Senate bill would ban DEI-specific roles, audits, programming
The buzzword of the month emerging in these first weeks of the session of the General Assembly appears to be “DEI.”
You may recall we told you while previewing budget discussions ahead of session that state higher education institutions could be pressed to find ways to creatively cut Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programming to save some money as lawmakers grapple with a tighter budget this time around.
At least some of those intents are found within SB 235, which would essentially ban the use of “DEI” in diversity programming at state educational institutions. The bill, authored by Sen. Tyler Johnson (R) of Leo, also goes beyond higher education and spans as far afield as barring DEI practices in state agencies – but for the sake of this newsletter, we’ll focus on just the education-related section.
SB 235 states that higher education institutions may not establish DEI offices or hire DEI officers whose sole responsibility is to run specific DEI programming. The measure would also ban universities from hiring DEI consultants and conducting DEI audits.
Further, it would remove DEI provisions from health professional licensing requirements and require medical programs to use a standardized test on science and medical training for admissions – which is meant to prevent perceived watered-down admissions practices in medical schools allegedly caused by DEI practices. Dr. Johnson, a practicing physician, was inspired to try to legislate this area based on his experience in the medical field in which he attests he’s seen “firsthand the training modules that have been implemented as part of my continuing medical education that make physicians attest to agreeing with divisive ideological topics based in DEI,” he tells us.
The key here in SB 235 is that it doesn’t outright ban diversity programming at state universities – it just restricts specifically presenting such programming under the practices of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”
A provision in the bill provides that universities can continue to run offices and hire people focused on diversity programming that “substantially promotes cultural and intellectual diversity.”
Note, for example, that the University of Southern Indiana followed through late this week on plans to host a variety of events and activities in February to honor Black History Month.
“We want cultural and intellectual diversity to flourish” Sen. Johnson explains to us about his intentions with this provision. “A focus of the bill is to limit top-down DEI policy and make sure all people are treated equally.
Perhaps this wording is why we, at least not yet, haven’t seen any significant opposition from state universities. Indiana University is neutral on the bill, largely because of the wording of the health care programming language.
Still, the language in the measure could force state universities to comb through their offices, policies, and employees’ roles and change anything dealing directly with DEI as defined in SB 235.
And if you were reading carefully, you may have noticed the return of last year’s higher ed buzzword, “intellectual diversity” in the text of SB 235 – pulling from the high profile SEA 202-2024 from the last session.
SEA 202 introduced the term “intellectual diversity” as a requirement in universities’ diversity programming and also made it a factor to be considered in tenure reviews. As a refresher, the term intellectual diversity “means multiple, divergent, and varied scholarly perspectives on an extensive range of public policy issues,” and was propped up by Republican lawmakers last session who were concerned universities weren’t fostering environments to promote all viewpoints (mostly conservative, or non-majority viewpoints).
Back to DEI, universities across the United States are also just in general moving away from using the term “DEI” in their initiatives and programs already. This shift is largely driven by mounting political pressure and legislative actions in several states targeting DEI efforts on college campuses, the Chronicle of Higher Education reports.
According to the Chronicle, which has been keeping track of how universities are modifying DEI programming, since January 2023, at least 116 college campuses have altered or eliminated offices, jobs, hiring practices, and programs explicitly focused on recruiting and retaining students and staff from marginalized communities.
These changes manifest in various ways, such as by renaming or closing DEI departments; cutting funding for DEI programs; reassigning DEI employees to other parts of the institution; eliminating the use of diversity statements; or canceling mandatory DEI training courses.
In some cases, universities are preemptively shutting down DEI programs to avoid potential conflicts with new state laws or political backlash.
In Indiana, it appears that most state universities host offices under the title, “Diversity, Equity & Belonging,” including Purdue University and Indiana State University. Indiana University does have an Office of the Vice President of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, while Ball State University offers an Office of Inclusive Excellence.
The move away from DEI terminology is not limited to individual institutions. Some accrediting bodies are also reconsidering their approach. For instance, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education removed explicit DEI language from its standards, opting for more general terms to describe its goals for fostering inclusive environments.
Back to SB 235, it seems reflective of all of these trends, along with aligning with recent actions against DEI at the federal and state level this month from President Donald Trump (R), and Governor Mike Braun (R).
Though not directly aimed at higher ed, President Trump’s latest executive orders aim to end “illegal” diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, and Governor Braun in the same fashion ended DEI practices at the state agency level, replacing it with what he dubs “MEI” – merit, excellence and innovation.
SB 235 outlines a lengthy definition of what exactly DEI is, which, according to the bill text, means practices that influence the composition of employees with reference to race, sex, color, or ethnicity, or provide special benefits to individuals on the basis of race, sex, color, or ethnicity.
DEI is also defined as practices that would promote “as the official position of an agency a particular opinion referencing unconscious or implicit: bias; cultural appropriation; allyship; transgender ideology; microaggressions; group marginalization; antiracism; systemic oppression; social justice; intersectionality; neopronouns; heteronormativity; disparate impact; gender theory; racial or sexual privilege.”
The bill would also authorize the Office of Attorney General to investigate violations of the bill’s provisions. For state educational institutions, before filing a civil action against a university for a violation, OAG must notify the school of the violation and give 30 days to show compliance. If found out of compliance, the institution could be issued a fine of up to $250,0000.
Public response to SB 235 was mixed as it was heard before the Senate Committee on Judiciary – to which the bill was reassigned after originally having been directed to the Senate Committee on Education and Career Development. The new assignment related to the non-education components of the bill, along with the civil action components.
Dr. Allon Friedman, a professor at the Indiana University School of Medicine, contends that DEI practices have negatively impacted the medical field. He argued before the judiciary panel that these practices dehumanize patients by categorizing them and diminish academic excellence in medical schools by shifting from A-F grading to pass/fail.
“This was done intentionally to obscure academic differences between trainees, since it prevents distinguishing students achieving accident academic excellence from those that don’t or haven’t,” Dr. Friedman claims.
That health care programs section of the bill essentially would create several new requirements for institutions to meet in their programs. Also, in line with the standardized test requirements in the bill, before changing academic standards for health education programs, institutions would have to submit the proposed standards and explanations to the legislative council and the Indiana Commission for Higher Education. Additionally, non-open enrollment institutions must use A-F grading for all required courses and cannot use pass/fail assessments for graduation requirements – addressing the perception that medical school programs have lost rigor.
On the other side, those opposed worry about the chilling effects SB 235 could have on university diversity programming, as schools may have to be more cautious to avoid fines and litigation. “Why is DEI so scary to those trying to eliminate it? How did it become the next bogeyman?” citizen Cecelia Poynter asked the committee.
Yaqoub Saadeh, a former IU Indianapolis student who now works at the Indiana Muslim Advocacy Network, details that he found a community in IU’s DEI office. “DEI practices are not about giving unqualified people special treatment,” he argues.
SB 235 passed out of committee in a party-line 8-2 vote, and is currently sitting on the Senate floor awaiting amendments.
Sen. Johnson acknowledges that he’s aware of issues with the exact wording on the health care sections of the bill, as we mentioned was the complaint from IU. He vowed to fix that language to where universities are comfortable, and if he can’t get there, he may simply take it out altogether.
“The universities have been good partners and were more interested in the operational components of the standardized testing and curricular components of the bill,” Sen. Johnson details to us on his communication with state universities on the overall bill.
The parameters set forth in the specific medical programs section at the end of SB 235 brought pause to the higher ed folks because of the uncertainty on how these provisions could be implemented. “We read it to require that every single student, undergrad, graduate at all of our institutions that have health education programs would have to require a standardized admissions test, and that would just be operationally, a very big change for our institutions,” explained Lauren Box, who represented the Independent Colleges of Indiana.
An amendment addressing these concerns has not been filed this week, so stay tuned as there will likely be changes ahead.