Texas Rep. Brandon Gill questioned American Bar Association President Michelle Behnke during a congressional hearing after citing the organization’s website, which states that “all of us have implicit biases,” as reported [1] by The Nerd Stash.
The exchange drew attention after Gill repeatedly asked Behnke to identify what implicit biases she personally has while referencing the American Bar Association’s public statements on diversity, equity and inclusion.
Following the hearing, Gill shared a video of the exchange on X and highlighted the ABA’s language regarding implicit bias.
“The American Bar Association claims on their website that all of us have ‘implicit biases.'”
“I asked their President what groups she has implicit biases against and if she’d like to reflect on them.”
During the hearing, Gill [3] first asked Behnke whether she agreed with the ABA’s position that everyone has implicit biases.
Rather than giving a direct yes-or-no response, Behnke began discussing the organization’s diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
Gill interrupted to clarify that she had not answered his question.
“That’s not my question, ma’am,” Gill said before asking again whether she believed everyone has implicit biases.
Behnke again did not directly answer the question. Gill then shifted to asking about her own views.
“Against which groups do you have implicit biases?” he asked.
Behnke responded by saying it was important to examine everyone’s point of view. Gill said she was filibustering and repeated the question.
As the exchange continued, Behnke said she was speaking in her capacity as president of the American Bar Association.
Gill then asked whether she had reflected on her own biases.
Behnke replied that she constantly considers how she operates in the world. When Gill asked her to identify any specific implicit biases, she again answered on behalf of the ABA rather than naming any particular group.
The hearing concluded without Behnke identifying any group against which she said she held implicit bias.
The exchange generated significant reaction on social media after Gill posted the video online.
One user wrote, “He takes their own words and asks simply for an explanation. And they refuse because they know they can’t defend what they write or believe.”
Another commenter stated, “She should have just answered the question. She wouldn’t have sounded so stupid.”
A third user wrote, “Great questions – so great, in fact, that she can’t (won’t) answer them. ‘The thing speaks for itself.'”
Another response argued, “To say that everyone has implicit biases on a business you lead, and being unwilling to express one of your own implicit biases, just goes to show it’s a convenient weaponization tool – more so when one doesn’t practice what they preach.”
Not all reactions supported Gill’s approach during the hearing.
One commenter wrote, “When someone has to insist it’s a ‘yes or no’ question, it makes them look stubborn and ignorant.”
Another questioned Gill’s handling of the exchange, writing, “Can you let her at least try to answer? It’s not that I agree with her, but when you keep cutting her off like a butthole, you’re not winning anyone over.”
The hearing ended without Behnke directly responding to Gill’s request to identify any personal implicit biases.
The exchange has continued to circulate online as supporters and critics debate both the questioning and the ABA’s public statements regarding implicit bias.