Each spring, Missouri’s legislature goes through the familiar ritual of passing a new state budget. This year, Republican lawmakers have mostly wrangled over just one thing related to higher ed: a ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion spending by public colleges and other state institutions.
The Missouri House wants to bar funding for DEI. The Missouri Senate does not. Both houses are controlled by Republicans.
The House approved a budget amendment in March that would prohibit funding for “staffing, vendors, consultants, or programs” associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion. But similar language was unsuccessful in the Senate, after hours of debate that lasted until 3 a.m.
The Senate proposal would have prohibited funding “for intradepartmental ‘diversity, equity, inclusion,’” as well as for “‘diversity, inclusion, belonging’” training, programs, staffing, and hiring. But key Senate Republicans said a DEI ban could have unintended consequences.
The two chambers are scheduled to meet this week to hash out a compromise. Missouri’s legislative session ends on Friday.
Legislatures in 20 states have proposed bills this year that seek to curtail diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts on college campuses, according to The Chronicle’s DEI Legislation Tracker.
Simultaneously, some lawmakers have tried a different tactic: leveraging the budgeting process to enact DEI bans.
It’s not a new approach. Lawmakers often lobby to have their priorities wrapped into sweeping budget bills.
The budget is the one must-pass item each session, and legislators may find it easier to tack on policy riders than to try to pass separate bills, said Robert Kelchen, a professor of higher education at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
More lawmakers have used this strategy in recent years, however, said Michael Harris, a higher-education professor at Southern Methodist University.
“If you’re in a red state, your legislature is either doing this or they’re seriously thinking about doing this — that’s just the reality today,” Harris said.
A ‘Job Killer’
In several states, Republican-backed budget provisions that would curtail college DEI spending are facing opposition — including from other Republicans.
Nearly 200 organizations voiced opposition to the Missouri House’s amendment in an open letter, citing “wide-ranging consequences” from economic concerns to health and economic disparities. “The budget language would jeopardize licensing and accreditation of programs critical to both the well-being of Missourians and our state’s economic competitiveness,” the letter states. The Missouri Chamber of Commerce called the proposal a “job killer.”
State Sen. Lincoln Hough, a Republican who chairs the Missouri Senate’s Committee on Appropriations, has expressed concern that the DEI provision could “jeopardize” federal funding, as well as state agreements with some contractors and vendors. The ban’s vagueness creates uncertainty, Hough said last week.
In Kansas, Republican lawmakers added a provision in the state’s budget bill that would have restricted public colleges from asking job applicants about diversity, equity, and inclusion. But the language didn’t make the final cut.
Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, used a line-item veto to strike the DEI language on April 21. The Kansas House tried and failed last week to override her decision on that measure.
South Carolina Republicans also considered, and ultimately voted down, a series of budget amendments that would have banned DEI spending at public colleges.
While some conservative legislators argued that colleges shouldn’t be using taxpayer dollars to support diversity measures, others expressed concern that a blanket cut in funding would harm students by leading colleges to raise tuition. One lawmaker suggested that the state budget was not the right vehicle for targeting campus diversity programs.
The Texas House and Senate have both approved anti-DEI language in their respective state-budget proposals, though the provisions differ slightly.
The House plan would bar public colleges from using state funds for “unconstitutional” DEI programs. The Senate’s would prohibit spending money on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs or trainings.
The Texas chambers will have to reconcile their proposals before May 29, when the legislative session ends. In addition, at least seven bills have been introduced in the state that would affect diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts on college campuses, according to The Chronicle’s tracker.
At the same time, Texas lawmakers plan to increase funding for other higher-ed priorities. Community colleges are slated to potentially see a $305-million increase, and another bill would support research efforts at institutions of higher education.
“There’s a real dichotomy between these efforts to restrict DEI and also substantial increases in funding,” Kelchen said.
Chilling and Demoralizing
Even if the DEI spending ban doesn’t end up in Missouri’s final state budget, other legislation could target campus diversity efforts in the state.
One bill would prohibit institutions from “enforcing a ‘discriminatory ideology’” that “promotes the differential treatment of any individual or group of individuals based on immutable characteristics of race, color, religion, sex, gender ethnicity, national origin, or ancestry” through requiring the submission of diversity, equity, and inclusion statements. Another would ban the instruction of “diversity-equity-inclusion ideologies or materials.”
A representative from the University of Missouri’s Board of Curators declined to comment on pending legislation.
The sheer volume of legislative proposals that would affect diversity, equity, and inclusion this year is overwhelming for colleges to keep track of and mitigate behind the scenes, Harris said.
“It feels like you’re fighting this war on every single front — it’s attacking DEI, it’s attacking tenure, it’s attacking autonomy,” Harris said. “It’s so chilling and it’s so demoralizing, and what’s almost worse is that I think that’s the point.”
As legislative debates continue this month, Harris said, it’s important to remember that many institutions have begun proactively making changes in diversity and inclusion programs in order to be risk averse — even if legislation doesn’t end up going into effect.
“If that’s the case, then it almost feels like we don’t quite have our eye on the ball,” Harris said. “We‘re watching the crazy legislation, but if institutions are essentially voluntarily complying, well then it doesn’t matter if the bill didn’t pass.”
