This analysis was prepared by Venable, LLP on behalf of AACOM.
Memorandum
Committee: House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development
Subject: Restoring Excellence: The Case Against DEI (link)
Date: May 21, 2025
During the house Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development hearing, critics argued DEI in higher education and medicine fosters division, unmerited racial categories, legal noncompliance and lowered standards, citing rising resentment and anti‑Semitism (Owens, Harris, Mukherjee, Miceli) and disputing improved patient outcomes from race concordance. Defenders highlighted decades of research showing diversity enhances learning, safety, innovation and workforce readiness (Harper, Adams, Bonamici, Takano), warned that banning DEI harms HBCUs, disabled, veterans and democracy, and affirmed merit and inclusion can coexist, citing pandemic‑grade success without standardized tests. Legal experts noted evasive rebranding of DEI offices and accreditors’ mandates, while opponents framed the debate as ideological culture‑war tactics and politicized committee testimonies.
Witnesses
Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project
Dr. Shaun Harper, Provost Professor of Education, Public Policy and Business, University of Southern California
Renu Mukherjee, Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Dr. Kurt Miceli, Medical Director, Do No Harm
Criticism of DEI Policies in Higher Education
Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) argued that campus DEI initiatives promote a “toxic ideology” with philosophical roots in Marxism, one that divides people into categories of oppressors and victims based solely on ancestry or skin color. He warned that this ideology breeds resentment and even fuels prejudice (pointing to rising anti-Semitism on campuses) by justifying hatred against those deemed “privileged,” rather than uniting students in pursuit of a more perfect union as education should.
Renu Mukherjee (Manhattan Institute Fellow) testified that many DEI-driven policies in higher education are unlawful, divisive, and harmful to students of all backgrounds. She noted that such initiatives often vilify groups like white, Asian American, and Jewish students as inherently privileged, and cited research suggesting that popular anti-racism teachings (for example, by Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo) have increased hostility among student groups instead of easing racial tensions.
Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) criticized DEI efforts as misguided attempts to “level the playing field” that often undermine fairness and merit. He suggested that focusing on diversity and equity in name can lead to lowered standards or special treatment, rather than true equality, and questioned whether these policies are truly needed given existing civil rights laws.
Defense of DEI Programs and Their Benefits
Dr. Shaun Harper (University of Southern California) emphasized the educational benefits of diversity and inclusion, highlighting over 50 years of rigorous research showing that all students (not only students of color or other minorities) learn and succeed better in diverse, inclusive environments. He added that robust DEI programs help make campuses safer and more equitable by reducing incidents of harassment, discrimination, and abuse, thereby improving the campus climate for everyone.
Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.) defended campus DEI efforts as essential and beneficial, stating that diversity, equity, and inclusion are “not partisan talking points” but core pillars of a just and equitable education system. She argued that diverse and inclusive campuses produce better outcomes for all students, fostering innovation and strengthening the workforce, and she cautioned that abandoning DEI initiatives would “narrow opportunity” rather than preserve merit.
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) defended campus DEI efforts as broadly beneficial and rooted in necessity. She noted that critics have never even defined what they want to ban, creating dangerous ambiguity. Bonamici warned that attacks on DEI would strip away support for veterans, students with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups, not only racial minorities. She emphasized that these initiatives work – over 90% of Fortune 500 companies use DEI strategies – and argued that rolling them back would hurt competitiveness and campus climate.
Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) highlighted the positive outcomes associated with diversity and inclusion programs. He pointed out that bringing together people of different backgrounds fosters innovation and better problem-solving in education and research. Takano suggested that DEI initiatives strengthen the workforce and society by preparing students to succeed in a diverse world, aligning with the idea that America’s diversity is a source of excellence.
DEI’s Role in Medical Education and Healthcare Outcomes
Dr. Kurt Miceli (Medical Director, Do No Harm) reported that DEI initiatives have infiltrated every level of medical education, from admissions to accreditation, shifting focus away from traditional merit-based training. He warned that this ideological shift – such as reducing emphasis on core subjects like anatomy in favor of social agendas or adopting pass/fail grading and diversity-based admissions preferences – risks producing less prepared physicians. Dr. Miceli pointed out that the oft-cited rationale for medical DEI, the idea that patient care is improved by racially “matched” doctors and patients, is not supported by the evidence: four out of five systematic reviews have found no difference in patient outcomes or care quality based on doctor-patient racial concordance, undermining a key justification for these policies.
Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) singled out medical training as an area where DEI’s impact is especially dangerous. He contended that, in some medical schools, a focus on DEI has replaced the focus on best clinical practices – with disparities in health outcomes too quickly blamed on “oppression” rather than medical factors – and that DEI’s proposed “solutions” often involve further discrimination (e.g. race-based policies). According to Rep. Owens, this approach has led to “racist healthcare policies” with real life-and-death consequences, jeopardizing patient welfare by prioritizing ideology over excellence in care.
Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) challenged the premise that patients benefit from having doctors of the same race. He asked witnesses to debunk the “false premise” that matching by race improves outcomes, and the testimony indicated that when controlling for quality, race concordance made no difference in patient outcomes (suggesting that good care is not dependent on the provider’s race). Harris used this point to argue that medical schools should continue to admit and train based on merit and qualifications rather than diversity quotas.
Legal Compliance, Accreditation, and Admissions Practices
Dan Morenoff (Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project) testified that many colleges are not fully complying with nondiscrimination laws even after the recent Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action in admissions. He argued that evidence indicates some elite institutions (e.g. Ivy League universities) continue to consider race in admissions decisions, as well as in faculty hiring and scholarships, effectively skirting the law. Mr. Morenoff also highlighted how the federal government has inadvertently encouraged such practices – for example, he noted that an NIH faculty hiring initiative (the “FIRST” program) provided funding only for hires from certain demographic groups, essentially paying universities to violate Title VII’s ban on hiring discrimination.
Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) asserted that some universities are evading legal bans on racial preferences by “playing semantic word games” with their policies. Despite the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling, he said, these schools simply rebrand or hide race-conscious practices under different names to continue discriminating in admissions. He further criticized accreditation agencies for enforcing DEI requirements: according to Rep. Owens, accreditors are imposing DEI mandates on colleges (such as requiring diversity plans or statements) instead of focusing on student outcomes, which he believes they should be holding institutions accountable for.
Ms. Renu Mukherjee added that the trend in many universities has been to rename or repackage DEI offices and programs rather than remove them. She gave the example that at Harvard, the Office of “Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging” was simply renamed the Office of “Community and Campus Life” and kept under the same leadership – a change she suggests is more cosmetic than substantive. By rebranding their DEI bureaucracies in this way, institutions appear to comply with new restrictions while effectively continuing the same policies and practices.
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) argued that the push to ban or defund campus DEI programs is legally and practically problematic. She noted that after numerous debates, “we just don’t have a clear definition” of what would be banned, making any enforcement chaotic and likely unconstitutional. Bonamici reminded colleagues that academic freedom is protected by the First Amendment and that to “muzzle topics dealing with diversity, equity, and inclusion” would be a “narrow-minded restraint on free speech,” violating core legal principles. She also pointed out the hypocrisy of attacking DEI under the guise of merit while simultaneously cutting funds for civil rights enforcement (Office for Civil Rights), suggesting that genuine compliance with nondiscrimination laws is being undermined by those very attacks.
Impact on Historically Marginalized Communities and Institutions
Renu Mukherjee (Manhattan Institute) argued that DEI initiatives backfire against the very communities they intend to help. She cautioned that policies like racial preferences end up stigmatizing underrepresented minority students by fostering the perception that those students were admitted or hired for their identity rather than merit. According to Ms. Mukherjee, this false notion – that some minority students are “intellectually inferior” because of DEI-driven standards – is dangerous and demoralizing, ultimately harming those students’ confidence and standing on campus.
Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.) stressed the devastating impact of rolling back DEI programs on marginalized institutions and groups, especially HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities). She noted that HBCUs are more than just schools – they are “lifelines” for communities that have been denied equal opportunity for generations, nurturing talent and uplifting entire neighborhoods. Rep. Adams warned that when policymakers cut funding for DEI or politicize efforts to promote inclusion, they are effectively telling first-generation college students, veterans, students of color, students with disabilities, and those from low-income communities that their futures matter less. This, she said, is unacceptable – narrowing educational opportunity under the false pretense of “preserving merit” only undermines the promise of equal opportunity in higher education.
Dr. Shaun Harper likewise underscored that eliminating DEI support would hurt a broad spectrum of students and faculty who rely on these programs. He explained that DEI offices and initiatives make campuses more accessible and fair for all kinds of under-served populations – not only racial and ethnic minorities, but also women, low-income and rural students (including poor white students), veterans, people with disabilities, LGBTQ students, and religious minorities. Dr. Harper argued that gutting these programs would leave those groups even more underserved and vulnerable in campus life. He further remarked that if the federal government punished universities for DEI efforts by withdrawing funds, “our entire democracy will be most hurt,” suggesting that the consequences of dismantling inclusion efforts extend beyond campuses to society at large.
Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) contended that DEI policies actually hurt the very groups they intend to help. He argued that emphasizing race in education outcomes has been “disastrous” for low-income and minority students, claiming it instills a victim mindset and causes these students to doubt whether their achievements are due to merit or just their skin color. Owens suggested that the focus on identity can leave students from marginalized communities less prepared (or more indebted) than if they had been pushed to compete on equal footing from the start.
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) countered that eliminating DEI programs would disproportionately harm marginalized groups across the board. She highlighted that campus DEI initiatives support not only racial minorities but also other underrepresented populations – including first-generation college students, veterans, students with disabilities, and women – by creating a more inclusive environment. Bonamici’s line of questioning underscored that all these diverse student groups stand to lose resources and advocacy if diversity programs are rolled back, undercutting the broader goal of equal opportunity in higher education.
Role of Standardized Testing and Merit-Based Evaluation
Dr. Kurt Miceli (Do No Harm) criticized what he sees as a DEI-driven move away from traditional merit-based evaluation in both higher education and medical training. He pointed to changes like the adoption of pass/fail grading and the deemphasis of standardized tests or academic metrics in admissions, stating that under some DEI frameworks “merit plays a secondary role” to ideological goals. Dr. Miceli contended that such changes erode the high standards that once defined American education and could result in graduates (or new doctors) who are less qualified, undermining overall excellence under the guise of equity.
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) broached the question of testing and merit, asking whether universities can maintain high academic standards while also achieving student diversity. In response, Dr. Shaun Harper affirmed that academic excellence and diversity are not mutually exclusive – colleges can have both. He noted real-world examples at highly selective institutions where students of color excel and graduate at rates equal to or above their peers, proving that a diverse student body can also be a high-merit student body. Dr. Harper also addressed the role of standardized exams, observing that during the pandemic many colleges dropped SAT/ACT requirements and “the quality of the student body did not decrease.” Students admitted without heavy reliance on test scores performed just as successfully, which, he argued, demonstrates that standardized tests are often overvalued as measures of merit and can unjustly limit access for capable students.
Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) insisted that objective academic criteria should remain paramount in college admissions and hiring. He cast doubt on the fairness of diversity considerations, implying that adjusting standards for certain groups can dilute the meaning of achievement. Harris maintained that every student should rise or fall on their own merits (such as test scores, grades, and qualifications) and suggested that “equality of opportunity” is best ensured by enforcing the same high expectations for all, without regard to race or background.
Political and Ideological Framing of the DEI Debate
Dr. Kurt Miceli and other witnesses supportive of the majority’s view characterized DEI itself as a divisive ideological agenda. Dr. Miceli described DEI as a “destructive and divisive ideology” that sorts individuals into identity groups and “splits people off…into camps.” He insisted that this approach injects politics into academia and research – focusing on group identity and perceived oppression – at the expense of objective truth and open dialogue. In his view, DEI’s ideological bias is antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge, and he deemed such influence “unacceptable” in scientific research or education.
Dr. Shaun Harper, on the other hand, pushed back against what he called a fundamental mischaracterization of DEI by its critics. He noted that opponents repeatedly cast DEI as a nefarious or divisive concept, when in reality “DEI is so much more than that.” Dr. Harper explained that diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives include common-sense practices – for example, ensuring diverse participation in clinical research trials so that medical breakthroughs benefit all populations – which are about fairness and effectiveness, not division. He argued that the ongoing attacks on DEI have been largely political, fueled by misinformation and exaggerations rather than evidence. According to Dr. Harper, these “politicized attacks” rely on anecdotal incidents and extreme cases to paint DEI as universally harmful, while ignoring a large body of data and research that shows the positive impacts of inclusion. In sum, he urged the subcommittee to recognize that the anti-DEI movement is driven more by ideology and culture-war rhetoric than by facts, whereas genuine DEI efforts are grounded in studies and values that strengthen educational institutions and democracy.
Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) framed the fight over campus DEI in stark ideological terms. He asserted that modern diversity and inclusion rhetoric draws from cultural Marxism, claiming that DEI advocates seek to rewrite history and replace individual grit with identity as the determinant of one’s destiny. According to Owens, DEI’s philosophy is “demeaning and racist to its core” – teaching that people are either “evil oppressors or helpless…victims” based solely on their ancestry. He warned that this worldview is fundamentally incompatible with American values of individual merit, and he vowed to fight to “never go back” to policies that, in his view, divide Americans by race.
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) argued that the very premise of the hearing was a political distraction. He charged that House Republicans are using hot-button issues like “DEI” to draw attention away from their unpopular proposals to cut education, healthcare, and social programs. Scott noted that Republicans “make things more expensive and life more difficult” for working families, “then they try to distract [the public] with issues that have no real impact on their quality of life.” He encouraged Americans not to be misled by this narrative and vowed that Democrats will “stand and fight for equity and equality” for everyone, because “everyone deserves to have access to a quality education” in an America as good as its promise.
Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) pushed back on the portrayal of DEI as anti-American by invoking American ideals and history. He reminded the Committee of the national motto “E Pluribus Unum” (Out of many, one) – underscoring that America’s strength lies in uniting people of diverse backgrounds. Takano said this principle “accepts diversity [and] embraces inclusivity and equity,” suggesting that DEI efforts are in line with the country’s founding values of pluralism. In his view, promoting diversity and inclusion is not a divisive agenda but rather a fulfillment of America’s democratic ideal, fostering unity and equal opportunity rather than conflict.