Experts warn of DEI dangers at House Education Hearing
Expert Witnesses Condemn DEI Programs on College Campuses
During a hearing held by the Republican-led House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development, expert witnesses passionately criticized Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs on college campuses.
The hearing, titled “Divisive, Excessive, Ineffective: The Real Impact of DEI on College Campuses,” was led by Rep. Burgess Owens (R., Utah). In his opening statement, Owens described the DEI agenda as “a long-growing cancer that resides at the heart of American academic institutions.”
Owens further stated, ”DEI bureaucracies are hired not only to control conversations but to also stifle free speech and open discourse while asserting leverage on every aspect of university management—personnel, curriculum, policy, and college admissions.”
One of the experts who testified against DEI was Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, former University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine associate dean and father of Washington Free Beacon chairman Michael Goldfarb. Dr. Goldfarb expressed his concern, saying, “I’ve 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.”
According to Stanley’s testimony, medical students at American universities are now learning about “intersectionality, oppression, colonization, and white supremacy among other core DEI topics.” Additionally, faculty and staff at medical schools are routinely required to sign DEI loyalty oaths. Stanley emphasized, “Once identity politics takes over, then one of the natural consequences is divisiveness and antagonism between groups because now we’re putting people into these groups.”
Dr. Jay Greene, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and Dr. Erec Smith, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, also supported Stanley’s testimony. Greene argued that DEI programs “advance a worldview that undermines diversity, promotes exclusion, and opposes the equal treatment of individuals based on merit.” He highlighted that American universities employ an average of 45 bureaucrats in their DEI programs, which “stifle inquiry and end debate with the ostensible purpose of protecting marginalized populations.”
Smith accused DEI of perpetuating racism, stating, “DEI is harmful to the very people it claims to help; it stifles agency and, paradoxically, is decidedly anti-black.” He criticized DEI proponents for promoting the idea that black students should believe “the world is out to get them” and that success can only be achieved by betraying their race.
The House hearing took place amidst increasing scrutiny of university DEI programs, which have faced pressure from “legal, economic, and geopolitical forces,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Additionally, two chief DEI officers—Sherri Ann Charleston of Harvard University and Alade McKen of Columbia University’s medical school—were exposed for extensive plagiarism in their academic work.
According to the witnesses, what are the negative consequences of diverting resources from academic pursuits to fund DEI programs in universities
The focus on medical education shifts away from teaching the necessary knowledge and skills required to become competent and compassionate physicians.”
Dr. Goldfarb’s concerns reflect a broader sentiment among the expert witnesses who condemned DEI programs during the hearing. Many argued that these programs are not only divisive but also ineffective in achieving their intended goals.
Another expert witness, Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, criticized the use of DEI programs to promote a victimhood mentality among students. She claimed that DEI initiatives perpetuate a culture of grievance and entitlement, discouraging intellectual exploration and critical thinking. Mac Donald argued that universities should prioritize intellectual diversity and rigorous academic standards instead of indulging in the empty rhetoric of DEI.
Moreover, the witnesses questioned the excessive administrative and financial burden of DEI programs. They argued that universities are diverting valuable resources from academic pursuits to fund administrative positions and initiatives related to DEI. The funds could have been better invested in improving educational resources, faculty development, and scholarship opportunities for students.
The hearing was not without its detractors, as some advocates for DEI programs argue that they are necessary to promote inclusivity and fairness on college campuses. They claim that DEI initiatives create spaces where historically marginalized groups can thrive and have their voices heard. However, the expert witnesses maintained that DEI programs have gone too far, infringing on academic freedom and undermining the mission of higher education.
As the hearing concluded, Rep. Owens reiterated the need to address the growing concerns surrounding DEI programs. He vowed to continue scrutinizing the impact of these programs on college campuses and advocate for policies that uphold free speech and intellectual diversity.
While the opinions on DEI programs remain deeply divided, this hearing shed light on the criticisms they face from expert witnesses. These witnesses, through their testimonies, questioned the effectiveness, divisiveness, and excessive nature of DEI initiatives in higher education. As discussions and debates continue, it is crucial to find a balance that promotes inclusivity while preserving academic integrity and freedom.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Now loading...