Senate committee advances bill that would ban campus DEI offices and trainings

Senate Bill 1198, a measure that would restrict diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs at Idaho’s public universities, advanced out of the Idaho Senate Education Committee after a 10-4 roll-call vote to send the bill to general orders. The committee heard more than two hours of testimony from the bill sponsor, lawmakers and dozens of members of the public for and against the proposal.

The bill, introduced in the hearing by Senator Ben Toews, defines DEI broadly and would bar public institutions of higher education from maintaining DEI offices, mandating DEI-related training, operating bias-reporting systems that can trigger discipline for speech, or requiring students to enroll in DEI-related courses to satisfy degree requirements. It would still allow voluntary courses and programs dedicated to racial, ethnic or gender studies so long as students are not compelled to take them and would preserve legal obligations such as Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and other specified exemptions.

Sponsor remarks emphasized limiting what he called compelled speech and ideological training. "The freedom from a demand to think or speak a specific way is likely one of the most important freedoms," Senator Toews told the committee, saying the bill targets programs "derived from or that promote the tenets or concepts of critical theory." Toews said the measure draws on language and models used in other states and includes a reporting requirement that would require public institutions to report annually to the attorney general and the Legislature’s education committee.

The bill’s enforcement provisions create a 30-day cure period for complaints, authorize the attorney general to seek a writ of mandamus or injunctive relief, and permit the AG to pursue civil penalties of up to 2 percent of the budget of an offending division, office, center or unit within an institution. The measure also provides injunctive relief rights to students and staff through private legal actions.

Supporters who testified described DEI on campuses as ideological overreach and a misuse of public funds. Samuel Lehi of the Idaho Freedom Foundation said university writing centers and student programs have shifted to activism and argued the state should refocus colleges on vocational training and core academic missions. "It is my belief that a writing center should be focused on helping kids with their grammar and not with social activism," Lehi said.

Opponents said the bill’s definitions are vague, would chill classroom discussion and could undermine professional accreditation. Ashley Toman, a Master of Social Work student, said the bill "directly interferes with the mission by prohibiting teaching, training, or institutional support of DEI in higher education" and warned of downstream workforce effects if programs lose required coursework. Dr. Mary Mosley of the American Association of University Women of Idaho told the committee the bill would "usurp educators’ prerogative of choosing curriculum, stifle free inquiry, [and] cripple Idaho’s institutions of higher learning."

Lawmakers asked for clarifications during the hearing about how the bill treats academic discussion versus promotion of particular tenets. Toews and other sponsors told the committee the text is intended to distinguish instruction that merely discusses topics from instruction or programs intentionally designed to "promote" critical-theory-based tenets; they said the attorney general’s office would have authority to review university materials for compliance but that the AG’s ability to do so is a matter of workload rather than a formal statewide legal opinion.

Members also discussed an implementation detail flagged by the sponsor: because civil penalties in the bill are capped at 2 percent of the affected unit’s budget, a small program such as a gender-studies department with a cited budget of $18,106 would face a very small maximum penalty; the sponsor asked the committee to consider whether larger caps are appropriate for some violations.

After public testimony and sponsor discussion, Representative Ben Hawkins moved to send SB 1198 to general orders. Representative Sauter offered a substitute motion to hold the bill in committee so members would have more time to study the text; that motion failed on a roll call of 4-10. The committee then approved sending the bill to general orders by a roll-call vote of 10-4.

Next steps: SB 1198 will be scheduled on the Senate calendar for further amendment and debate on the floor; the sponsor indicated a desire to seek a small set of technical changes related to penalty amounts and reporting details during the bill’s next stage.