Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Composition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House moves to remove race- and gender-based quotas from state boards; members raise concerns about impact on diversity
Summary
House Bill 12 37 passed after debate about deleting statutory provisions that require race- or gender-based quotas or preferences on certain state boards. Supporters cited a recent Supreme Court decision; opponents warned of chilling effects on efforts to reduce disparities in outcomes.
The House on Wednesday approved House Bill 12 37, a measure that removes statutory language authorizing race- or gender-based quotas, preferences or affirmative-action policies for the composition of certain state boards and commissions.
Deputy Speaker Zachary, the bill sponsor, said the change aligns state law with the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2023 ruling in the Students for Fair Admission v. President & Fellows of Harvard College case and with guidance from state legal counsel. "All it does is delete statutes that have racial and gender quotas associated with them," Zachary said on the floor.
Supporters argued the measure brings Tennessee into compliance with that Supreme Court precedent and removes provisions that have prompted litigation. Zachary said the bill does not interfere with federal civil-rights prohibitions such as Title VII and that appointment processes still allow the legislature to confirm nominees.
Several members raised policy concerns. Representative Love said her worry was that removing the language could make it harder for boards addressing racial disparities'for example, a maternal mortality review board'to recruit experts from particular communities. "If this board is intentional about trying to recruit members of the African American community who may have particular insight into ways to reduce these disparities ... this section may cause difficulty," Love said.
Representative Chisholm said affirmative-action tools have historically helped diversify boards and boards' perspectives; she urged careful consideration of whether the bill would have unintended effects. Representative McKenzie and others questioned the bill's timing and said removing statutory language could be seen as usurping local choice or existing board practice.
The House adopted a committee amendment that added or adjusted several sections before passage. On the final vote the chamber recorded 71 yeas and 23 nays; the speaker declared the bill passed on third and final consideration.
