 |
Editor’s Note: Gov. Josh Stein vetoed the three anti-DEI bills, Senate Bill 227, Senate Bill 558, and House Bill 171, on July 3. They now return to the General Assembly for potential override votes.
Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly passed three bills last week that would ban diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in public schools, higher education institutions, and state agencies if they become law.
All three bills will now be sent to Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, who will have 10 days to sign or veto them. A veto override has yet to be attempted this session. If Stein does nothing, the bills will pass without his signature.
Senate Bill 227, entitled “Eliminating ‘DEI’ in Public Education,” would bar public schools from engaging in “discriminatory practices” or teaching “divisive concepts” to students.
Senate Bill 558 enumerates many of the same restrictions as SB 227 but would apply to public institutions of higher education, including community colleges.
And House Bill 171, which targets DEI in government, would prevent local governments or state agencies from promoting, supporting, implementing, or maintaining DEI programs, policies, or initiatives.
Sign up for the EdDaily to start each weekday with the top education news.
What is DEI?
On a webpage that is now archived, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services previously provided the following explanation of DEI:
Diversity: Is the full spectrum of identities including but not limited to national origin, language, race, color, disability, ethnicity, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, veteran status, neurodiversity, lived experiences, geographic location, and family structure. Who we are; The mix of our similarities and differences; Including but not limited to country of birth, language, race, color, disability, sex, etc.
Equity: Means consistent, fair, and just treatment and outcomes for all persons in the workplace at personal, interpersonal, cultural, and systemic levels.
Inclusion: Involvement, belonging, respect, and connection; feeling valued and included across diversity groups; regularly using a diverse group of staff in decision-making; recognizing and understanding our differences as having worth, dignity, and value in the workplace. Creates a culture where diverse employees feel valued, respected, and encouraged to fully participate, are able to be their authentic selves in the workplace and feel a sense of belonging.
— North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, emphasis in the original
Critics claim that DEI practices are anti-meritocratic, unpatriotic, and discriminatory.
A national wave of anti-DEI legislation
The North Carolina bans are part of a nationwide Republican movement against DEI practices. One of President Donald Trump’s first executive actions in January was signing an order “ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs.” (That order is cited in the bill text of SB 558.)
“We’ve ended the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government, and indeed the private sector, and our military. And our country will be woke no longer,” said Trump in his March address to Congress.
The movement is widespread. DEI initiatives have been rolled back by private corporations such as Amazon, Meta, Walmart, and McDonalds. Over the past few years, other states have also prohibited DEI in local governments, universities, and public agencies.
Some legislation passed in nearby states shares common language with North Carolina’s bills. A Tennessee law passed in 2022 defines “divisive concepts” similarly and bans institutions of higher education from promoting them.
A law passed last year in Alabama banned state agencies, local boards of education, and institutions of higher education from sponsoring DEI programs or offices, and lists similar “divisive concepts.”
And Kentucky’s House Bill 4, which became law after the state legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto, bans higher education institutions from maintaining DEI offices, and defines terms such as “indoctrinate” and “discriminatory concept.”
The national trend had already started to catch on in North Carolina prior to the three bills passing the legislature last week. During the 2023 session, North Carolina Republicans proposed similar legislation, though it didn’t pass, and didn’t explicitly include the phrase “DEI.”
Last year, the UNC Board of Governors overwhelmingly voted to repeal the UNC System’s DEI policy, and in February, the system ceased DEI course requirements.
DEI discussions have also taken place at the district level. In February, the Wake County Public School System was in the national spotlight after its board discussed DEI programs in the face of threats to federal funding.
Bills ban ‘divisive concepts’
SB 227, originally filed by Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, would restrict instruction on 12 “divisive concepts:”
- One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
- An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.
- An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex.
- An individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex.
- An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
- Any individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress.
- A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist.
- The United States was created by members of a particular race or sex for the purpose of oppressing members of another race or sex.
- Particular character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs should be ascribed to a race or sex or to an individual because of the individual’s race or sex.
- The rule of law does not exist but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.
- All Americans are not created equal and are not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
- Governments should deny to any person within the government’s jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.
The bill would also prevent the formation of public school offices or divisions promoting “discriminatory practices,” or the above divisive concepts, or that are referred to with the words diversity, equity, and inclusion.
SB 558 would use the same definitions to prevent University of North Carolina System institutions and community colleges from endorsing, advocating for, or compelling students, professors, and other employees to profess belief in divisive concepts. It would also prevent DEI offices.
The path through the Senate
SB 227 was filed in early March by Berger, along with co-sponsors Sen. Michael Lee, R-New Hanover, and Sen. Brad Overcash, R-Gaston.
“Our schools should not be in the business of teaching inaccurate history or creating a learning environment that doesn’t allow for free thought or expression,” Berger said in a presser after the Senate passed the bill. “So-called ‘DEI’ initiatives were pitched as a tool to help our children better understand our history, when in reality they’re merely a façade used by Democrats to alter curriculum to fit their agenda.”
The Senate Education/Higher Education committee first met in March to discuss the bill. Seats for the public filled 15 minutes before the meeting started. At the time, there was pushback from Democratic committee members and members of the public, but the bill passed a voice vote.
Lee, who introduced SB 227 to the committee, emphasized in March that the bill targets perceived misuses of DEI programs and not the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion themselves.
“There’s nothing wrong with diversity. There’s nothing wrong with equity. There’s certainly nothing wrong with inclusion. And I think that the goals of DEI are laudable, and in fact, I think we could probably all agree on them,” he said at the time.
Some Democrats and opponents of anti-DEI legislation have questioned what the bill would actually do, citing vague language. Liz Barber, the director of policy and advocacy for the ACLU of North Carolina, said at the committee meeting that SB 227’s language could be unconstitutionally vague. Some opponents to the bills worry the vague language will lead to a chilling effect among educators and state employees.
Later, in protest of the impending passage of SB 558, the similar bill targeting DEI in higher education, Sen. Lisa Grafstein, D-Wake, moved to amend the bill by rewriting the title to read: “An Act to Do Absolutely Nothing.” The amendment was tabled in a vote along party lines.
On the Senate floor
When SB 227 was brought up for debate on the Senate floor in March, there was more discussion about what the bill would do. Sen. Kandie Smith, D-Pitt, challenged the idea that DEI has come to represent discrimination and division.
“The diversity proponents I know do not want anyone to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or mental distress based on their race or sex,” she said. “I do not feel guilt or discomfort about who I am. I don’t feel responsible for the things that anyone else did in the past.
“So who is this bill trying to protect? Who is it looking to keep from being discriminated against? I read the bill, and I can tell you, it’s not trying to protect people from harm based on their protected characteristics. This bill wants to protect the ability to manipulate the systems that affect our day to day lives. It is to protect the ability to control the narrative of history that our children are taught every day,” Smith said.
Before the bill went to a vote, Lee spoke a final time in its defense. Despite accusations that the bill ignores discrimination and seeks to rewrite history, Lee said the bill targets discrimination — which he said he has experienced personally.
A similar debate in the House
HB 171 would ban DEI in state agencies, local governments, and any other non-state entity using state funds. On the House floor, debate over the bill in April lasted over two hours and was contentious at times.
“We’ve seen our institutions drift. We’ve watched government move away from excellence toward agenda hiring, favoring narratives over qualifications, checking boxes instead of resumes,” said House Majority Leader Brenden Jones, R-Columbus, a sponsor of the bill.
Democratic members pushed back, saying DEI programs are beneficial and asking whether programs that currently exist to aid marginalized groups would become illegal.
“I’ve listened to the debate today, and I’m relieved to hear that — based on this bill — that racism and sexism are eliminated. They don’t exist,” said Rep. Laura Budd, D-Mecklenburg. “But that’s not really true… Because they do exist, and other forms of discrimination still exist. It’s a laudable goal, it really is, to get to a point where we’re colorblind, and men and women are equal, people are equal. But we’re not there yet, and we’re at a point where this bill confuses progress with parity.”
Ultimately, the bill passed the House last week along party lines, with Republicans voting in favor and Democrats voting against. The other two anti-DEI bills also passed along party lines.
Looking ahead
When Lee introduced SB 227 to the Senate Education/Higher Education committee, he started by enumerating some things the bill is not:
- “It’s not a ban on on teaching history or discussing past injustices;
- “It’s not a restriction on free speech;
- “It’s not a prohibition on individual research or study — students and teachers can still access materials discussing a lot of these issues;
- “It does not eliminate all forms of professional development, just those that advocate for the divisive concepts or discriminatory practices as they’re defined in the bill;
- “It does not ban discussions about diversity, equity, inclusion, or topics all around those particular issues;
- “It doesn’t prevent compliance with any state or federal laws. In fact, it memorializes some federal law that we don’t have in our state.”
If Stein vetoes the anti-DEI legislation, that could be the end of the matter for this session. After the most recent election, House Republicans are one seat short of a supermajority, meaning they would need all Republicans present and at least one Democrat to vote with them in order to override the veto.
Correction: The acronym diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has been corrected.
Recommended reading
