Bill
H 3927
South Carolina H 3927 bans state and public entities from DEI programs or race/sex-based preferences in hiring/admissions, enforcing merit-based opportunities with penalties.
Status & Key Dates
- Introduced: February 6 / March 20, 2025 (listed dates in the record). Primary sponsor: Rep. Gilliam (with many co‑sponsors).
- Committee report (House Education & Public Works): Favorable with amendment (3/20/2025).
- House passage: Read second/third time and passed (roll call Yeas 82 — Nays 32) 04/02/2025; sent to Senate 04/03/2025. Senate concurred 07/21/2025. Hearings scheduled in September 2025. Current referral noted to Committee on Judiciary per later docket entries.
Purpose / Intent
- Establish statewide policy prohibiting public‑sector programs and practices that, in the bill sponsors’ view, implement race‑ or sex‑based preferences disguised as “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI). The stated goals are to end unlawful preferences, restore merit‑based opportunity, and ensure compliance with state and federal equal‑protection and anti‑discrimination requirements.
Scope / Definitions
- Adds Article 29 to Chapter 1, Title 1 of the South Carolina Code (Sections beginning at 1‑1‑1910).
- “Public entity” (variously used across versions) includes state agencies, quasi‑state agencies, political subdivisions, public institutions of higher learning (including technical and comprehensive colleges), public school districts, and public charter schools.
- The bill defines promoting DEI broadly to include influencing hiring/admissions by race/sex, providing special benefits based on protected characteristics, DEI‑focused trainings/programs (unless required by law), and related policies.
Major Provisions
- Prohibitions (except as required by federal law):
- No public entity may establish or support an office, unit, or division whose purpose (in whole or part) is to promote DEI.
- Public entities may not compel, require, induce, or solicit DEI statements from applicants or give preferential consideration based on such statements.
- No preferential treatment may be given on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation in employment, admissions, or other official actions.
- Public entities may not require individuals to participate in DEI programs or mandatory DEI training.
- Public institutions of higher learning: additional rules barring expenditure of funds to promise admission/benefits based on DEI commitments, prohibiting mandatory DEI trainings for faculty/employees, and forbidding adverse action for refusal to participate.
- Exceptions and Clarifications:
- Does not prohibit compliance with federal law or applicable court orders, or actions required by accreditation or grant terms. The bill expressly allows applying for grants, certifying compliance with antidiscrimination laws, and routine academic instruction, scholarly research, student organizations, guest speakers, and neutral programs designed to enhance student outcomes.
- Requires public institutions to provide an electronic copy of the statute’s language to students, employees, and faculty.
- Contracting, Grants, and Funding (in earlier/amended versions):
- Some versions require contractor/grant recipient certifications that they do not operate unlawful DEI programs; heads of public entities to include certification clauses in contracts/grants. Other text would prohibit spending funds until governing bodies certify compliance for the preceding fiscal year.
Enforcement & Administrative Effects
- Public entities must adopt policies to discipline (including termination) employees or contractors who violate the prohibitions.
- Contractual certification and grant/award conditions could affect procurement and funding relationships. Institutions may need to revise hiring, admissions, training, and compliance policies, and potentially change accreditation relationships if accreditors require DEI programming (addressed in some bill language).
Potential Impact
- Immediate effect on state and local public employers, public colleges/universities, school districts, and quasi‑state entities: elimination or restructuring of DEI offices/programs, changes to hiring and admissions practices, and limits on training content deemed DEI‑related.
- Could prompt administrative adjustments to contract/grant requirements and certifications.
- May generate legal challenges where state prohibitions conflict with federal nondiscrimination obligations, grant or accreditation conditions, or First Amendment/academic‑freedom claims.
Notes and Record Irregularity
- The legislative file includes multiple amended drafts with overlapping and truncated text; some versions contain additional mechanisms (e.g., spending holds, accreditation‑swap requirements) that appear in earlier or alternate drafts. Also, an unrelated Massachusetts House docket text appears in the consolidated file — the summary above focuses on the South Carolina bill language and actions.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
