House education committee adopts amendment to restrict DEI offices and mandatory DEI statements at state agencies, public colleges

The House Education and Public Works Committee on Wednesday adopted a strike‑all amendment to House Bill 3927 that replaces the original measure with language barring state and quasi‑state agencies and public institutions of higher education from creating or supporting offices that specifically promote diversity, equity and inclusion and from requiring DEI statements or mandatory DEI training.

The amendment, described to the committee by Representative Tim McGinnis, Representative, District 56 (Horry County), would also forbid preferential or differential treatment in hiring, admissions or benefits on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation; require agencies to report complaints about alleged violations to the South Carolina Department of Administration annually; and designate the state Attorney General as a potential enforcer. The amendment sets an effective date of July 1, 2025.

Why it matters: the change would affect state agencies, entities the bill describes as “quasi‑state agencies,” and South Carolina public colleges and universities. Committee members said the amendment aims to emphasize individual merit in hiring and admissions while carving out exceptions for external accreditation and certain grant programs so institutions do not lose federal funding or accreditation.

What the amendment would do: according to legal counsel Macy Webb, the amendment (1) defines “public institution of higher learning” and “quasi‑state agency,” (2) prohibits state or quasi‑state agencies from creating or supporting DEI‑specific offices unless required by law, (3) bans requiring DEI statements from applicants or using such statements as a basis for preferential treatment, (4) bars mandatory DEI training that carries adverse employment consequences, (5) instructs agencies to report complaints annually to the Department of Administration, and (6) empowers the Attorney General to bring legal action for violations. Webb said the text replicates some language from last year’s higher‑education measure H.4289 and that parts of the amendment were drawn from the 1964 Civil Rights Act for definitions of prohibited differential treatment.

Supporters and argument: Representative McGinnis, who introduced the amendment, told the committee, “We listened to you, and we went back and reworked this bill to where we essentially threw out the bill we were considering.” He and other supporters framed the measure as protecting free speech and preventing mandatory ideological statements or trainings. Representative Steven Frank said removing mandated DEI statements could make applicants more candid in their applications and protect merit‑based selection.

Opponents and concerns: several members and public commenters opposed the bill or warned of unintended consequences. Representative Hamilton Grant said he was troubled that the committee lacked up‑to‑date data showing which agencies or institutions currently maintain DEI offices or require DEI statements. Representative Cam Garvin and others pressed sponsors to clarify that common campus programs — student affinity groups, Black History Month programming, veteran services, disability accommodations and curricular instruction such as Holocaust education — are not affected; sponsors and counsel replied those activities and Title IX offices are not targeted and said the text includes carveouts for accreditation and certain grants. Representative James Alexander said, “The equity giving everybody a chance — we are saying remove all that,” expressing concern the measure would roll back protections and progress.

Reporting and enforcement: the amendment requires state and quasi‑state agencies to report complaints about violations of the act to the Department of Administration annually; DOA would summarize those reports and forward them to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. The Attorney General is named in the bill as the official who may bring legal action to enforce the statute. Counsel said the amendment does not create a statewide investigative audit by the state auditor (language in the original draft was removed); instead, enforcement would arise from individual complaints and the AG’s discretion to sue.

Votes at a glance: the committee first adopted the strike‑all amendment and later voted to report the bill favorably as amended. The roll call on the amendment produced a committee announcement that the amendment was adopted by a vote of 12 yes, 4 no, 1 abstention and 1 absent. The committee later voted to report House Bill 3927 favorably as amended by a vote of 13 yes, 4 no, with 1 absent.

What’s next: with the committee’s favorable report the amended version of HB 3927 moves toward further consideration in the House. Sponsors and opponents both acknowledged the bill could face legal challenges if enacted; counsel and members repeatedly noted carveouts were included to avoid jeopardizing institutions’ accreditation or federal grant eligibility. The text sets an effective date of July 1, 2025 if the measure becomes law.

Context and key figures: supporters said the amendment clarifies it does not bar student groups or curricular programs and stressed protection of First Amendment rights; opponents and some committee members warned the measure could discourage grantmakers, affect historically Black colleges and universities in practice and produce litigation or administrative costs if complaints rise. Several members called for follow‑up research on which agencies currently operate DEI offices or require DEI statements.

Taper: committee members urged continued civil discussion; supporters called for emphasis on individual merit, while critics urged caution about unintended impacts on funding, accreditation and campus services.