House education panel adopts amendment restricting DEI offices at state agencies and public colleges

The South Carolina House Education and Public Works Committee adopted a strike‑all amendment to House Bill 3927 that would restrict diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices and practices at state and quasi‑state agencies and at public institutions of higher education.

Supporters said the amendment is meant to protect individual merit and ensure compliance with the state and federal constitutions; opponents said it risks unintended consequences for accreditation, grant eligibility and programs that serve historically underserved communities. The committee adopted the amendment and then reported the bill favorably to the full House.

The amendment replaces the bill’s original text with a new statute that: defines “public institution of higher learning” and “quasi‑state agency”; prohibits state and quasi‑state agencies from creating or supporting DEI offices unless required by state or federal law; bans requiring DEI statements from applicants or using such statements to give preferential treatment in hiring or admissions; prohibits intentional differential treatment in employment or program delivery on the basis of protected characteristics; and requires agencies to comply with state and federal equal protection requirements. Higher‑education specific provisions in the amendment prohibit use of state funds to promote or promise benefits tied to support for DEI‑related political ideologies, prohibit mandatory DEI training for faculty and staff, bar adverse employment actions for nonparticipation in DEI programming, and affirm campus free‑speech protections.

The amendment includes enforcement and reporting provisions. The attorney general is authorized to bring legal action to enforce the act; state agencies must report complaints annually to the South Carolina Department of Administration (DOA), which must summarize the reports for the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate; the measure also provides whistleblower protections for those who report violations. The amendment sets an effective date of July 1, 2025.

Committee discussion ran more than an hour and included multiple members expressing both support and concern. Representative Tim McGinnis, who walked the committee through section‑by‑section changes, said the amendment is intended to “prevent mandatory diversity statements” and to “ensure equal treatment” in hiring and admissions. Legal counsel Macy Webb summarized the amendment’s sections and noted the higher‑education carve‑outs for accreditation and grant programs, which she said were included to avoid harming institutions’ SACS accreditation or federal grant eligibility.

Opponents said the amendment could chill programs, grants or recruitment efforts that benefited historically underrepresented students and institutions. Representative Jermaine Grant and others cited testimony submitted to the committee and examples they said show grants and recruitment efforts could be affected. Grant told the committee he had received calls from organizations and university leaders who said grant support had been withdrawn or speakers canceled amid “talks around DEI.”

Committee votes: the committee adopted the strike‑all amendment and then voted to report the bill favorably as amended. The clerk announced the amendment was adopted “by a vote of 12 to 4 with 1 abstaining and 1 absent.” Later, the committee voted to report the bill favorably as amended “by a vote of 13 to 4 with 1 absent.”

What the amendment would not do, according to committee counsel and proponents, is prohibit private student groups or offices that are not formally labeled as DEI; executive staff said Title IX offices, affinity student groups and programs such as Call Me Mister and other pipeline programs would remain permissible. Supporters repeatedly emphasized the measure’s stated intent to preserve first‑amendment protections for faculty and students and to prevent mandatory ideological oaths in hiring or admissions.

Next steps: with the committee’s favorable report, the amended H.3927 moves to the House calendar for further consideration and potential floor debate.