(House Oversight Committee) Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services held a hearing today titled “Sacrificing Excellence for Ideology: The Real Cost of DEI.”
During the hearing, members emphasized how modern diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) ideology pushed by Democrats sows division among Americans, silences viewpoints, undermines excellence, and entrenches racism and sexism.
Members also discussed ways to follow President Trump’s lead and promote true equality rooted in individual merit and hard work.
Key Takeaways:
Progressive DEI initiatives undermine meritocracy and individualism in education, government, and the workforce in favor of racial preferences.
- Subcommittee Chairman Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) remarked in his opening statement that“Over the last 60 years, the destructive DEI agenda has now evolved and infiltrated nearly every type of institution in America, including higher education, corporate workplaces, government, the military, and more. In my opinion, it hasn’t been gradual over the last 60 years. I think if you look back even in the 1970s, the 1960s, these policies were around.These policies divide Americans by putting them all in groups and educating people that they should not view themselves as an individual, they should view themselves as a group, which is why I think people who want to destroy America are so in favor of them.”
- Dr. Judge Glock, Director of Research and Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, testified in his opening statement that “There are two main race contracting programs. One, the 8(a) Program, which gives preferences to so-called ‘disadvantaged’ businesses and federal contracting, and the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, which gives preferences to minority and women-owned firms in programs funded by the federal government. Contracting firms are required to give certain proportions of all their contracts to these firms and [required to give] subcontracting to them.Given that tens of billions of dollars are at stake based not on contract price or quality, but on the race and sex of business owners, it should not be surprising that many otherwise non-qualifying businesses seek to take advantage of these. A Department of Transportation Inspector General Report found that over a third of its active fraud cases involve Disadvantaged Business Enterprise fraud.”
DEI mandates undermine the equality that was achieved under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Dr. Erec Smith, Research Fellow at The Cato Institute and President of Free Black Thought, testified in his opening statement that “What began as a call for fairness has transformed into a sprawling ideology that undermines academic rigor, weakens individual accountability, and consumes public and student resources. In many cases, it replaces education with political conditioning.Let me be clear, I support racial equality and inclusion in principle, but too many of today’s DEI practices are rooted in framework drawn from Marxist critical theory. Typically critical social justice and postmodern thought.”
President Trump is taking significant steps to curb unlawful discrimination associated with progressive DEI initiatives in the federal workforce, but further action from Congress is necessary to sustain and build on these efforts.
- Dan Lennington, Managing Vice President and Deputy Counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, testified in his opening statement that “Congress should lead by example, by reforming federal law to root out all benefits and preferences for ‘socially disadvantaged individuals.’ In [Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty’s] Roadmap to Equality report, we identified dozens of such race-based programs enshrined in federal law. Additionally, Congress should provide more funding to support those federal agencies that enforce our civil rights, such as the EEOC and the Department of Justice.”
Member Highlights:
Subcommittee Chairman Grothman inquired about business contracting programs implementing vague and subjective racial and ethnic categories, and how self-identification impacts DEI and Affirmative Action policies.
Subcommittee Chairman Grothman: “If one quarter of my ancestry is from Uruguay and three quarters is from Ireland, am I considered a minority for the purposes of this law?”
Mr. Lennington: “It is presently interpreted as self-identification. So if you identify as that race, you get the benefits under current federal law, so it’s not a blood quantum sort of process that they go through. They ask you how you identify.”
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) asked about the origins of modern DEI, its promotion of unlawful discrimination, and its effects on the federal spending.
Rep. Gosar: “Dr. Smith, would you agree that modern DEI originated with the Affirmative Action?”
Dr. Smith: “Modern DEI did not originate with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That definition of Affirmative Action meant a prohibition of discriminating based on race and denying resources to people of color. Later on through case law, it became a quota system. So, it started out with great intentions but has devolved substantially.”
…
Rep. Gosar: “Mr. Lennington, anyone who is complicit in promoting DEI is violating the Civil Rights Act. As an attorney, what are the consequences of violating the Civil Rights Act?”
Mr. Lennington: “Well, if you’re an employer, you can be held liable in court for damages under federal civil rights law, you can be held liable for punitive damages too, so there are severe consequences. Also, if you’re a federal contractor, you can have your federal money taken away or if you’re a federal grant recipient, you can have your federal money taken away. So there are very harsh consequences to discriminating based on race, and everyone who does discriminate based on race should be punished.”
…
Rep. Gosar: “So you mentioned in your testimony that victims of DEI discrimination often suffer in silence for fear of retaliation. In your opinion, do DEI policies make a mockery of local, of real discrimination cases like those against pregnant women in the workplace, for example, or individuals with disabilities?”
Mr. Lennington: “Yes, it does. It doesn’t help the people who need help. If people have been the victims of race discrimination, we should punish the offender and provide a remedy to the victim of race discrimination. Taking a job away from an unaffiliated white male and giving it to someone else does not cure the discrimination, it just pushes the discrimination onto someone else.”
Rep. Gosar: “Dr. Glock, will federals costs decrease if DEI is truly abolished across the federal government?”
Dr. Glock: “Absolutely.”
Rep. Gosar: “What happens if we don’t stop this madness now? What are the dangers of prolonged DEI policies?”
Dr. Glock: “Well, we’ll see continued high costs and defense and infrastructure contracting. We’ll see increased delays; we’ll continue to see corruption. We’ll continue to see more cost overruns on government projects and poorer projects in general because they’re selected not on price and quality, but on race and sex.”
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) asked the Democrats’ witness, Dr. Shaun Harper, if race should be considered in hiring practices.
Rep. Gill: “Should race be considered in employee hiring practices, yes, or no?”
Dr. Harper: “I believe that diversity ought to be considered as companies and other organizations attempt to reflect their customers, our country.”
Rep. Gill: “I’ll take that as a yes. Which race do you think should be preferred?”
Dr. Harper: “I do not think that a single race should be preferred.”
Rep. Gill: “You just said that you believed that race should be considered in employer hiring practices.”
Dr. Harper: “I don’t know. There’s going to be a transcript of this hearing. I didn’t say it that way.”
Rep. Gill: “Okay, why don’t you explain what you believe?”
Dr. Harper: “What I believe is that the demographic composition of workplaces, our nation’s military, Congress, ought to reflect the diversity of the United States of America.”
Rep. Gill: “The racial demographic, composition. Is that what you’re saying?”
Dr. Harper: “Racial, gender…”
Rep. Gill: “Okay, so race, should be a factor in employer hiring practices. That’s what you’re saying, is it not?”
Click here to watch the hearing.
Leave a Comment