Another Crusade Against "Diversity" in Education
Another Crusade Against "Diversity" in Education
A bill that can't even define basic terms moves forward in the SC House.
Yesterday, the South Carolina House passed the anti- “diversity, equity, and inclusion” bill H. 4289 to second reading. (Update: it was subsequently sent to the Senate.)
But the bill never defines what it is banning, and proponents seemed unable to agree on exactly what it is supposed to accomplish.
Based on multiple comments by legislators throughout the meeting, H. 4289 seems to have been shaped heavily by South Carolina “Freedom Caucus” members Adam Morgan and Josiah Magnuson, along with Rep. Tim McGinnis. Its language hews close to a few paragraphs in Section 2 of a model bill from the far-right Manhattan Institute, entitled “Abolish DEI Bureaucracies and Restore Colorblind Equality in Public Universities,” which, according to the endnotes, was “developed in close cooperation with the National Association of Scholars,” another far-right organization, and the source of much of South Carolina’s previous censorship legislation. (I wrote about this in more detail here.) Like many of NAS’ and Heritage Foundation’s model bills attacking “CRT,” this one starts with a reasonable premise— viewpoint discrimination is bad— and then undermines it severely by attacking a specific viewpoint (in this case, “diversity, equity and inclusion”).
Significantly, the South Carolina authors have forgone almost all language from that model bill which would have defined the central terms (like “diversity, equity, and inclusion”) or limited the application of the law to specific kinds of behavior.
What did proponents say the bill was supposed to do?
Was the purpose to limit classroom instruction? When Representative Jermaine Johnson (Richland), an adjunct professor at Webster University, introduced amendment language that addressed classroom instruction, Republican members said the bill had nothing to do with classroom instruction. For example, Amendment 61 would have added, in language that closely echoes the model bill, “Nothing in this section may be construed to limit or prohibit or create any specific requirements concerning classroom instruction.”
In one of only a handful of times supporters of the bill actually engaged with any of the amendments—instead of quickly moving to table them (sometimes before they could even be read)— Rep. Magnuson claimed, “The bill was crafted such that it would not affect what can and cannot be taught.”
Representative Johnson, perhaps knowing the origins of the bill language, replied that the “very genesis of why this bill is being crafted” was the far-right claim that “professors... are trying to indoctrinate students”. One particularly outlandish statement included in the model bill: “So-called Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) bureaucracies at public universities operate as divisive ideological commissariats, promulgating and enforcing Critical Race Theory and related political orthodoxies as official campus policy.” And in his own defense of the bill, Magnuson highlighted the reporting requirements— universities must report the costs of “programs that support diversity, equity, and inclusion,” but the bill doesn’t ever say what those programs might be or look like. This is obviously likely (and probably intended) to make universities very nervous about tiptoeing around these (still undefined) forbidden DEI policies.
Amendment 61 was tabled after another motion by McGinnis, and again it was strikingly ironic that a proponent of the bill, supported by a Freedom Caucus member who helped write it, was blocking a Democratic amendment to include Manhattan Institute language. It’s hard not to believe that proponents have no interest in passing a nonpartisan piece of legislation, even if doing so helps them get more of what they seem to want.
Adding to the confusion, when defending the bill just before passage, Rep. McGinnis and Rep. Morgan both linked it to the issue of “viewpoint discrimination” against students, in ways that seemed to implicate classroom instruction (which would seem to undermine what Magnuson had claimed).
Perhaps this is because the model bill is explicitly concerned with classroom instruction. At one point, its authors claim, “The purpose of this policy document is to maintain the spirit of free inquiry that lies at the heart of the liberal arts.” The underlying argument seems to be that the purpose of abolishing “diversity statements” (which the model bill defines, but H. 4289 does not) is to make it less likely that colleges and universities will hire professors with certain (non-rightwing) ideological preferences. The thinking seems to be that diversity statements are a good way to attract “woke” or “Leftist” professors and students, while potentially rejecting right-leaning ones. This is obviously, in addition to being a fairly ridiculous premise, the opposite of protecting people from “viewpoint discrimination”.
This interpretation was supported throughout the debate. For example, when Johnson proposed a series of amendments to explicitly protect applicants from specific types of “viewpoint discrimination,” McGinnis moved to table them. (The House Education and Public Works Committee version of the bill does generally prohibit “viewpoint discrimination,” but Johnson’s amendments would have added more specific requirements.) Significantly, many of these amendments dealt with so-called “leftist” ideological viewpoints, such as support for Black Lives Matter and scholarship in the area of Critical Race Theory (a viewpoint the model legislation specifically targets as undesirable).
Conversely, when Johnson introduced an amendment to allow universities to “reject candidates who voluntarily declare adherence to Nazi ideology,” McGinnis successfully moved to table that amendment as well.
Similarly, the House tabled Amendment 45, which would have allowed institutions to "reject candidates who voluntarily declare adherence to fascist ideology."
An uncharitable conclusion would be that for proponents, protecting intellectual freedom means prioritizing the rights of self-declared fascists or even Nazis over the rights of people admissions or hiring officers consider supporters of groups like Black Lives Matter. (The voluntarily declare language is important, because the legislation purports to prevent schools from requiring “diversity statements,” but this amendment wouldn’t have required anyone to state or sign anything.) And it is hard not to wonder if the concern is that by protecting, for example, BLM or “anti-fascists,” as the amendments would have done, from viewpoint discrimination during hiring and admissions, and/ or by allowing the rejection of self-identified Nazis or fascists, the model legislation’s clear goal of making colleges and universities more right-leaning might be undermined.
But the more likely reason for the incessant tabling is simply that Democrats had introduced the amendments, and allowing these members to have a win would have defeated the purpose of passing such a red meat partisan bill. To put it bluntly, most members of the SC House don’t seem to have much of a clue what the bill does, why it was written, or if it addresses any kind of real problems in state institutions of higher learning. What they do know is that it is an election year.
Never was the partisan motivation more obvious than when McGinnis successfully moved to table a series of around ten amendments that had been apparently copied, nearly word-for-word, from the Manhattan Institute model bill.
For example, one of Johnson’s amendments would have added, “Nothing in this section may be construed to limit or prohibit a public institution of higher learning's funding of research and creative works by the institution's students, faculty, or other research personnel, and the dissemination thereof.” That language, which in this context seems like a reasonable approach to making sure the bill does what proponents claim it does, also seems to come directly from the model bill.
The Manhattan Institute almost certainly included language like this to make the bill more palatable to legislators actually concerned with limiting academic freedom (rather than just making sure it is limited in the right direction— pun intended). It prefaced most of this language with, “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section shall be construed to cover or affect an institution of higher education’s funding of…”
Evidently, the South Carolina House was not overly concerned with challenges to academic freedom (give or take declaration of Nazism), as long as it was time to vote down Democratic amendments.
Another Manhattan Institute amendment, again proposed by Democrats, added the language, “Nothing in this section may be construed to limit or prohibit a public institution of higher learning's funding of an academic course instruction.” Again, Republicans tabled the amendment, despite arguing (sometimes) that the bill wasn’t supposed to limit classroom instruction.
What are detractors afraid of?
Throughout the debate, proponents of the bill were mostly silent about the bill’s likely impacts, and provided no specific examples of any policies or events in South Carolina that might call for such legislation. During the handful of times they participated in the amendment process, they often portrayed the fears of bill opponents as baseless (for example, with conflicting claims about whether or not the bill implicated classroom instruction).
But detractors did have substantive concerns.
Diversity
One concern was that a bill supposedly intended to promote viewpoint diversity had evidently been written primarily by two self-proclaimed rightwing legislators— Morgan and Magnuson of the Freedom Caucus— both White men with a very specific, far-right ideological bent. (The entire premise of the Caucus is that the Republican “uniparty” in SC is not truly conservative”.)
Freedom Caucus member Josiah Magnuson, at the end of the night, claimed that what they had created was “a great bill” which was, he claimed, “the result of a lot of collaboration and work". But the only “collaborators” he mentioned were House Education and Public Works Chair Shannon Erickson (more info on her here), Morgan, and McGinnis.
Johnson, a Black man, who is a member of Erickson’s House EPW committee, repeatedly said he had not been consulted on H. 3289, though he had made himself available to the authors. He also said SC professors had stated repeatedly in committee hearings that they are leaving the profession because of ideological attacks like the ones represented by this bill.
Towards the end of the night, Representative Leon Howard (Richland), also a Black man, came to the well to speak against the bill (because, he said, Rep. Morgan would not take his question during Morgan’s own remarks). Howard gave the proponents several opportunities to say any Black member had been consulted on the bill, but no one did. He also said that while for many members race might be an abstract issue— Morgan had mentioned pieces about DEI in the Washington Post and New York Times— “I lived this.”
Another amendment would have explicitly addressed diversity issues in higher education decision-making by adding: “In making appointments to boards or other governing bodies of public institutions of higher learning, the appointing authorities shall select members who are representative of the racial, gender, and geographical diversity of the State.” It probably goes without saying that the Manhattan Institute did not write this amendment, and it was, of course, tabled.
Another Manhattan Institute amendment added, "Nothing in this section may be construed to limit or prohibit any statement, program or training scripted by licensed attorneys and required to comply with the institution's obligations under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, applicable court order, or other applicable state and federal law.” It, too, was tabled.
In fact, the closest the House came to adopting any of the (comparatively) helpful model bill language was in discussing an amendment which (though tabled) actually included some of the Manhattan Institute language that did make its way into the the committee amendment version of the bill.
Rep. Landing (Charleston) rose during this discussion to say the bill was intended to protect diversity of thought. She didn’t offer any explanation of why other amendment language that explicitly protected “viewpoint discrimination” was not included.
Financial impacts
In committee, a great deal of discussion also centered on whether requirements of the bill will interfere with institutions' ability to qualify for federal grants and various research grants. This led at one point to a memorable exchange in which Rep. April Cromer acted as if she did not understand the plain meaning of the word diversity, and asked, “It sounds like you’re excluding white men” during questioning of an official at the majority-white Clemson University.
Towards the end of the night, Rep. John King (York) rose to speak against the bill, and said it will likely have a chilling effect on the recruitment of Black athletes. “Sports are more than just a name; they are a unifying force, a platform for social change, and a showcase for the strength that comes from diversity.”
Rep. Annie McDaniel (Fairfield), in her own remarks against the bill, mentioned the possibility of “economic sanctions”— an important consideration after King's discussion of athletics. She seemed to be alluding to the 15-year boycott of South Carolina by the NCAA that was a reaction to the state’s decision to continue flying the Confederate flag over the capitol. The NCAA boycott of SC was lifted just nine years ago, when the flag finally came down in response to the white supremacist massacre at the Mother Emmanuel Church in Charleston.
Divisive rhetoric
Representative Kambrell Garvin (Richland), speaking against the bill after the amendment debate had ended, pointed out that a state professor had received multiple death threats from opponents of “DEI”. (For the same reasons Garvin did not identify the professor, I won't either.) He cautioned against the "unintended consequences" of the bill.
Rep. Johnson, in his own closing remarks, recalled experiences as a student at the College of Charleston, including an incident in which a person with a Confederate flag drove by in a truck, screaming a racial slur at him, and another incident in which he was denied entry to a social function because “I was a local” (meaning, a Black man). He pointed out that many members of the House, which is overwhelmingly made up of White members, have never had to face these issues.
“Many of you have never had to do that, to speak on behalf of an entire population of people,” he said.
Johnson said that without diversity-related programs, he would not have made it through college and would not be in the House today.
Johnson extolled the virtues of diversity— by which he seemed to mean both racial diversity and diversity of thought and opinion— in the House. He said he tried to meet with other House members (mentioning Magnuson, Erickson, and McGinnis) to try to improve the bill and address concerns.
“Because I value your opinion, that's why I asked what your opinion is.”
Only one White member of the House, Seth Rose, gave concluding remarks against the bill; every proponent was White and a member of the Republican Caucus and/ or Freedom Caucus.
Did we ever figure out what “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (the thing being “abolished”) actually is?
Not really.
Rep. Garvin, in his final remarks, informally explained the terms, but at that point, despite several proposed amendments that would have done so (all tabled), the bill still did not define them.
A few minutes later, it passed to second reading without the definitions.
In final remarks in favor of the bill, Rep. Magnuson claimed, “We certainly encourage diversity,” going on to say that the problem is how “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is now defined in society. (Again, the bill does not define these terms, and neither did Magnuson). He also claimed that the bill provided “equal protection”, but, again, proponents had rejected every amendment proposed that would have prohibited specific types of viewpoint discrimination.
Following this, Rep. Morgan went on to claim that the meanings of diversity, equity, and inclusion actually already had clear and self-evident definitions. For example, he said, “diversity” meant “diversity based on immutable characteristics” (a common talking-point in the anti-“woke” crusade, usually referencing characteristics like race being used in policies like affirmative action, that Morgan didn’t support with any examples from real universities’ actions or statements). Throughout the night, many members, including multiple Republicans, had spoken of diversity of thought— not exactly an immutable characteristic (at least for some of us)— but Morgan didn’t explain why his definition was the definition, or why it was self-evident.
Rep. McGinnis, for his part, followed by saying, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion, as words and concepts, that's not the problem here.” Of course, this is clearly in conflict with what his co-author had just said.
In other words, three of four cited authors of the bill all three disagreed on what the central target of the bill, “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” means.
So what do proponents actually want?
In his remarks, Morgan often seemed to be giving a stump speech (he is currently running for US House on the “no one else is a real conservative” platform, and recently became somewhat of a far-right TikTok star after being reposted by Matt Gaetz). He began and ended the speech with the sound-byte-friendly, “Discrimination was wrong in the past, and it is wrong in the present.”
Morgan then rattled off a quote from author Ibram X. Kendi, author of Stamped From the Beginning, which he has been using for years (and which formed the basis for a frivolous lawsuit against Lexington School District One): “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination.” (This quote, often used out of its original context— a discussion of affirmative action programs— is frequently used by far-right opponents of “wokeness” or “CRT,” or whatever they are calling it at the moment, to paint all efforts at antiracism as fundamentally racist. This claim, in turn, is part of the white supremacist “Mantra” originally created by avowed white supremacist Bob Whittaker, also author of the “great replacement” conspiracy theory. Whitaker’s theories were part of the evident inspiration behind Dylann Roof’s murder of nine people at Mother Emmanuel Church.)
Morgan kept coming back to the Kendi quote, conspicuously and sometimes awkwardly avoiding attributing it to Kendi— probably because the author has almost nothing to do with South Carolina colleges and universities. While Morgan claimed the unnamed Kendi was “one of the key figures who writes a lot of curriculum,” Kendi is a historian and writer, not a curriculum expert, and Morgan provided no evidence that he had any hand in creating “curriculum” at South Carolina’s state-funded universities. Instead, he just said the author (without naming him) had been a guest speaker at an SC college. (Notably, one of the tabled amendments, again using Manhattan Institute language, would have protected universities from being penalized for using state funds to host guest speakers.)
Unsurprisingly, the bill passed to second reading.
Proponents had still never defined exactly what it was they were intent on “abolishing”.
Note: the full debate, which took place during the March 27, 2024, meeting of the full House, is archived here.