Committee hears divided testimony on HB 24-28, which would bar required DEI/CRT course mandates in public colleges

The Committee on Education heard testimony on House Bill 24-28, a proposal that would bar public colleges and universities from requiring diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory (CRT) related course content as a condition of earning a degree and would require institutions to offer a general-education course on American institutions and orientation material on free expression.

Revisor Jason Long summarized the bill to the committee, describing three primary components: a prohibition on requiring DEI/CRT-related courses as degree requirements, a new American institutions general-education requirement beginning as noted in the bill, and orientation requirements that would include the text of the First Amendment and resources on free speech. The reviser also said the bill contains definitions of DEI and CRT and that the bill as drafted would take effect July 1, 2026.

Supporters told the committee the bill protects academic freedom and prevents compelled speech. Tim Davis, a clinical social worker who chairs a department of social work in Kansas, said he supported the bill "because it protects academic freedom and restores our ability to train effective helpers," and later testified that recent accreditation language requires anti‑racist approaches across curricula. Representative Williams said the bill aims to "prop up and encourage free speech" and to prevent universities from compelling students in unrelated majors to take DEI coursework.

Opponents warned the bill could jeopardize program accreditation and worsen workforce shortages. Tanya Rickliff, president of the Kansas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, said the bill "puts these programs at risk by restricting required instruction and participation related to content that is embedded in our accreditation requirements," and urged the committee to vote no while offering to work on language that preserves accreditation and workforce needs. Other opponents — including faculty, the Kansas NEA and the Kansas Conference of the AAUP — argued the bill would intrude on disciplinary judgment, chill academic freedom and limit faculty and institutional governance.

Several witnesses gave concrete examples: panelists cited university degree maps and handbooks that list DEI or multicultural requirements in programs at Emporia State, Fort Hays State, Kansas State, Pittsburg State, the University of Kansas and Wichita State. Committee members also heard that the fiscal note, provided shortly before the hearing, offered widely varying cost estimates: Emporia State said implementation could be absorbed within existing resources, while Kansas State and the University of Kansas provided much higher estimates; the Kansas Medical Center said it could not estimate the fiscal effect at the time.

Committee members pressed witnesses on implementation questions — who within an institution decides course content, whether the bill includes penalties (the reviser said it does not), and how required orientation postings would be applied. Several members suggested inviting the Kansas Board of Regents for a later, technical briefing on curriculum approval processes.

The committee did not take a vote. Chairwoman Estes closed the hearing and thanked conferees; the committee adjourned.