Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House subcommittee hearing features sharp disagreement over diversity, equity and inclusion policies
Loading...
Summary
A House Oversight subcommittee hearing on DEI drew sharply divergent testimony on whether DEI is lawful or harmful, with witnesses and members citing Supreme Court rulings, federal executive orders and studies while exchanging sharply different accounts of DEI's effects on workplaces, campuses and government programs.
Chairman Grothman opened a House Oversight subcommittee hearing saying the session would "focus on the destructive diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI policies" and framed the inquiry as tracing modern DEI back to affirmative-action policies and Executive Order 11246, first issued in 1965.
The hearing brought competing views on whether DEI is lawful, whether it helps or harms people and institutions, and whether federal policy should promote or restrict DEI programs. Supporters said DEI addresses long-standing disparities in health, education and employment; critics said DEI substitutes racial balancing for colorblind law and open markets.
Why this matters: Members of this oversight subcommittee, whose jurisdiction includes health care and financial services, debated whether DEI belongs on its agenda while witnesses advocated policy changes ranging from stronger enforcement of civil-rights laws to ending race- and sex-based contracting preferences.
The witnesses delivered sharply different portraits of DEI. Dan Leamington, identified in the hearing as managing vice president and deputy counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, told the committee that "DEI treats individuals as members of racial groups and then aims to even out the outcomes through racial balancing," a practice he said conflicts with recent Supreme Court rulings. He said his organization has represented more than 80 clients alleging harm from DEI programs and urged Congress to "root out all benefits and preferences for 'socially disadvantaged individuals'" embedded in federal law.
Dr. Eric Smith, introduced as a research fellow at the Cato Institute, said many modern DEI practices "have transformed into a sprawling ideology that undermines academic rigor, weakens individual accountability, and consumes public and student resources." He said some DEI practices draw on critical theory and are damaging to viewpoint diversity on campuses.
Dr. Sean Harper, introduced as a provost professor at the University of Southern California, framed DEI programs as efforts to redress historical unfairness. "America owes the enslaved Africans who built the White House and The US Capitol Building," he said, and he pointed to health and economic disparities as continuing harms that warrant remedial policies. Harper cited a Kellogg Foundation analysis saying closing racial gaps in health, education and employment would materially raise GDP, and he recited statistics on health disparities discussed at the hearing.
Rank-and-file members also differed sharply. Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi criticized the hearing topic as unrelated to the panel's health-care and financial-services jurisdiction and warned that rolling back programs tied to DEI could reduce supports such as housing and nutrition assistance. Chairman Grothman defended the choice of topic as aimed at "educating young people" about what he described as the effects of preferences and said the committee would press the issue.
The hearing included repeated legal references. Witnesses and members cited Executive Order 11246 (1965), the Civil Rights Act, Title VI, Title VII, the Fourteenth Amendment and a 2023 Supreme Court decision that limited race-based admissions at colleges. Witnesses on the panel urged legislative and enforcement responses ranging from expanding funding for civil-rights enforcement agencies to repealing or narrowing statutory programs that allocate preferences by race or sex.
No formal committee actions, motions or votes were taken during the hearing. Members asked witnesses for proposals and supporting evidence; members on both sides requested documents for the record and reserved five legislative days to submit additional materials.
Looking ahead: Members on opposing sides signaled plans to continue oversight and possible legislative activity. Some members said the subcommittee should return to inquiries more directly tied to health and financial-services oversight, while the chairman said the panel would continue investigating DEI across institutions.
