Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, chairman of the House Oversight Committee’s Task Force on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Constitutional Abuses (boy, is that a mouthful), held a hearing on Wednesday to question ABA President Michelle A. Behnke about the organization’s influence over law school accreditation.
Gill:
“DEI is a cancerous ideology that promotes unlawful discrimination and steals opportunities from Americans who would otherwise earn jobs and law school admissions spots on merit. The ABA has abused its accreditation power to force harmfully racist and often illegal DEI policies and coursework in law schools across the nation.”
Behnke is a conventional left-liberal who is used to speaking progressive slogans and platitudes. Meritocracy is not one of the slogans that Behnke would ever utter. Behnke expects both parties to treat her remarks as if they are worth taking seriously. She was definitely not prepared for the onslaught that Rep. Gill brought to the hearing. And, since this was Gill’s own hearing, one of his colleagues graciously yielded his own time so Gill could continue to turn up the heat on the ABA and its discriminatory practices.
Dr. Tom Woods had graciously provided us with a transcript of the exchange.
Note Gill’s first question: the stuff he references about everyone having implicit biases is the kind of thing leftists push on the rest of us. We need special sensitivity training to take the worst edges off our terrible biases, but we can never be fully rid of them, etc.
Gill just isn’t tolerating any of this and deftly uses the ABA’s own website to question Behnke. This results in Gill asking what “implicit biases” do you have, O holy one sitting in judgment on the rest of us?
That question is not supposed to be put to them. But Gill did it.
Gill: Miss Behnke, according to the ABA’s website,”All of us have implicit biases.” Would you agree with that statement?
Behnke: The ABA believes that diversity, equity and inclusion improves —
Gill: Would you agree with the statement that “All of us have implicit biases,” from the ABA’s website?
Behnke: The ABA believes that diversity in all of —
Gill: Is that a yes? Can I take that — it’s a yes-or-no question. Do you believe that all of us have implicit biases, as your website says?
Behnke: The ABA looks to remove barriers and we —
Gill: That’s not my question, ma’am. Do you believe that all of us have implicit biases?
Behnke: I’ve expressed what the ABA is doing —
Gill: That is that is the ABA’s position as expressed by their website. Against which groups do you have implicit biases?
Behnke: The ABA believes that it’s important to always —
Gill: Are you going to filibuster? Because it doesn’t make you sound very good. I’m going to ask you again: against which groups do you have implicit biases?
Behnke: It’s important to always examine everyone’s point of view and where they may need to consider —
Gill: What about your point of view?
Behnke: I am here as the president of the American Bar Association —
Gill: And I’m asking you what your implicit biases are.
Behnke: The ABA as an entity —
Gill: Have you reflected on your implicit biases?
Behnke: I think about how I operate the world constantly.
Gill: Would you like to explain to us what they are?
Behnke: I am here speaking on behalf of the ABA and the ABA —
Gill: We’re going to move on. Was race a factor in Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination?
Behnke: I have no idea how that process works. I’m a real estate lawyer.
Gill: President Biden stated, “I’ve made no decision except one. And that’s that that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.” So I think it’s fair to say that race was a factor and gender were factors in that nomination process, wouldn’t you agree?
Behnke: You would have to have a conversation —
Gill: He explicitly stated that. So I think it’s fair to say — you’re a lawyer. I think that’s fair to say. Do you think that it’s just or righteous that Joe Biden explicitly excluded black men in the nomination process for the Supreme Court vacancy?
Behnke: The ABA does not support discrimination of any sort —
Gill: So you don’t think that it was proper for Joe Biden to exclude every group other than black women, in deciding who should fill that Supreme Court vacancy? Is that your testimony?
Behnke: The ABA relishes diversity, equity and inclusion —
Gill: Right, but is it acceptable for Joe Biden to exclude black men in the nomination pool for the Supreme Court?
Behnke: The ABA never supports discrimination.
Gill: That’s good to hear. And you believe, I think, tell me if, um, that the Supreme Court should roughly resemble the racial diversity of the country?
Behnke: The ABA does not believe that quotas are appropriate.
Gill: According to the ABA’s mission statement on its website, it states that it increases the quality of our judicial system whenever judges resemble the vast racial diversity of our society. Would you say that it’s helpful, it’s beneficial if our Supreme Court resembles the racial diversity of America?
Behnke: The ABA believes that diversity in all of its forms is important —
Gill: So it is a good thing.
Behnke: People should be able to bring all of who they are, whether they be from —
Gill: Can you define diversity here? Should the Supreme Court resemble America’s racial makeup roughly. It’s a yes-or-no question.
Behnke: The ABA does not support quotas —
Gill: I’m not asking about quotas. I’m asking if it should roughly resemble America’s racial makeup.
Behnke: It should represent all of what people are —
Gill: Of what people are. Okay, so right now, there’s about two of nine of Supreme Court justices, are black. That’s about 22% of the Supreme Court. According to your testimony, about 13% of America’s population is black. If the Supreme Court should roughly resemble America’s demographic makeup, as the ABA states is proper, in your opinion, regardless of qualifications, should the Senate refuse to confirm a third black Supreme Court justice?
Behnke: The ABA supports and encourages diversity in all of its forms —
Gill: That wasn’t my question. My question was, if a Supreme Court vacancy opens up, should the Senate refuse to confirm a third black Supreme Court nominee based on his race or her race?
Behnke: The ABA does not support quotas.
That’s the end of the first exchange. Then this:
Gill: The mission statement on the ABA’s website states that our legal profession is enhanced when judges resemble the cultural groups that make up American society. How many Supreme Court justices have we had in American history?
Behnke: I could not tell you over the.
Gill: Is that 116? Um, do you know of those 116? How many of them have been transgender?
Behnke: I have no idea.
Gill: Do you think there might have been one?
Behnke: I have no idea.
Gill: Is it fair to say that there have been no transgender Supreme Court justices in American history?
Behnke: I honestly have no idea.
Gill: You don’t know?
Behnke: I have no idea.
Gill: You study the law, don’t you?
Behnke: We do not study the personal attributes of individual justices.
Gill: Is there a Supreme Court justice in American history that you think might have been transgender?
Behnke: I have no idea.
Gill: You have no idea. Well, I think most people can assume that there haven’t been any transgender Supreme Court justices. I hope that we can agree, at least on that basis. Um, would that be okay to proceed under that assumption? Okay. I appreciate that. Um, so transgenders haven’t been represented on the Supreme Court. Do you think that it’s important that the next Supreme Court justice be transgender?
Behnke: The ABA does not subscribe to any particular quotas.
Gill: I’m not asking about a quota. I’m asking about representation, diversity, equity and inclusion.
Behnke: The ABA supports diversity in all of its forms.
Gill: And transgender has been included on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Behnke: The ABA supports the full spectrum of —
Gill: Do you think that it’s a problem that the transgender community has never had representation on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Behnke: The ABA believes in diversity, equity and inclusion, and —
Gill: I’m asking you about diversity, equity and inclusion. I’m asking you about inclusion of the transgender community.
Behnke: We believe that people ought to bring their entire self to whatever role they’re serving.
Gill: You’re refusing to answer my question. Do you think that it’s important that we have a transgender Supreme Court justice?
Behnke: I believe that it’s —
Gill: In order to include that community.
Behnke: I believe that it is always important — the ABA believes that it is always important to support and encourage diversity.
Gill: So we should have a transgender Supreme Court justice.
Behnke: Diversity has many forms and we believe that —
Gill: Do you think that you’re not answering in a straightforward way? Do you think that’s because of your own implicit bias?
Behnke: I believe that I’m trying to explain that the ABA does not set quotas and does not believe —
Gill: Do you have implicit transphobia?
Behnke: The ABA believes that diversity in all of its forms is important and helps the profession more globally.
Gill: Okay, we’re going to move on. Should Americans be judged by the color of their skin or the content of their character?
Behnke: Discrimination is never appropriate, sir.
Gill: So do you agree that Americans should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin?
Behnke: Yes, I would agree.
Gill: You agree with that? Should should a law school consider an applicant’s race when making admissions decisions?
Behnke: The Supreme Court has indicated that.
Gill: I’m asking you if they should. It’s a normative question.
Behnke: Discrimination is never appropriate.
Gill: And so is it your testimony that law schools should not consider applicants’ race when making admissions decisions?
Behnke: The Supreme Court has said that you may not take race into account.
Gill: So you don’t believe that race should have any role, yes or no, in a law school’s admissions decisions? Is that the position of the ABA?
Behnke: The ABA is not responsible for admissions.
Gill: I didn’t say it was. I’m asking you if you if you believe, and if it’s the position of the ABA, that race should not be a factor at all in a law school’s admissions decisions.
Behnke: The ABA takes compliance with the law seriously.
Gill: I didn’t ask you that, I asked — it’s a really simple question. I’m asking you, should it? Let me just ask you, in your own personal capacity, should race be a factor in law school admissions decisions? The question is a yes-or-no question.
Behnke: I am here in my —
Gill: Yes or no. Should race be a factor in law school admissions decisions? Because according to the ABA, it should. The ABA has said explicitly that they have a long history of supporting consideration of race in law school admissions. Is that your testimony, that law schools should continue taking into account race?
Behnke: The Supreme Court indicated that diversity is a laudable goal and the ABA supports diversity in all –
Gill: This is embarrassing for you. You ought to be able to answer this in a very straightforward way. Um, and with that, the time is up.
This is not supposed to happen when you are a woke leftist. No one is supposed to poke holes in your world-view. Nobody has ever subjected them to questioning like this. So, what did they do? They squirmed and retreated into robot mode.