Lawmakers in the North Carolina General Assembly continue to target diversity, equity and inclusion programs in state government and public universities — measures that on Wednesday brought protesters to the legislature for a second straight day.
The push to ban DEI initiatives is part of a national push by Republican politicians to crack down on policies that they say went too far following the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and now discriminate against white people.
Other WRAL Top Stories
The efforts come in wake of a successful push by conservative activists — in a lawsuit that revolved around UNC-Chapel Hill — to also ban affirmative action in universities across the country.
On Wednesday the state Senate voted to ban DEI in community colleges and public universities statewide. The state House was scheduled, for the second straight day, to vote on a ban on DEI in all state and local government agencies but GOP leaders delayed that vote again.
The vote in the Senate came down along party lines, with Republicans in support and Democrats opposed to the DEI ban, Senate Bill 558.
"In recent years, discriminatory practices and divisive concepts have entered into our institutions of higher learning," Sen. Brad Overcash, R-Gaston, said during Wednesday's debate. "They've divided our campuses, they've divided our student bodies and divided our faculties."
Supporters of banning DEI programs say they aren’t opposed to diversity in general. They just don’t think state government should have formal pro-diversity training programs for employees, or any quotas or other DEI policies involved in decisions about hiring and promotions.
Democratic politicians and other critics, however, say DEI policies don’t encourage discrimination but rather help avoid it, ensuring the best candidates rise to the top.
"The work of diversity, equity and inclusion is taking the actions to ensure that every person — meaning inclusion — no matter who they are —meaning diversity — is given what they need to be successful — that's equity," Sen. Graig Meyer, D-Orange, said. "The best leaders frame all of their work through a lens that reinforces those three values."
Sen. Val Applewhite, D-Cumberland, went further. She said supporters of the bill are motivated by a fear of minorities like her, and a desire to lock in power and influence for white people as North Carolina and the U.S. in general become more diverse. She cited a Census report that predicted America will become a majority nonwhite country by 2045 — a report she said she suspects supporters of DEI bans are well aware of.
"It's fear, and let's call that fear what it really is," Applewhite said, adding that the bill is "a desperate attempt to lock in power before it shifts. To silence the truth, erase the past and close the door on a future that includes all of us."
'Historically unjust'
During Wednesday's debate over the proposal to ban DEI in higher education, Overcash said it was simply about re-focusing schools on merit and academic excellence alone, with no consideration to any other qualities.
Meyer responded by proposing an amendment to the bill that would eliminate legacy admissions at all public universities in North Carolina — a rule that gives children of alumni or wealthy donors a leg up in admissions.
"Consideration of legacy in higher education admissions is the single most inequitable factor influencing who gets access to our institutions of higher education," Meyer said. "This would undo the most historically unjust piece of our institutions of higher education. If you truly mean what you say in this bill, I would encourage you to approve this amendment."
Republicans voted down his amendment with no explanation or debate.
They also shot down a more mocking amendment from Sen. Lisa Grafstein, D-Wake, who suggested that if Republicans they were going to pass the DEI ban they should at least change the official name of the bill.
Her suggestion was: "An act to do absolutely nothing useful while failing to address the growing challenges that our higher education institutions face in the wake of the disastrous education policies of the NCGOP, the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, rescinding of NIH grants, and general chaos wrought by the Trump administration for the purposes of attacking freedom on campus and creating a chilling effect on colleges, universities and their administrators, professors, students, and staff.”
State government DEI ban
House Bill 171, which would ban DEI policies and trainings in all state and local government agencies, was initially scheduled for a vote Tuesday. House Speaker Destin Hall pulled it off the calendar at the last minute and rescheduled the vote to Wednesday — when he again announced at the last minute that the vote would postponed yet again.
Each time the decision came as protesters packed the House gallery, although Hall said the canceled votes had nothing to do with those protesters. Hall said Tuesday the bill's sponsors were working on tweaks to the bill but declined to give specifics.
GOP leaders have agreed to some changes in recent weeks, making the bills less aggressive in their enforcement — a sticking point for some opponents.
The House bill focused on state agencies originally would’ve made violations a criminal offense, but the latest version makes it only a disciplinary infraction for state workers.
And the Senate bill originally would’ve banned colleges and universities from investigating any allegations of hate speech on campus. The latest version would ban colleges from investigating complaints of what the bill calls “microaggressions” but would still allow investigations into more extreme examples of hate speech.
House Majority Leader Rep. Brenden Jones, R-Columbus, is the lead sponsor of the bill taking aim at DEI in state and local government. He said last week during a committee hearing that the proposal is meant to order state government agencies to ignore race by hiring or promoting people based on merit alone. It would also ban DEI-focused training sessions.
"It puts an end to mandatory trainings that shame employees into ideology confirmation, and it ensures that taxpayer dollars go toward delivering results, not enforcing ideology," Jones said.