NC bill would limit ‘divisive concepts' on college campuses as part of GOP anti-DEI push
The campus of UNC-Chapel Hill (Photo: Clayton Henkel/NC Newsline)
Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are looking to define a range of 'discriminatory practices' and 'divisive concepts' on college campuses through a new bill, the latest in of a series of efforts by GOP leadership to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion from all sectors of government.
Senate Bill 558, led by a trio of Republicans including the Senate leader, would seek to expand on a ban on DEI practices already put in place by the UNC System Board of Governors.
While the bill is entitled 'Eliminating 'DEI' in Public Higher Education,' sponsor Sen. Brad Overcash (R-Gaston) argued that the measure does not bar diversity, equity and inclusion nor seek to define it.
Rather, it defines a range of 'divisive concepts' and 'discriminatory practices' that campuses are forbidden from endorsing or affirming — including treating a person differently 'solely to advantage or disadvantage that individual.' The language is almost identical to a similar bill applying to K-12 public schools, which has passed the Senate.
Those practices and programming have 'divided our campus, divided our student bodies, divided our faculties, along lines that are unnecessary and unproductive,' said Overcash.
But critics of the bill warned Wednesday that as written, it could have wide-reaching impacts on scholarship programs for minority and rural students, as well as potentially chilling classroom discussions about race and other subjects.
'The problem is, they're defined in vague and sweeping terms,' Sen. Caleb Theodros (D-Mecklenburg) said during a Senate Education Committee hearing. 'It's not really based on the intent, it's interpretation.'
Sen. Sophia Chitlik (D-Durham) raised questions (see the video above) about wording in the bill that purports to ban 'DEI' initiatives without ever defining what the term refers to.
And Reighlah Collins, policy counsel for the ACLU of North Carolina, said the bill would hurt recruitment efforts and 'result in censorship of curricula.'
Republican sponsors pushed back on those lines of criticism. Overcash said he believed scholarship programs were 'apples and oranges' compared to the practices and ideas in the crosshairs of the bill.
But the chair of the committee, Sen. Michael Lee (R-Hanover), urged members to get in touch if they were concerned about specific items in the list of 'divisive concepts.'
'Please come and talk to us so we make sure we understand the impact of that in this particular bill,' Lee said.
The bill would require both the State Board of Community Colleges and the UNC System Board of Governors to adopt new DEI policies to comply with the new regulations.
In May 2024, the UNC System board voted to repeal its DEI policy, replacing it with a statement of 'principled neutrality.' Months later, the university had eliminated at least 59 positions in response.
And shortly after the Trump administration took office this year and purported to ban DEI through executive order, the university stopped requiring DEI general education courses, the Raleigh News & Observer reported.
Other states have pushed for similar restrictions on both K-12 schools and higher education. Last year, Alabama passed a sweeping anti-DEI law for public schools that included a ban on affirming or endorsing 'divisive concepts'; two years prior, Georgia passed a similar law. And other bills with similar language have been introduced by Republican lawmakers in Missouri and Kansas, according to a tracker by Education Week.
The bill, which was approved by the Education Committee, now heads to the Senate Rules Committee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia won't let Ukrainian forces rest until Putin's demands are met – Russian deputy foreign minister
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has stated that Moscow will not allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to "use any pause to rest and regroup" without "eliminating the root causes of the conflict". Source: Ryabkov in an interview with Kremlin-aligned Russian news agency TASS Details: Ryabkov emphasised that US President Donald Trump's return to the White House has become a "reason for cautious optimism" in Russia regarding the normalisation of relations with the United States. He said that Russian leader Vladimir Putin during phone conversations with Trump "confirmed the basic directive on the necessity to eliminate the root causes of the conflict within the framework of political and diplomatic efforts". Ryabkov noted that if the Kremlin's conditions are not met, Russia will act to prevent the Armed Forces of Ukraine from taking advantage of "any pause to rest and regroup". According to him, the Kremlin's position is well known to Washington and threats of sanctions will not change it. "It is strange that hotheads in the US Senate, who have lost their last remnants of common sense, are ignoring this reality. We will continue efforts to achieve the objectives of the special military operation [Russian propaganda term for the war in Ukraine – ed.]. Thus, the decision and the choice are up to Washington, up to Trump," Ryabkov concluded. Background: On 3 June, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council and former president of the Russian Federation, declared that the true purpose of the so-called peace talks with Ukraine in Istanbul is to ensure Russia's swift and complete victory. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If white British people become a minority, the Left will be in serious trouble
Within the next 40 years, white British people will become a minority in this country. And by the year 2100, they'll account for only a third of the population. So predicted Professor Matt Goodwin of Buckingham University in a report this week. And, ever since, I've been pondering an intriguing question. If his prediction comes to pass, will the Left still support DEI? After all, the whole point of DEI – the progressive doctrine of 'diversity, equity and inclusion' – is to benefit minorities. So, if white British people become a minority, will Left-wing activists throw all their righteous energies into championing them? Perhaps they'll insist that job adverts give priority to applicants who are white British. And order schools to celebrate White British History Month. And, when political parties are seeking election candidates, demand that they increase white British representation by adopting all-white British shortlists. Equally, perhaps they'll call on the BBC to cast white British actors in non-white British roles. And argue that all non-white workers should undergo unconscious bias training, to check that they aren't harbouring prejudice against the white British community – or, as they're properly known, People of No Colour. I suppose it's possible. But, for some reason, I have a funny feeling they'll decide there's no longer any need for DEI – because, once the white British are a small minority, true social justice will finally have been achieved. In 2016, the late Canadian comedian Norm MacDonald told the greatest satirical joke of our age. It went like this. 'What terrifies me is if Isis were to donate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?' A perfect skewering of 21st-century liberal priorities. I'm reminded of it often. For example, whenever there's a debate in the Commons or on the BBC about the grooming gangs scandal – and the talk, as always, turns swiftly to the dangers of Islamophobia. This week, I was reminded of that sublimely dark joke once again. And it was thanks to a truly mind-boggling article in the newspaper USA Today. Last Sunday, in the Colorado city of Boulder, a firebombing attack was launched on a group of Jewish people who had gathered to raise awareness of Israeli hostages in Gaza. Following the arrest, at the scene, of a 45-year-old Egyptian migrant who allegedly told police he wanted to 'kill all Zionist people', immigration officials began taking steps to deport his family, who are also Egyptian migrants. And how did USA Today choose to cover this development? By publishing a piece with the tear-jerking headline, 'Boulder Suspect's Daughter Dreamed of Studying Medicine. Now She Faces Deportation.' Beneath this headline we were informed that 18-year-old Habiba had recently won a 'Best and Brightest scholarship', and 'written about her hope of accomplishing great things'. Well, I suppose it's only natural that a newspaper would wish to focus on Habiba's plight. Because of course she's the real victim here. After a backlash from thousands of staggered readers, USA Today revised the article on its website, to give at least a little more prominence to the firebombing attack and the members of the public who were seriously injured in it – including an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor. Anyway, I hope that the newspaper's journalists aren't feeling too sad about the crushing of Habiba's dreams. Because I've got some wonderful news for them. Incredible though it may sound, the US isn't the only country on Earth where it's possible to study medicine. In fact, it can even be studied in Egypt. So there's really no need for Habiba to miss out. And if she doesn't fancy Egypt, there's an exciting alternative. She and her family can simply come and live in Britain. Here, after all, they can rest safe in the knowledge that we never deport anyone. More and more MPs, reports the BBC, are deciding against the legalisation of assisted suicide – or, to use the term preferred by its supporters, 'assisted dying'. These MPs say they supported the idea in principle, but now reluctantly concede that the bill lacks adequate safeguards. Good on them. But I hope that the many MPs who still support the bill will consider another crucial argument against. Which is that, if they legalise assisted suicide, the criteria for eligibility will inevitably widen, as it has in other Western countries. And so, in due course, we could end up like the Netherlands – where, last year, a woman in her 20s was granted an assisted suicide. She wasn't terminally ill. In fact, she wasn't physically ill at all. She was just depressed. It's chilling that the state would agree to such a request. But that's the sort of scenario we could easily see here. It'll be like a dystopian inversion of the Samaritans. If you tell the Samaritans that you're so depressed you want to die, its staff will do everything they can to dissuade you. But if you tell the state that you're so depressed you want to die, it'll say: 'Certainly, we'll book you straight in. Can you do Tuesday, 10 past three?' 'Way of the World' is a twice-weekly satirical look at the headlines while aiming to mock the absurdities of the modern world. It is published at 6am every Tuesday and Saturday Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
an hour ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'
