'They Have Difficulty In Defining What A Woman Is': Palmer Slams Hundreds Of Pages Of Regulations

5 months ago

At a House Oversight Committee hearing last week, Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) spoke about discrimination in work.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00applicants. Chair now recognizes Mr. Palmer from Alabama. Thank you, Mr.

00:07Chairman. Last July, 13 state attorney generals from across the country

00:12co signed a letter directed to the CEOs of Fortune 100 companies, warning them

00:18of the serious legal consequences over race based employment preferences and

00:22diversity policies. They did that in consequence of the decision of students

00:28for fair admission versus Harvard. Mr. Berry, can you speak to the impact or

00:34apple applicability of that case on the legality of D. I. Corporate policy in

00:41both the federal and state context? Certainly. So the while it arises in the

00:47context of university admissions, the Harvard case looks at some of the most

00:53commonly proffered justifications for racial preferences and finds them

00:59lacking as a matter of strict scrutiny constitutionally and statutorily under

01:03titles title six. Um, that that disapproval of the supposed, uh, the

01:09presented pedagogical benefits of skin color, not viewpoint skin color

01:13diversity, for example, that was that was rejected. And those same kinds of

01:18rationales for, um, skin color diver diversity would not be available in the

01:25title seven context, I think, is the most natural reading. So should

01:28companies look to modify their hiring practices? So some are. Others have not

01:33gotten the memo and are still pretending that these are completely distinct,

01:37which is not a good reading. D. I. Is good for for business. Isn't that

01:41corporatism over individual rights? So historically, money making has never

01:48been a judicially cognizable rationale for racial discrimination, and there's

01:52no reason we should be starting with that now. Thank you for that

01:55clarification, Mr Rokita. Uh, I think your state was one of the states that

02:01were included in those letters. The Fortune 500 companies. Um,

02:09the Democrat state attorney general attorneys general criticized this

02:14letter. They condemned it for its tone of intimidation, which purposely six

02:17to undermine efforts to reduce racial inequalities in corporate America. How

02:21do you respond to that critique?

02:24Well, the fact of the matter is, attorneys general have a duty to

02:28enforce the law. And what we were doing in that letter unapologetically was

02:34enforcing Title seven, which says it's unlawful to discriminate on the basis

02:40of sex, color, religion. And that's exactly what a D. I. Program does. By

02:46definition, it has to. It has to go against, uh, Title seven. And it's

02:53surprising because we're all celebrating here and in most places. Uh,

02:59how how good Title seven has been over the decades. I've heard testimony and

03:04comments from both sides of the aisle here today and to have attorneys

03:08general say, Well, uh, enforcing Title seven is now threatening, uh, is

03:14disheartening and and confusing and sad. So, um, we stand by our letter.

03:22Uh, in where appropriate, when we can, we will enforce the law. So you're

03:29basically saying that you want to protect the rights of all Americans

03:33right in terms of their opportunity to gain civil rights act envisioned. I

03:39agree with you, and I'm grateful for the position that you've taken on that.

03:43Um, Miss Stepman, uh, in your role, a senior policy and legal analyst for

03:50W. F. Um, you have promoted policies that advance women's rights. I've been

03:57involved with I. W. F. Uh, for many years, having worked in the think tank

04:01world and really very appreciative of what you, uh, your organization has

04:05done. What does some of these policies look like from your perspective in

04:11terms of your efforts to to end discrimination across the board in

04:18regard to women? Right now we're focusing a lot on protecting the

04:22rights of women under both Title seven and Title nine. Um, in the face of a

04:28redefinition of the word sex that somehow eviscerates all of the

04:34protections that women have counted on, relied on, fought for when it comes to

04:39males who claim identity as the opposite sex. Um, and in the Title

04:44seven context, as I said, we've in my testimony, we've already received

04:48inquiries from women who are being forced to shower with fully intact, you

04:54know, males as part of their job. Um, when again, you know, it's it's a funny

05:00in the context where the definition that the E. O. C. Enforces of harassment

05:05is in so many other cases so stretched, right? Um, you know, a stray joke and

05:11unintentional remark, right? Can be characterized as creating a hostile

05:16working environment on the basis of sex. And yet a man waiting to shower with

05:20his colleagues to see them naked in the shower is considered not just, um, not

05:26qualifying as harassment, but actually something that's required by the E. O.

05:30C. Well, it's not required by Title seven. So

05:34just one last point here, Mr Chairman, is that the Biden administration dropped

05:3915 over almost 1600 pages of regulations that redefine sex include

05:44gender identity. In other words, they have difficulty in defining what a

05:47woman is. Uh, what was the Biden in your opinion? What was the Biden

05:52administration primary goal in administering these regulations?

05:56I mean, I can't speak for the Biden administration, but it seems to be to

06:00cater to, you know, their own activist side. Um, this is definitely not good

06:06for women. This has consequences far reaching, and it's actually frankly,

06:10that the regulations, as you you mentioned, are 1577 pages long. There's

06:13a lot in there. This redefinition of sex obviously has massive consequences

06:17for women in sports and locker rooms. Um, but there is a lot else in there

06:22that's bad for everybody. These regulations gut due process and

06:26contravenance of federal courts who have said that it's necessary to

06:30provide every American with due process when accusing them something

06:33as serious as sexual harassment. They eat into what the Supreme Court has

06:38clearly said is protected speech in terms of, for example, using pronouns

06:43that match the biological sex of a person and also just, you know, any

06:47kind of remarks about, for example, the role of men and women in society.

06:51You've seen the definition under Title nine of harassment expand and expand

06:56expand. And once again in these regulations, that's put into guidance

07:00and now regulation by the Biden administration in a way that's totally

07:04contrary to the idea of free speech and is frankly insulting to the idea again

07:09that we're trying to prevent, which is actual sexual harassment that everyone

07:12would recognize. A son. Thank you for your testimony. Apologies. Have you see

07:17request? I'd like to seek unanimous consent to enter into the record this

07:20follow up letter from 21. Uh, A. G. S. Um,

'They Have Difficulty In Defining What A Woman Is': Palmer Slams Hundreds Of Pages Of Regulations

Category

Transcript

Recommended