave enough like yourself to speak out?
    Dr. Goldfarb. I do not know how brave I am, but I must say 
that we have 7,000 members in our organization, and every day 
we are hearing from individuals who have expressed their 
concerns about what they've seen happening in medicine. There 
are concerns about the quality of the individuals coming into 
medicine, and the quality of education that's going on in 
medicine.
    This is an ongoing real phenomenon in medicine.
    Mr. Williams. Do you know of anyone that got into medicine 
because they were more concerned about equity than they were 
about helping people? Do you find that a common theme? It seems 
like most doctors I know want to help people, but maybe this 
has blossomed into something other, another reason to enter the 
medical profession?
    Dr. Goldfarb. No. I think there is a desire, and it has 
been an over desire to train medical students as social 
workers, and to have that aspect of their work. Those issues 
are very important, but we have social workers who actually 
perform those tasks, and they are the ones who should be 
performing those very important tasks, not the physicians who 
need to focus on the care of the patients and their medical 
problems.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my 
friend from Washington, Ms. Jayapal.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Every student 
deserves a welcoming and supportive learning environment, and 
that's particularly important for students from backgrounds 
that have faced decades of exclusionary practices and policies, 
limiting access, and the completion of degree programs.
    Diversity, equity and inclusion programs play a necessary 
role in fulfilling that promise of a postsecondary education by 
connecting students with support. Unfortunately, right winged 
pundits have targeted these programs over claims that these 
programs are racist.
    This misguided discourse has devolved into bills being 
proposed throughout State houses, and eight that have become 
law, seeking to eliminate supporting students who are 
historically unrepresented, or under-represented on campuses. 
Dr. Murphy, following the Supreme Court decision to end race 
conscience submissions, this diluted thinking found its way 
into State policies that discouraged institutions from 
supporting students of color.
    That includes Missouri, whose Attorney General directed all 
colleges to immediately stop considering race and scholarships. 
Is this required by the SCOTUS decision, and how does the 
Supreme Court decision affect financial aid, or other supports 
that are targeted to students of color?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes. Thank you for the question. This is 
incredibly important. The first thing to say about the majority 
opinion, in SFFA was that the phrase affirmative action, in 
fact does not appear in it anywhere. They use race-based 
admissions. I prefer race conscious admissions.
    That is all they talked about was the admissions process. I 
mean if we want to be real sticklers, they really talked about 
the admission process at two colleges in America, but you know, 
we have interpreted as you know, this certainly does apply to 
the admission's decision, right colleges make.
    Every university in the country has reacted appropriately. 
Many, many politicians have not reacted appropriately. The 
Attorney General of Missouri issued that decision, or issued 
his, I should say direction, in about I think the number was 
27, maybe 29 minutes after the decision came out.
    I read the entire decision as soon as it came out. It has 
hundreds of pages. I am not a speed reader, I guess, but within 
30 minutes they were prepared to say that the decision extended 
to all these things. There was no mention of financial aid, no 
mention of recruiting processes, no mention of DEI anywhere in 
that Supreme Court decision.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. They clearly overreached. I find it 
concerning that the race conscious admissions decision is being 
misapplied to prevent schools from helping students of color 
because, as you spoke about, and as my colleague, Ms. McBath 
spoke about, students of color have real challenges. The 
average percentage of students who returned to college in 2022 
was 76 percent.
    When you disaggregate it by race, students of color fall 
below that average, 71 percent of Latino students, 66 percent 
of black, and 62 percent of Native American students. This is 
not about personal failings for this group of people. It is 
about lack of access, lack of opportunities. Reducing financial 
aid opportunities also contributes dramatically to these gaps.
    Black students, for example, owe an average of 188 percent 
more than white students 4 years after graduation. What should 
be done to hold institutions accountable for withholding 
support and exacerbating these gaps in admissions?
    Mr. Murphy. I think two things are really important. One is 
what I think a lot of institutions are doing is over 
correcting, and eliminating financial aid programs, which 
again, the law did not. The decision did not address in any way 
whatsoever. We are seeing scholarships that are connected to 
race being eliminated in red and blue states.
    I think this is a fear of legal complaint. What also has to 
happen, so schools need better instruction on what the decision 
said. The other thing I think that we need, is we need a lot 
more transparency in the entire admissions process, right? We 
need for the first time to get disaggregated data on race and 
ethnicity at every step of the admission process.
    This will be important for accountability, but it will also 
be important to I think improved practices in higher ed as 
well.
    Ms. Jayapal. Yes. Incredibly important. At the University 
of Washington, for example, we have an array of historically 
underrepresented groups that have really addressed this issue 
of gaps. How can institutions use that disaggregated admissions 
data that you are talking about to improve the impact on under-
represented students?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes. One good example is that right now we can 
only see who is enrolled in an institution by race. It is 
really important to be able to see who applied, right?
    Ms. Jayapal. That is right.
    Mr. Murphy. Right. That is a recruiting question. Then who 
also enrolled. That is a yield question. It would be helpful 
for other institutions to see what is going on, not just with 
their immediate peers, but across the Nation to find 
essentially, the best practices.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize 
Ms. Houchin from Indiana.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the 
witnesses for being here to testify before us today. I am 
especially interested in the testimony provided by Dr. Goldfarb 
on the impact you have seen at medical schools. As you probably 
know, or may know, Indiana University in my State has the 
largest medical school in the country.
    This issue is particularly close to home for me. Dr. 
Goldfarb, you described how DEI has caused medical schools to 
focus on political advocacy instead of healthcare outcomes. Are 
there specific examples you could give us from your time at 
UPenn that illustrates that point?
    Dr. Goldfarb. I am now out of UPenn for several years, and 
so I cannot really speak to exactly what is going on there, but 
what we have seen is just around the Nation. Increasingly 
detailed kinds of programs, courses, courses in advocacy for 
example. This is one of my favorite topics is training 
physicians to be advocates for all of these political 
activities.
    There's no question that the point of this is to create 
individuals who use the authoritative aspects of being 
physicians to argue for political causes, and political 
approaches. Our organization has gathered lists, and I have 
lists here that I can provide you of multiple kinds of examples 
of courses, seminars, you know, letters and applications that 
require students to explain how they are going to implement 
these kinds of political activities in their careers as medical 
students, and then as physicians.
    Ms. Houchin. I want to focus on a little bit of your 
comments. You said what had been a traditional approach focused 
on clinical science, and aimed at developing medical leaders 
was being readied for transformation into a far greater 
emphasis on community involvement and concern for social 
issues.
    You had said that American academic medical centers have 
been the engines of advances in the treatment and cares of 
diseases. What will this new emphasis on social issues do to 
research and science in the treatment and care of diseases?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Yes, I think one of the most peculiar, and 
really unfortunate developments in all this has been the idea 
that diversity in research labs is a requirement for successful 
performance of scientific research. This is just absurd, 
really.
    What we need in the scientific laboratories are the most 
qualified, the most creative, the most talented individuals, 
and incredibly--it is an incredibly competitive area. The NIH 
funds something on the order of 15 percent of the initiated, 
investigator initiated grants.
    To say that labs need to then demonstrate that they are 
diverse is without real merit, without evidence that that will 
do anything to improve the scientific quality, and much more 
likely to reduce the scientific quality because the expenditure 
of energy funds and time in order to create some sort of 
diverse environment in the laboratory.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you. A couple of things I want to note 
too. You have said medical schools around the country are 
adopting an approach that seems to echo the curriculum of 
schools of social work. In the K through 12 education in the 
judiciary, all of these places we are really, and including in 
medical academia, we are really trending into an area where in 
your own words, physicians have not the agency to address some 
of these issues.
    We see social and emotional learning, diversity, equity and 
inclusion, critical race theory. You wrote a significant op ed 
to take two aspiring and call me by my pronouns, and that has 
turned to some calling you an activist. When you were in 
medical school did you ever think you would be considering 
yourself an activist for advocating for things like rigor in 
science?
    Dr. Goldfarb. No. This has been surprising to me, and 
certainly to my family, and my friends, and I have ended up 
doing this. As I said in my testimony, I really care deeply 
about medicine and about medical care, and about the care 
patients receive. I think in my career I thought it to be a 
wonderful experience and patients were treated wonderfully, 
irrespective of what they looked like.
    My great concern is that that is going to change. That is 
starting to change now, and that is really why I have decided 
to pursue this course.
    Ms. Houchin. You note finally too, that there are concerns 
that you share that this type of political and philosophical 
theory really will drive division and poison the American 
experience. You quote Ibram Kendi saying, ``Past discrimination 
can only be remedied by present discrimination. Present 
discrimination can only be remedied by future discrimination.''
    I do not want to see us in a world where we are driven by 
discrimination and that, unfortunately, feels like that is the 
direction the left wants to take us. Mr. Chairman, with that I 
yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you very much. I would like now to 
recognize my friend from New York, Ms. Stefanik.
    Ms. Stefanik. Thank you very much, Congressman Owens. Dr. 
Goldfarb, in our ongoing investigation of higher ed 
institutions and the increase of antisemitism that is on 
display at Harvard, Penn MIT, the three schools we have here, 
but beyond that, throughout colleges and universities, one 
theme that is very concerning to me is the offices of DEI on 
these college campuses are inherently antisemitic.
    I will give you an example from my alma mater, Harvard. 
Even prior to the October 7th Hamas attacks against Israel, and 
the failure of Harvard's leadership to protect Jewish students 
on campus, hundreds of Jewish students reached out to Harvard's 
Office of DEI, raising concerns about the rise of antisemitism, 
and they did not even receive a single response from the Office 
of DEI.
    Can you comment? I know that you have watched as a former 
Dean of Penn's Med School, you have watched what is happening 
on that campus. Can you talk to me about how these offices of 
DEI fuel this increase in antisemitism?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Yes. You know we have written about it, and 
Dr. Greene here has written about this quite extensively as 
well. I think the point is that once you start dealing with 
this identity politics. Once you start thinking about people as 
members of groups, he has pointed out how Jews suddenly become 
the oppressor simply because of their prominence in these 
academic institutions.
    Once identity politics takes over, then one of the natural 
consequences of it is divisiveness and antagonism between 
groups because now we are putting people into these groups. 
Yascha Mounk has recently written about this in his book, the 
Identity Trap, and points out as a man of the left what a great 
concern this is for American life.
    I think what we are seeing in the antisemitism that is 
really sprung up terribly in the last few months, has been the 
natural outcome of thinking about people as members of a group, 
rather than thinking about people as individuals. I think in 
medical school, in colleges and undergraduates that's what 
we're seeing. I think these students have decided that are 
parading and demonstrating this antisemitic sentiment, they see 
the Jewish students as members of a group, not as individuals, 
not as their friends, not as their co-students, but as members 
of a group.
    Once you go down that path this is the consequence of it. 
This is why it is so divisive in America.
    Ms. Stefanik. Dr. Greene, would you like to answer the 
question as well?
    Mr. Greene. Sure. I mean I agree entirely with Dr. 
Goldfarb's comments, and just say that we systematically 
measured this, I mean in a study we did of 741 DEI officers. We 
examined their social media, Twitter feeds, and we observed 
shocking levels of antisemitism coming from people with a 
professional obligation not to do that.
    It is as if we studied doctors and found that they were 
smokers, right? It would be not something you would expect from 
people in an occupation, and yet DEI staff are active promoters 
of antisemitism in their social media feeds, and it is not 
surprising that they also facilitate it on campus.
    Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. I would like to recognize the Chair of the 
Full Committee, Dr. Foxx.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our 
witnesses for being here today, and shedding a lot of light on 
this very, very important issue. It was recently brought to my 
attention that all athletic teams at Davidson College, roughly 
one-fourth of the student body, were mandated to attend a 
showing of the firm entitled, ``I'm Not Racist, Am I?''
    That was followed by an all-afternoon discussion with one 
of the film's producers. Let us take a look at a part of this 
film now.
    [Video Shown]
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. We have Davidson's for Freedom 
Thought and Discussion and Discourse to thank for bringing this 
to light. Dr. Smith, can you provide a quick reaction to what 
you just saw?
    Mr. Smith. First of all, I want to say that what we just 
saw there is what I am talking about when it comes to DEI. I am 
sure there are various offices that are doing it right. Too 
many are doing it wrong. That is the kind of thing they are 
doing. The nitpicking between racism and bigotry is absurd.
    Once more, typically those students are not allowed to push 
back. I haven not seen the rest of this, but if they are 
allowed to push back, if critical inquiry and a true 
conversation is allowed to take place, then that is one thing. 
That is not happening. You are not allowed to question these 
things too much, or else you are considered a bigot.
    Once more, a lot of these things that they are demonizing 
are things that are helpful to our students, like individuality 
and self-reliance, and reason and rationality. These things are 
considered ``white ways of knowing''. This is not good for 
anyone, especially students of color.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Dr. Greene, could you 
provide a quick reaction to this film discussion?
    Mr. Greene. I think it captures perfecting the DEI 
worldview that divides people into different groups, treats 
them differently based on group identity, and believes that all 
whites are racist, and no non-whites can be racist.
    These are not just absurd, they are actual natural 
outgrowths of the DEI world view that informs most of the DEI 
movement, and then we see in the professional standards issued 
by the National Association of Diversity Officers.
    Mrs. Foxx. Dr. Goldfarb, you have mentioned in your 
testimony that Do No Harm found a similar situation in which 
UCLA's Medical School required students to segregate by race. 
Have you spoken with some of these students, and how is UCLA 
responding?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Yes, thank you very much for the question, 
Congresswoman. Yes, that went on at UCLA, putting students into 
different groups. There were white students, and somewhat brown 
students and black students. Each group was different. It is 
unclear whether it is still going on, but I have spoken 
recently to faculty members there who say there is absolutely 
no regret on the part of the institution about doing that and 
feeling like the fact that this occurred and the views that we 
had about it represented ``misinformation''.
    It is still, and it has been advocated in the pages of the 
New England Journal of Medicine to occur throughout medical 
education, as a way of giving people the chance to have that 
kind of discussion that we just saw on the screen, go on and 
create divisiveness amongst the various groups.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this material again was 
brought to us from Davidson's for Freedom of Thought and 
Discourse. A former member of this body, and former Governor of 
North Carolina, James G. Martin, has written an editorial about 
this, and I would like to submit that editorial for the record.
    Chairman Owens. Without objection.
    [The information of Mrs. Foxx follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my 
friend from California, Mr. Kiley.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It has been a few months 
now since this Committee held a hearing with several university 
Presidents that shocked the conscious of the country, and 
opened many people's eyes to just how warped much of higher 
education in this country has become.
    For me, one of the most jarring moments of that hearing was 
when President Claudine Gay of Harvard, now rightfully former 
President, refused to answer time and time again whether she 
could assure the parents of a Jewish student, or a perspective 
Jewish student, that their child would feel safe and welcome on 
her campus.
    She refused repeatedly to even answer the question, which 
just demonstrated very clearly that she did not understand the 
gravity of what was occurring on that campus. Now here today, 
we have had folks on both sides of the dais, you know, talk 
about how DEI bureaucracies have been indifferent, and failed 
to adequately respond to the crisis of antisemitism on campus.
    Really, the issue goes deeper than that. It is these very 
bureaucracies that have, in many ways--are the root of the 
problem. Dr. Greene, you have some actual evidence 
demonstrating that where you used social media to document how 
they are in fact in many ways the source of the problem. Could 
you just give us those statistics again?
    Mr. Greene. Sure. We analyzed the Twitter feeds of 741 DEI 
staff. These were DEI staff that we identified in our study of 
the 65 universities in the Power Five Athletic Conferences. 
What we found was that the DEIs that were obsessed with the 
State of Israel, 96 percent were critical of the State of 
Israel, while by comparison, they spoke about China one-third 
as often, even though China is a much bigger country.
    This was during the pandemic when China was in the news, 
but they were not that interested in China. They were 62 
percent favorable toward China. It crosses the line into 
antisemitism because of the double standard, and the obsessive 
criticism, and because of the vitriolic language that we found, 
so one could be critical of the State of Israel without 
crossing that line but it is very clear they did, and did 
repeatedly, and this was endemic in the DEI staff.
    Mr. Kiley. The very people that are hired to promote 
diversity, equity and inclusion, to make students feel safe and 
welcome are in fact, using their social media accounts to 
promote antisemitism. It really goes to show you that these 
have become Orwellian institutions in the truest sense of that 
term.
    When you think about what it tells us about the broader 
culture of our universities. I mean our universities are 
supposed to be promoting progress, not in a partisan sense, but 
to be at the leading edge of new ideas. Here they are investing 
in these bureaucracies, tens of millions of dollars that are 
leading a 21st Century American resurgence of one of the 
world's oldest, and most retrograde prejudices which was at the 
root of the greatest crime in the history of the world.
    I think we have to ask ourselves how has this been allowed 
to happen? It is happening alongside many other things 
happening at universities where they are rejecting the very 
premise of the enlightenment. They are saying we should not 
have free speech anymore. We should not allow the free exchange 
of ideas.
    We should not have academic freedom. We should reject the 
very idea of merit. My question for you, Dr. Greene, or for 
anyone is how did this happen? How did our universities get to 
this point? It is not just limited to universities because for 
better or worse, university culture tends to, you know, 
incubate changes in broader society.
    We have seen a lot of things that started at universities 
have now become problems more broadly in American life. How did 
we get to this point, and how do we go about fixing it to get 
universities back to their core purpose?
    Mr. Greene. Thank you for the question, and I will answer 
quickly because I want to leave time for others, but this is 
kind of a warmed-over Marxism that made its way into our 
institutions. That is basically what it is. Good thinking 
liberal institutions opened the door to these Marxists who came 
in, and then closed the door behind them, and now they are 
purging out the liberals.
    Now, we have to dismantle DEI. We have to starve 
universities of funds that fuel this nonsense. Those would be 
the first things I would recommend. I think Dr. Smith and Dr. 
Goldfarb would have useful things to add as well.
    Mr. Smith. First of all, we need to you know, audit these 
DEI programs, and not just the offices but faculty as well, who 
are abiding by this ideology. We need people to see what is 
going on. If people would deny being audited, that should be a 
sign that there is something they are hiding. My time is up. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my 
friend from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Murphy, you have 
alluded to the fact that a substantial portion of your 
education at a 4-year college experience occurs outside of the 
classroom. Can you remind us of what a life lessons learned on 
a diverse campus, and the value of a diverse education on a 
diverse campus that cannot be learned on a nondiverse campus?
    Mr. Murphy. Yes. When I think of all of us who went to a 4-
year college think back, we sometimes remember classes that we 
took, but more often we remember the people that we lived with, 
the meals that we had, the conversations.
    All of that stuff is an incredibly important part of that 
experience. For many people in America, which is unfortunately 
still highly segregated, both by race and by income. A college 
campus will be the most diverse place they've ever experienced 
in their life. They will get to meet people from different 
income brackets, from different races, from different 
religions, and indeed different ideologies, right?
    That experience is incredibly valuable, both because it 
enriches one's thinking, and it challenges people. Then there 
is also the more practical issue of when you leave that campus 
you are very often going to end up in a workplace where you 
will encounter again, different levels of diversity, different 
kinds of diversity, which is why the value of these programs 
are so important.
    Especially in the front of faculty hiring as well, the 
least diverse place on most college campuses is in fact the 
faculty, right? Keeping that in mind, recognizing once again, 
talent is everywhere, opportunity is not, also enriches that 
student's experience.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Greene, you talked about 
merit. If you can show that standardized tests have a racially 
discriminatory impact, we know that legacy obviously 
discriminates in favor of college graduates. We are measuring 
achievement based on where people--after people have gone to 
different kinds--of public schools.
    It is known now that these schools are as segregated now as 
they were in the late 1960's, and with segregated schools, 
opportunities are different. How is--if you are subjected to 
that, why would you not want to offset the discriminatory 
impact with affirmative action?
    Mr. Greene. I think the Supreme Court--thank you for the 
question. I think the Supreme Court in its recent decision 
decided that universities could not consider race as a 
preference for admission. It did not speak to other criteria 
that could be considered.
    Mr. Scott. Well, if you can show a racially discriminatory 
pattern, racially discriminatory impact, if you cannot do it 
with affirmative action on one hand, why should you be able to 
use those factors on the other?
    Mr. Greene. Well, thanks for the followup. I think 
universities have to figure out the best ways that they can 
ascertain the qualifications of people for admission to their 
institutions, and I am not here to testify about the best way 
that they are supposed to do that. I am just here to testify 
that they should not be discriminating on the basis of race, 
and they should not be constructing bureaucracies that further 
discrimination on the basis of race.
    Mr. Scott. Well, it seems to me that people are a little 
blase about racial discrimination on the one hand, but if you 
want to compensate for it, people get all upset. Dr. Goldfarb, 
you are aware that there is disproportionate incidents of 
maternal deaths amongst black women. What can you do to address 
that without involving race?
    Dr. Goldfarb. Thank you very much for that question. 
University of Pennsylvania, I have been very proud of one thing 
that they have done lately is to tackle this directly. The 
Chairman of OB/GYN there is a woman named Melissa Butallo, who 
has made her career studying this issue of black mortality, 
maternal mortality.
    What they have done is two things to prove my point that 
the whole issue is better access.
    Mr. Scott. Well, even controlling for access for healthcare 
and education and everything else, there is still a disparity. 
How do you address that without involving discussion about 
race?
    Dr. Goldfarb. It is not controlling for seeking out 
healthcare. It is not controlling for having healthcare 
delivered to you. If I may say, two programs that they put in 
place. One is they created teams that were focused on any 
hemorrhage that might occur during the time of delivery, and 
this improved mortality across the board, including in white 
women, who are also dying because of mortality during delivery.
    The second thing they did was to supply telehealth measures 
in order that blood pressure would be followed up after 
delivery, and they have reduced maternal mortality by 30 
percent in that example. Black women have a 40 percent less 
frequency of getting first trimester prenatal care.
    Therefore, that deficiency is an important part of the 
increased maternal mortality because the deaths occur due to 
severe hypertension that occurs at the time of delivery. I 
think the literature on this is very complex. What is 
considered maternal mortality involves something up to 6 weeks 
after delivery as well.
    There are a lot of social issues involved here, but the 
issue that I have focused on is it is not because the women are 
being mistreated when they show up to have their babies, and I 
think it is black women are now quite terrified to come in and 
deliver their babies in hospitals because they have been told 
that this kind of bias is going on, and it is just not correct.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. Thank you. I would now like to 
recognize for closing remarks, Ms. Bonamici.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you again to your witnesses for the testimony. I want to note 
that this is the 59th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when civil 
rights protestors led in part by then recent college graduate, 
our former colleague and friend, the late, great John Lewis, 
who bore the scars of that day for his whole life.
    I just want to note that, and I am very grateful that Title 
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the 
Education Amendments of 1972 have laid the groundwork to create 
campuses that are more reflective of our society. However, as 
we heard today, and as we know, discrimination still permeates 
within the intersections of our society and on college 
campuses.
    Students of various religious affiliations, socioeconomic 
statuses, sexual orientations, race, and even disability are 
subject to discriminating behavior. I am disappointed that 
instead of having a productive conversation about how we 
address the root causes of inequality, that students can face 
on college campuses, many republicans use this time to target 
campus DEI programs, diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
    We should be working together to ensure that students are 
safe and feel safe and welcome when they are on campuses. 
Unfortunately, this hearing has not advanced that goal. 
Democrats will continue to support and defend programs that 
protect students and educators from all forms of 
discrimination, harassment and violence on campus.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you again. I would just like to first 
of all enter into the record, without objection into the 
record, a letter to support B'nai B'rith International, and an 
article by Danielle Allen entitled ``We've lost our way on 
campus. Here's how we can find our way back.''
    [The information of Mr. Owens follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        
    Chairman Owens. Thank you so much, as I kind of wrap up my 
thoughts here. Earlier there was a comment about admissions and 
the low admissions since the 1990's of black students into 
college. Let me give you a novel suggestion. Let us start 
teaching our kids earlier how to read, write and add. That 
might be a good start.
    That way you do not have to worry about affirmative action, 
they can get there through meritocracy. The second thing is how 
about we start thinking that blacks cannot compete 
intellectually with everybody else. It is meritocracy, which I 
grew up with, I am proud to say I grew up with, and we win when 
we put the work and effort in.
    The last thing is that we just need to make sure we are now 
looking at the potential of all our kids, regardless of the 
color, race and creed. I think one of the smartest strategies 
that the Marxist ideology did, and I appreciate the comment. I 
think it was spot on, it is an ideology that used really good 
people, good liberals with good intentions.
    They hide behind these good folks and do damaging bad 
things. Again, we point them out, they say no you talk about 
good liberals. No. We are talking about Marxists, okay? Do not 
make that point.
    They are really good at understanding how to control the 
language. Diversity, equity and inclusion, you would think it 
is a really good thing. Unless you think about diversity that 
excludes Jews, black conservatives, and white, straight, 
Christian--male Christians. They are not included in this 
little bubble that the Marxists put together.
    They have taking the good word of equality and changed it 
to equity. Equality says I just want the opportunity. Give me a 
chance. I will run harder, I will work harder, I will prove 
myself to gain your respect. Equity is no, you come with the 
right color, you come with the right ideology, and you got the 
job.
    Inclusion. Well, let us look at our colleges. Harvard 
University now has a black graduation class, a Hispanic 
graduation class, and a gay Hispanic class. At MIT you have a 
black only dorm. Guess who is not going to be invited in that 
dorm? Jews, whites and black conservatives. This is the most 
divisive concept that we have ever seen, and it is truly a 
cancer.
    This is something that destroys everything that builds our 
foundation of a country of life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness and looking at each other inside out and not outside 
in. I want to thank my great State of Utah. I will tell you I 
am so proud of the legislators we have here.
    We are very innovative, we collaborate very well. We 
believe in fairness. And just recently we have a couple of my 
good friends, Kate Hall and Keith Grover, who will introduce 
legislation to ban DEI from our educational systems. It now 
prohibits discrimination period.
    It protects Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It eliminates 
diversity statements. It creates success centers for all of our 
students, not just of a particular color. I am going to kind of 
wrap up with this one statement. I read this, Dr. Smith, and I 
just have to respond and then kind of finish up with this one.
    All right. Regarding the way that our black students and 
youth are being addressed. Okay. I have been challenged by 
white and black people alike when I express apparent idea that 
is we should have more faith in an agency of our minority 
students, especially black minority students, who seem to be 
downtrodden, poster children for victimhood.
    This lack of confidence in these children is called 
empathy. This lack of optimism and succeeding in life is called 
empowerment. The dismissal of very valuable skills that would 
better ensure success in life is called social justice. 
Anything that could possibly instill a positive outlook, self-
awareness, emotional self-control, delayed gratification, 
achievement orientation, and adaptation is called white 
supremacy with a big hug.
    Whenever I hear educators advocating such interpretations 
in higher education, I always say to myself, thank God they 
were not teachers when I grew up. I want to echo that thank 
God. I grew up at a time of segregation, but my community 
believed in its kids. We believed in meritocracy. We did not 
teach foolishness.
    We did not teach each other to judge each other from the 
outside in instead of inside out. Thank God for that. I want to 
thank God for every one of you guys who engaged in this 
conversation. We might not agree on everything, but we are 
talking about the right topic. What do we do to make sure our 
kids land in a better spot than we did, like every generation 
has done before us?
    Not feeling angry, bigots, discouraged. Let us leave our 
country and our kids with the greater vision of our country and 
what we can accomplish. We could do that, but make sure our 
education is in the right place. This is a great start, so 
thank you so much.
    I appreciate your efforts. I appreciate all the comments 
that has come to us, and I would like again to thank our 
witnesses for taking the time to testify before the 
Subcommittee today. Without objections, there is no further 
business, and this Subcommittee now stands adjourned.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    [Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]