Indiana Lawmakers is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.

Indiana Lawmakers from the statehouse to your house.

DEI or diversity.

Equity and inclusion programs emphasize equal opportunity and access.

All aimed at dismantling social, economic and political barriers for individuals from underrepresented groups.

These principles in American government stem from the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

The concept and the programs associated with the AI have become far more visible in recent years, after the highly publicized death of George Floyd.

More corporations and businesses began adopting Dei initiatives recently, though state legislatures such as those in Texas and North Carolina have led the charge in dismantling state level the AI policies.

Indiana's new governor, Mike Braun, issued an executive order that essentially replaces the AI with MEI, which stands for merit, excellence and innovation.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, issued an order within hours of his second inauguration, effectively eliminating D-I positions, programs and policies throughout the federal government.

Recent changes in policy may reflect growing skepticism about the AIS benefits.

In 2024, a Pew Research survey found that workers were less likely to support D-I programs than in previous years.

welcome to the studio two of our state's most passionate and articulate office holders, who happen to be on opposite sides of this issue.

Indiana Lieutenant Governor Micah Beckwith, a newly elected Republican from Noblesville, and Democratic Senator Andrea Hunley of Indianapolis, the Senate's assistant minority leader.

Thank you both for being here, and I should.

Is this what they call a point of personal privilege if you're the presiding officer of the Senate?

there were.

We invited authors of some of the bills we're going to be talking about who declined?

Perhaps this is too controversial.

Not too controversial for a bill, but too controversial, perhaps for discussion.

You graciously accepted our invitation, governor, so I thank you.

I love.

The controversy.

Well, we'll see.

We'll see.

We'll see.

Let's let's, you know, this issue sort of it's been bubbling for a long time.

Certainly.

It's sort of been building, and being taking shape since the 1960s.

And the civil rights movement burst into the headlines nationally, certainly with Donald Trump's executive order.

One of the first things he did as president banning DEI at the federal level.

But I guess he was kind of a late comer to the issue because Mike Braun, the governor, your your compatriot, actually did it basically a week before at the state level with an executive order, saying that the state agencies, anybody to get state money would not be able to have these offices or these policies that that that engage in DEI training or promotion.

What is the administration's thinking about, behind that executive order?

Well, it's it has nothing to do with discriminating.

We don't want discrimination.

And that's the whole point.

We feel DEI has been a mechanism for discrimination.

And it's it's gotten out of out of control, especially over the last decade.

a lot of people have seen that, what Governor Braun did was he brought me into the talking, the talking points, which is merit, excellence in innovation.

And we want everyone to have equal opportunity.

I mean, we we ran on freedom and opportunity for everybody, no matter your race, ethnicity, religion, lifestyle, whatever it is, if you're a Hoosier, we want to have.

We want you to have an opportunity to do great things, use your God given gifts and your talents to go out there and make a better life for yourself.

But unfortunately, Dei tends to push more of the equity, and I see equity as equal outcomes.

And that's where we we probably disagree with our friends across the aisle where it's like, hey, the government's job is not to make equal outcomes happen.

It's to make equal opportunities so we can all have a chance to succeed.

So just let me dive a little deeper.

So you personally and the administration you like diversity 100 notion of diverse.

Yes, absolutely.

You like the notion of inclusion I'll jump over the E for we go.

Yeah.

it's the equity.

But you even like equity.

It's just that you don't.

Well, now, look, don't word your mouth.

What's wrong with the equity?

Well, if you say it with this equality, I'm all for equality.

But I think equity is kind of been hijacked.

It sounds good.

It's a good word.

But sometimes what happens is people think it means equal outcomes.

So it's the haves versus the have nots, the a proletariat versus the bourgeoisie bourgeoisie.

It's the it's the oppressor versus the oppressed class.

And it creates a lot of division.

And we we believe that we got to have unity.

We got we got to be able to see people, that they're fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of their creator.

They have inherent worth just by being human.

I think the equity piece then creates this covetousness.

And then, you know, I'm a pastor, so the 10th commandment, thou shall not covet.

I think what it does maybe, maybe unintentionally, in some cases, it creates this covetousness kind of spirit that then gets locked into everybody's, you know, purview.

And then it's like, well, you have that.

I don't that means we're enemies now.

And I think that's what what Governor Braun, what the administration with Donald Trump is trying to fight against say, hey, we're all Americans, we're all Hoosiers.

We all we all want equal, opportunity.

and and we want the we want the ability to be able to make something better for ourselves.

So that's what that executive order was all about.

There's so many more questions, but I we do have another panelist that I'm guessing you're champing at the bit to chat as well.

Senator Andrea Huntley.

What's wrong with, with what your colleague here just articulated?

Well, I want to I want to get to to the piece where where we can agree, which is that, we believe that diversity is important, right?

We believe that it's important.

We believe that inclusion is important.

I think it's the how we get there that's the issue.

And I really appreciated how Governor Holcomb sought to get there.

He created the state's, first of a first chief, equity, inclusion and opportunity officer.

And he really wanted to focus on those inequities that are in the system and get to the root causes of those inequities and not just treat the symptoms.

And I think that what we see is, you know, people coveting one another.

I think that's a symptom of, you know, hundreds of years of inequality in our country.

And I think that that's the piece that we're talking about here is a systematic approach to addressing the systemic inequalities that have existed.

And, you know, I was a former English teacher.

I could expound for a long time on the differences between equity and equality and dig deep into the definitions.

But I think that there's just some confusion on what it really means to be equitable, which is giving every person what they need in order to be successful.

Yeah.

Centered on mentioning, Eric Holcomb and the fact that he had created this office, that's being discontinued, dismantled back in 2020 after George Floyd's, or around the time that there was such a national uproar, about that and concerns about systemic racism.

How why did he get it so wrong?

He's a he's a fellow Republican.

he was, that I think maybe more votes even to this state than any other state, person seeking state office.

in terms of your vote count, how did he get it so wrong?

Well, I think Governor Holcomb, his intentions were good, right?

As Senator Hanley says, I don't think it's, it's the intentions that we disagree on.

It's we want everyone to, to have opportunities.

We want people to be successful.

We want diversity.

We want to include people into this process of making sure that we're all rowing together.

I think it's just, how are we getting there now?

I see the, diversity officer that he hired.

I don't think it's very effective.

I don't just in general, I think the office was wasting a lot of taxpayer dollars.

Personally.

and I, you know, and I also, you know, what, something that senator only say is we want to give everyone what they need to be successful.

Well, my question to that is, who is the one giving the thing?

Right.

So is it the government's job to give everybody something that they need and what is the need?

I think again, those are the details.

And and we've got to dive into those details because if the need is freedom and equal justice under the law and liberty like I'm all good.

But when you start to say, well, it's more money for this person because they have the right skin color or it's a it's, it's an acceptance into a university because they fit the right ethnicity or background or lifestyle.

I was talking to a guy just last week.

He said I wanted to be a firefighter.

I applied at a local fire station, here in Indiana.

They told me I didn't meet the quotas.

Come back in seven years.

They literally told him that.

And so he didn't meet the quotas because you don't have a race, skin color.

And I don't believe that because we don't have quotas.

It's all of that.

And so and so that has been, that has been taken all the way up to the Supreme Court.

We we don't have quotas.

So that's something that would would surprise me if that were happening.

And we need to have more education around.

But I think that that the piece here that we have to remember is that replacing one program that we didn't like die with another program, MI is not going to get us the results that we want.

It's still a top down approach, and if the concern is that there's a top down approach, then we shouldn't just replace one program with another.

And meritocracy is a myth.

I mean, it is.

You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work your way out of a situation if you don't have any boots to do it with.

And so that's the piece where if you grew up in a community like I did up in Fort Wayne, where in my neighborhood we did not have access to high quality education.

We needed to be bust out of our neighborhood, into the suburbs, to have the opportunity to have the opportunity to go to high quality schools.

Right.

That is an equitable piece, right?

That, that we had that option in that choice in our neighborhood.

It was an equal for everybody in the city, but it was equitable for us.

It's those types of things.

It's creating the systems and structures to ensure that everybody can have those opportunities.

So let me ask.

You, though, you talk about quotas and talk of specific numbers being a, you know, a fiction, and yet and maybe that's the way things are moving, but the US Supreme Court in 2023 essentially said that, race based admissions were problematic and I think arguably were a number of schools that essentially looked at numbers somehow there were I don't know if there were specific quotas, but they said we want because they always talked about percentages of every incoming class being this or that or the other, and certainly with contracts, minority owned businesses traditionally have, gained advantages with state contracting and other public, in terms of bidding on are those I'm trying to understand the notion, of course.

So so if we say have gained advantage, I would argue that we're trying to create a more level playing field, because if you still look at the percentage of state contracts that go to what we kind of call xbi, right, are women veteran, businesses owned by folks with disabilities and businesses owned by folks who are traditionally underrepresented people of color.

This the sill, the percentage of contracts that go to those businesses is incredibly low.

And what we say when we say we would like for you to strive to have 10% of your contracts, 15% of your contracts.

That's saying stop going to your brothers, uncles, cousin who you know and giving them the contract, calling it merit, saying that they earned it, and actually look out there for other businesses who are doing things just as well, if not better, and give them the opportunity.

And so we're just creating a system matic approach to saying do better and diversifying who you're contracting with.

So just in keeping with your, hope that we can identify the areas where we agree and to bring clarity.

You're not saying there weren't numbers and targets and percentages.

That's not the part you were creating issue with.

You were taking issue with the notion of whether that was onerous to others, in the majority population.

So I guess there are numbers.

All right.

Where as long as we talking about contracts there, the governor's you know, the governor's order can be read and it says those state money agencies and get state money can't touch it, can't do it, can't hire.

What does that do to these contracts.

well I think it creates merit now.

I would.

Say so.

There are no there will be no set asides or no targets for minority owned businesses.

So I think it's going to be who can do the best job for the Hoosier taxpayer.

And I think that's, you know, Senator Huntley, I again, I love her heart.

And her heart is to engage everybody that we can.

But at the end of the day, we're here to serve Hoosiers with the tax money that we have the best that we and most efficiently that we can serve them.

And so there is a balance like we want to say, okay, like we if there's a if there's a minority owned, business and they can do the job just as well, then like okay, like compete for and I think you'll get the job.

But I think what we're have what we're seeing is we've seen the other the, the opposite where it's not the merit that we need, but because they fit a, they check a box, then we spend taxpayer dollars and we don't get the best outcome for, for taxpayers.

And I'm not for the old boys club either.

I kicked in the back door to get to where I am here, because the old boys club was telling me, you know, I'm not welcome in my own party, right?

And so there's it's on both sides of the issue, right?

I, I've seen it abused on the other side where it's my, my uncles, brothers, you know, dad was, you know, the GOP chair.

And so now it's just a family tradition and they'll let anybody else in.

That's not good either.

And so you know, I've had, you know, good amount of experience fighting that, you know, you.

Know, when it comes to the awarding of contracts, not to get stuck on this fine point, but it's important to a lot of people in the Hoosier economy.

I yes, the governor's order, he can he can pass judgment on hiring and on state agencies and their hiring of DEI officials and so forth.

But isn't some of the awarding of contracts and the protocols for that written in code?

And wouldn't I mean, do you think what the governor has done is sufficient to eliminate those targets, those those set asides or is this something else that.

Well, I think well, I think the it's trying to be addressed in a couple of bills that are, you know, running around the Senate right now.

And the way that it's done in those pieces of legislation is nebulous and is creating additional confusion.

And so I think that that is I don't think that the way that it's been written out right now is really going to get to the goals that people want, which is, you know, as you say, ensuring a more equal playing field.

But but I.

Do think the governor unilaterally has the ability to change the way contracts are awarded, though.

I think that the governor has the ability to do a lot of things.

And I think that that if the governor says something, that influence also, can have a chilling effect across, you know, across, practices.

But I think that one thing, though, that we have to, to circle back to is this notion that somehow merit and diversity are in opposition or intention and that and I and I know that you don't mean it this way, but but it comes across honestly as offensive that that I couldn't or someone that looks like me or could, would be a diversity hire and then that would mean that we didn't get there on our own merit.

I mean, I was summa cum laude in my class, like, I, I would hope that, you know, when I got hired in to be a principal, one of the youngest in the state at the time, that it was about merit, but also it was about the fact that I could represent the community.

You know, my students in downtown Indianapolis who a majority of whom look like me.

And so it's both of those things in consideration made me a best fit for the job.

And so I don't think that merit and diversity are in tension with each other.

I think that both can be considered at the same time.

talk to her about that.

I agree with that.

I think, you represented your community.

That's what I've, I've, you know, I've been in the church world for a long time, and I've had pastors say, hey, we want a really diverse, you know, stage, like the worship team needs to be all these different ethnicities.

And they they're in, you know, Podunk ville, Indiana.

And so I'm just like, why don't you just represent your community?

If you're in Indianapolis, I expect you to see a very diverse, you know, amount of people in the community, in the congregation, in the stage.

And that's great.

Praise God for that.

And but sometimes we force.

In I think you're.

Wrong to take offense, though, and.

Whether I mean me, I you can take offense over anything you want to.

I probably, you know, offended many people.

many times.

I don't mean it to be offensive.

Right.

It's not my hard to be offensive, but, and my pushback is if dei works one place, asked work everywhere.

So then I'll feel.

Well, that's a great you know, that's a really good point.

Does it work in the NBA?

So, so so we're actually so it actually does work.

And and we actually have research that supports it which I love I'm a person who's a researcher love the data.

And so McKinsey which is a global management firm, they've been around since the 20s.

They did a bunch of research around this, and they found that teams that included minorities and included women were almost 40% more effective when it came to meeting their financial goals.

And, and then there was another group, catalyst.

I thought they, they looked at companies and they found that they were 38% better at looking at customers and customer interest and 58% more likely to have better reputations.

So this is about meeting customers needs, you know, meeting the community's needs when they had diverse teams.

And so that's everywhere.

That's regardless of what the base population looks like.

Teams are more effective when you have a diversity of perspectives and experiences brought into to them.

I would say Indiana University's wealthiest, alumnus, probably arguably, Mark Cuban would say the same thing that he's seen from his businesses.

Yeah, but but again, and I would argue that it's probably not just because of the diversity.

It was the merit that these people were bringing to life experience.

Diversity is a good thing.

Diversity is a strength.

Like nobody's questioning that.

But what I'm saying like, go back to the NBA, right?

There's a reason short white guys don't get a lot of jobs in the NBA, because tall black guys are better of getting the ball into the hoop.

And that's a that's good.

Like if I own an NBA team like Mark Cuban, I'd look for the best player to get that ball into the hoops like win championships.

That's the goal of an NBA team.

So again, I'm telling you Mark Cuban is not he's not thinking Dei when he's thinking about who are my five starters on the court.

He's thinking who are the best players.

And if you can't compete then you aren't going to be on the court.

So to me, that's that's the that's what we have to do in every, in every industry because then we'll serve the state better, will serve the agencies, will run better, they'll be more tax efficient and they'll be more effective.

And are there any groups that deserve, in your view, and in Mike Braun's view, you know, special consideration in the in by from government?

Well, if you're asking is there systemic racism that has created problems for people and pushed them down historically?

I would argue actually, yes.

But I see it probably a little differently than Senator Conley does.

I look at inner cities have been attacked, they've been attacked, the minorities have been attacked by things like Planned Parenthood.

Margaret Sanger was a racist.

She hated black people.

We have 950 babies a day being murdered in America because of this attack on black communities.

You have fatherlessness because the system incentivizes, single mothers to have children out of wedlock, and that all hurts minority communities.

And so I've been an advocate say, hey, the system is hurting these minority communities.

Absolutely.

We need to start incentivizing good behavior behavior that actually builds up the nuclear family and that there's a right with.

So the notion, I guess, that if you're running, a race and I know somebody here has a child who's quite an accomplished runner, so you're running the 408 hundred.

The finish line should be there for everybody.

But, you know, there's staggered starts in terms of who has to run the farthest.

And that may be a strain metaphor, but are there people who can't compete effectively because they're starting at a different place?

Yeah, they're just disadvantaged socioeconoMicahlly.

Yeah, absolutely.

But I think it goes back again to the concept.

I mean, because I'm a pastor here, but my my pastor hat on, is, is God fair?

And I would argue that he's not he gives the one person five he gives to the other two and he gives the other one.

But he says do with what I've given you with the to the best of your ability, and he'll bless it and he'll multiply it.

And I think when we start to try to say, well, everyone has to have the same, we're stepping out of alignment of what God actually intended.

He he gives a I'm not a talented basketball player.

I wanted to be, I really did when I was younger, but that's just not how God made me.

And he said, Mike, I didn't make you do that.

I made you do something else.

But what I can do is I can bring value and worth in the lane that God has put me in.

When I try to step outside of that is when it gets, it gets out of whack.

So it could have been a place for you on the team though.

I've been a trainer or something.

But, but but I think though and you did a beautiful explanation of what equity is, right.

Giving each person, you know, that bit that they need.

But but you made a really good point, though, about how those systemic inequities show up in our communities.

And and I you know, I heard you say that, you know, you're looking at how that's happened over time and want to make sure that those folks who've been disadvantaged can have additional resources.

I mean, here in, you know, in my Senate district, which is one of the most diverse in the state, you know, representing a third of, of Indianapolis, that on on the Near East Side, we have communities that don't have sidewalks that are concrete jungles, though, because they have all of this asphalt everywhere, right?

No tree cover.

And that means that the temperature when it is hot in the summer, it can be 10 to 15 degrees warmer in those neighborhoods because they have been systeMicahlly disinvested in over time.

So that's the type of thing where, where if we're looking at data, if we're digging in, then we'll say, okay, we need to make sure that they're getting additional support, because from one end of my district to another, there is a 14 year difference in life expectancy that that is not because people aren't working hard enough.

That's not because they're not trying hard enough.

That is because of the system that has been created over centuries, has created problems.

I want to make sure we set aside a moment or two to talk about the Senate bills that there are pending.

you alluded to them before, but before I, I want to get clarity again, because that's what this is, discussions about no special treatment for any group.

Does that apply?

I understand your argument for women or people of color.

What about veterans?

No, I mean, I.

Would say no, no, I've set aside three words.

No target.

We absolutely should.

They shouldn't be at the front of the line just because.

They need to make sure that they can provide the service.

Again, I think it's across the board who say, hey, we want to we'll take a look.

Right.

What can you provide?

And I.

Listen, I don't know the whole notion of saying veterans hiring programs that idea it.

Excellence, innovation.

And I will say this is Sarah Huntley, you know, sidewalks.

Well, that's a city issue.

You got a Democrat mayor, you got a Democrat council.

That's not really the state issue.

I know there's going to be a $50 million revolving loan fund to pay for infrastructure improvements in the Republican budget.

Perhaps, but.

She smiles and doesn't respond.

But these stupid Senate bills that have got a lot of attention won deals with K through 12, essentially no teaching or promotion at any level of of Dei.

The other deals with colleges, public colleges and universities, much the same type of thing, and also health professions, licensing bureaus.

You know, you can't bad idea, I presume.

I think that there are pieces of these bills that need a lot of work if we're going to keep moving them on.

I mean, the bill you know, the the 289 that talks about, what's happening in classrooms and education and trainings for teachers.

I mean, you know, that's my heart is, you know, the field I've been in for 20 years.

I think that it's clear that folks don't understand what's actually happening in our classrooms.

What is in Indiana state standards.

It's required to be taught what is actually in the vetted textbook is that the Department of Education has already vetted.

And I think that people need to trust that system, but also know that we have elected school boards that approve these things.

And so we need to make sure that we're looking at which level of government, you know, as you mentioned, which level of government is responsible for ensuring that these things are happening.

And it's the school boards.

We need to empower our school boards and empower folks to, you know, vote, vote for people that they believe will will follow along.

Well, how about this notion of, less regulation?

I mean, we've seen, legislation that's proposed by House Republicans that would ostensibly deregulate schools, you know, let teachers teach, let people do what they do.

Doesn't this run afoul of that philosophy?

No, not no, it's a balance.

I mean, it's, the state legislature has the responsibility of putting the guardrails in.

What happens within the guardrails is should be left to the local same thing the federal government does.

They say here are the guardrails to the states.

What the states do is, you know, and I'm a I'm a Federalist.

I love federalism, right?

I, I believe that this idea that, the, the the lower you get in the authority structure, the more power that that authority should have.

So, you know, really, local levels are where the power really should rest.

That's that.

It impacts you day to day.

And I always I will always encourage the cities to push back against the counties, the counties to push back against the state in the state to push back against the the federal government.

I think that's healthy and it keeps everyone in check.

So I, you know, but it's a balance because what what are the guardrails then I think is, you.

Know, so prescriptive I mean, you know, and if you read those bills, they've got lists of things you can or cannot talk about, list of things you can or cannot promote, a list of things you cannot or can or cannot fund or have an opinion on.

And it's so prescriptive and it's it's really, quite frankly, shortsighted because next year we're going to have a whole other, you know, a set of language and vocabulary and initiatives.

And so I really just think the way we're going about it is problematic.

We could talk for hours.

We really we are out of time.

I see them do we're at.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

They don't do that ever.

When you're giving a sermon do they.

speed it up?

They do.

Okay.

When you're pushing a lunch hour.

Thank you very much for coming.

I think this is a kind of valuable discussion Hoosiers, are hungry for.

And I appreciate your engagement.

My guests have been Republican Lieutenant Governor Micah Beckwith and Democratic Senator Andrea Hunley.

And time now for our weekly visit with Indiana lawmakers analyst Ed Feigenbaum, publisher of the newsletter Indiana Legislative Insight, part of Hannah News Service, led, at the state level.

One of the reasons we're talking about the eye, of course, is Mike Braun, the new governor.

In his order.

Tell me how that fits into his his agenda for this first year in office.

Well, he talked about in his state of the state address this week, Jon.

And and he, he actually threw in a little ad lib.

There weren't a whole lot of off the script moments in the state of the state address.

But he did talk about and his is my, alternative.

And he mentioned dei in the context of, well, I know that that's kind of a sensitive subject with, with some people.

And I think a lot of the things that, that he talked about in the state of the state address were in in some ways sensitive to a lot of different people.

But what was interesting about the state of the state to me was that it really didn't seem like the initial speech of a governor looking at, you know, an eight year kind of an agenda.

normally you, you hear a governor come in and talk about their accomplishments over the last year or so.

Well, he was brand new, but he talked about his accomplishments in the first couple of weeks, and he detailed a number of different things that he had checked off his checklist already.

And I think what was particularly interesting to me was that he was dealing with action items with a lot of other governors, including Mitch Daniels, who did a lot early on.

It was like, well, we're going to convene this and convene that and talk about this and get some consensus on that.

Governor Brown was just, we're doing this.

We did this.

I've got legislators working on this.

It wasn't we're going to start talking about it.

He's made it clear that he's doing a whole lot of work.

He's going to do it in year one, and he's going to do it years one through four and not look at a an eight year kind of of runway.

And I guess.

The question will be, can everything he wants to do be done with executive order or where will there be cooperation needed.

Oh, there will be legislation, obviously.

And he's talked about specific bills there.

He namechecked about 8 or 9 legislators in that state of the state address, which is also kind of unusual.

But I think, you know, he he's a creature of the legislature, at least with three years there.

Another ad lib was when he came in, for the address he talked about.

Hey, I'm back in my old haunts again.

So he understands what it takes to to change things in the state of Indiana.

All right.

And we'll leave it there.

As always, appreciate your insight.

Thank you Jon On the next Indiana Lawmakers, I sit down with newly elected governor Mike Braun for a special one on one conversation from Well, that's it for this week.

From the state house to your house.

Indiana Lawmakers is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.