House subcommittee clashes over role of DEI in higher education and medicine

The House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development held a hearing Oct. 26 on diversity, equity and inclusion policies in higher education and medicine, with witnesses and members sharply divided over whether DEI advances student opportunity or amounts to unlawful, anti‑merit practices.

The dispute centered on competing claims over the educational and research benefits of DEI and on recent federal and state actions that have curtailed programs and grants that include DEI language. Proponents said research supports DEI’s educational benefits and warned that funding cuts harm historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and students from underrepresented or low‑income backgrounds. Critics said some DEI practices violate nondiscrimination laws, have led to funding decisions that should be reexamined, and have harmed standards in fields such as medicine.

The hearing opened with Chairman Owens (subcommittee) laying out procedures and the four witnesses: Dan Morinoff, introduced to the committee as executive director of the American Civil Rights Project in Dallas; Dr. Sean Harper, a tenured professor at the University of Southern California; Renee Mukherjee (introduced as a witness; affiliation not specified in oral remarks); and Dr. Kurt Miceli, identified as medical director of Do No Harm in Glen Allen, Virginia. Each witness gave roughly a three‑ to five‑minute opening statement followed by rounds of questions from members.

Dan Morinoff argued that many campus DEI practices have been misread as lawful under Supreme Court precedent and that federal incentives have encouraged unlawful race‑based hiring, promotion and scholarships. He told the subcommittee that "there is a lot to say about how [the administration] has" and urged congressional action, saying Congress should amend the Higher Education Act to limit accreditor leverage and "deauthorize and defund programs like the FIRST program" described as incentivizing practices he said could violate Title VI and Title VII.

Dr. Sean Harper said he testified as a researcher and argued that extensive, peer‑reviewed research shows net educational benefits from diverse and inclusive learning environments. He cited federal data on six‑year graduation rates at elite institutions and said "more than 50 years of research has repeatedly shown the positive educational benefits and outcomes associated with diverse and inclusive learning environments for all students." Harper also warned that abrupt removal of DEI‑tied funding has forced institutions, including HBCUs, to cut programs and research.

Renee Mukherjee told the subcommittee she opposed racial preferences and said many institutions continue DEI practices or rename DEI offices while keeping functions unchanged. She cited reporting and polling to say that hundreds of universities still have DEI offices and that 17 states have passed legislation restricting race‑based preferences. She told members bluntly that "racial preferences and DEI should be rejected. Full stop."

Dr. Kurt Miceli focused on medicine, saying that DEI has moved from inclusion efforts to what he described as ideology that can undermine training and patient care. On a point members raised repeatedly, Miceli cited systematic reviews of racial concordance research and summarized: "4 out of 5 of systematic reviews... find that there's no difference in outcome based on racial concordance." He criticized accreditation standards that, he said, tie DEI outcomes to program approval and said some accreditors have reconsidered enforcement of such standards.

Members' questions reflected partisan and substantive concerns. Some members pressed witnesses on whether standardized tests or legacy and preferential policies produce measurable harms. Others asked for citations and pressed on definitions — several members noted there is no single, universally accepted definition of DEI. Representative McBath and others warned the committee that cuts to DEI‑related funding can damage access and supports for low‑income students, veterans and students with disabilities. Representative Takano and Representative Adams emphasized workforce and research arguments in favor of DEI, including that employers and a broad body of research value graduates able to work and lead on diverse teams.

Witnesses and members repeatedly referenced legal authorities and court decisions, including the Supreme Court decisions that have limited race‑conscious admissions — for example, Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA) — and older cases such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger. Members also discussed Titles VI and VII of federal civil‑rights law and the effect of executive orders and federal agency funding rules on campus programs.

The hearing record was kept open for 14 days for submission of written statements and supporting material. No formal committee votes were taken at the hearing.

Looking ahead, members on both sides said more hearings and oversight are possible; some advocated legislative fixes, including amending the Higher Education Act or clarifying accreditors' authority over program requirements. The subcommittee did not adopt or direct specific policy at the hearing; members used the forum to collect testimony and press witnesses for evidence and examples.

The hearing transcript and materials remain part of the committee record.