A House committee on Thursday eased off a little on a bill barring universities and community colleges from requiring statements about diversity, equity or inclusion as a condition of admission, financial aid or hiring.
The House Higher Education Budget committee amended the bill so it reduces the fines for violations of the proposed law, removes a provision allowing lawsuits to be brought for any infraction and provides more room for due process for the affected schools.
The legislation, as it passed out of committee, reduces the fines for potential violations to $10,000 for each violation from $100,000 per violation. It also removed a section that would have allowed anyone whose rights were violated to sue a school.
The bill now allows someone who believes their rights were violated to file a complaint with the Board of Regents to investigate. If the board’s investigation doesn’t turn up a violation, a complaint could be filed with the attorney general, who would investigate.
If the attorney general finds a violation, that institution would have 90 days to remedy the violation. If the violation is not corrected, the attorney general could take the school to court. A $10,000 fine for each violation could be levied if the court finds a violation.
The bill is backed by Republican state Rep. Steven Howe, who is renewing an effort from last year to address DEI, when the governor vetoed a measure added to the state budget preventing state universities from asking job applicants about the issue.
The bill headed to the House floor bars Kansas post-secondary schools from requiring anyone to make a statement of personal support for or in opposition to any political ideology or movement, including diversity, equity and inclusion.
The bill, which also applies to technical colleges, bans schools from requiring pledges or statements regarding “diversity, equity, inclusion” as a basis for denying admission, financial aid or promoting a faculty member.
Democratic state Rep. Tom Sawyer of Wichita tried to delete a key reference to diversity, equity and inclusion that would have changed the original intent of the bill.
His proposal would have left the bill only barring universities and community colleges from requiring statements about political ideology or a movement.
Sawyer said the attributes of diversity, equity and inclusion are generally good traits in people. He didn’t understand why they would be included in the bill.
“I don’t know why we would want people working out our universities who aren’t inclusive, who aren’t equitable,” Sawyer said.
“I don’t understand why anybody would be against equity or being inclusive or diversity,” Sawyer said. “Those are all good qualities.”
Howe said DEI was included in the bill because it is what universities are requiring of their applicants. He said it was unconstitutional and discriminatory.
He said universities know the definition of DEI even if they might not share a general agreement among them about the definition.
He said the bill doesn’t ban universities from spending money on DEI programs. He said it’s limited to using it as a benchmark for employment, admissions and financial aid.
“This is to protect the constitutional rights of any applicant that comes to our universities in Kansas,” he said.
Howe said the bill doesn’t say that diversity, equity and inclusion are bad traits.
“What happens is there are rubrics set up by hiring committees…and (job candidates) are graded on how well they adhere or how strongly they support diversity, equity and inclusion,” Howe said.
“That turns out to be discriminatory practice,” he said.
“If universities are going to keep doing that, they are going to be liable because it violates the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country who are seeking employment.
Democratic state Rep. Brandon Woodard of Lenexa said there’s no generally accepted definition of DEI and there’s no definition of those words in the legislation.
“I just feel like we’re continuing down this path of passing bills in response to issues that aren’t real,” Woodard said.
“Until we know what diversity means across the board, until we know what equity means across the board, until we know what inclusion means across the board, we shouldn’t be passing legislation to deal with it.
“If we can define those in the future, you can earn my vote on a bill like this.”
