As President Donald Trump鈥檚 administration has set out to eradicate diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in schools and universities, a growing number of state legislators have taken up the same cause鈥攊ntroducing bills that would ban school districts from maintaining DEI offices, hiring DEI coordinators, or requiring students or faculty to participate in related trainings.
Proposed legislation in at least six states echoes the 鈥渄ivisive concepts鈥� laws that at least 18 states have on the books, which prohibit schools from teaching anything that could be interpreted as 鈥渞ace or sex stereotyping.鈥�
But the new crop of bills would go a step further, potentially requiring the dismantling of school district offices devoted to improving outcomes for students of color, students from low-income families, students with disabilities, English learners, and LGBTQ+ students鈥攁nd in some cases, explicitly banning any activity that aims to deepen students鈥� or teachers鈥� understanding of race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
This trend represents a philosophical shift, said Eric Duncan, the director of P-12 policy at EdTrust, a nonprofit that advocates for students of color and students from low-income families. Previous 鈥渄ivisive concepts鈥� bills took a defensive posture, promising to protect students from 鈥渋ndoctrination鈥� and 鈥渇eeling aggrieved,鈥� he said. 鈥淭his feels much more aggressive.鈥�
鈥淣ow you鈥檙e seeing folks are moving this line from, 鈥楲et鈥檚 defend our students,鈥� to, 鈥楲et鈥檚 proactively eradicate this diversity, equity, inclusion approach from our schools,鈥� he said.
In Texas, a that would prohibit schools from developing or implementing any policies or training that 鈥渞eference鈥� these topics passed the state Senate. A similar is moving through the West Virginia legislature, and was recently tabled in Georgia.
In North Carolina, a that would ban schools from maintaining any departments 鈥渞eferred to as or named diversity, equity, and inclusion鈥� has passed the state Senate. A Kentucky introduced in the Senate would also ban DEI offices.
And in Mississippi, a would prevent K-12 schools from considering diversity statements during the hiring process, and require they teach that there are only two genders, male and female, 鈥渂ased on the chromosomal makeup of an individual.鈥�
Republican legislators who have championed these proposals cast them as a necessary corrective to what they see as partisan and ideological teaching that is taking priority over basic academics. There鈥檚 little evidence that this is a widespread problem in K-12 schools, though. A sweeping national report on high school history teachers from the American Historical Association last year found that 糖心动漫vlog purposefully avoided materials that they saw as partisan or 鈥渕oralizing.鈥�
鈥淪o-called 鈥楧EI鈥� initiatives were pitched as a tool to help our children better understand our history, when in reality they鈥檙e merely a facade used by Democrats to alter curriculum to fit their agenda,鈥� said Phil Berger, the Republican leader of the North Carolina state Senate, in a statement on March 11.
The map below shows which states have introduced bills or taken other steps that would restrict teaching critical race theory or limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism.
It will be updated as new information becomes available.
Click here for more information on the measures and variations from state to state.
But critics of these bills say they could have devastating consequences for children in these states.
鈥淜-12 and higher education institutions that prioritize DEI initiatives produce graduates better equipped to succeed in diverse workplaces and contribute to an increasingly more complex and global economy,鈥� wrote a collection of Georgia civil rights and educational equity organizations in an to state legislators this month. They were arguing against a proposed ban on DEI, which was later tabled in the state Senate.
鈥淯pholding these policies is crucial to remedy racial disparities in educational attainment and to ensure that all students, regardless of background, have the resources and opportunities to excel,鈥� they said.
Anti-DEI efforts in public schools follows similar actions against universities
The push to ban DEI offices and programs in public schools follows a yearslong effort to do the same at colleges and universities.
Since 2023, 16 states have passed laws that would restrict the use of mandatory DEI training, diversity statements, identity-based preferences for hiring and admissions, DEI-related courses, and DEI offices and staff, according to a maintained by the Chronicle of Higher Education. At least 270 campuses in 38 states have 鈥攔anging from small shifts such as renaming existing positions to large-scale program changes like eliminating DEI offices. All of the states that have proposed new legislation regarding DEI in K-12 schools have already introduced similar bills affecting colleges and universities.
The language in bills aimed at universities鈥攁nd now, in bills targeting K-12 schools鈥攃an be found in by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative public policy organization, in 2023. One of its authors, Christopher Rufo, was a leading voice in the movement to ban 鈥渄ivisive concepts鈥� and critical race theory in schools several years ago.
Even before the new wave of proposed legislation, some school districts had begun to shift the focus of initiatives designed to support students from historically marginalized backgrounds, moving away from language that explicitly mentions DEI to more general goals of fostering inclusion and belonging鈥攁 rebrand in response to a tense political landscape.
Recent federal actions from the Trump administration have only heightened the stakes for schools.
In February, the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 office for civil rights issued a directive telling schools to end all race-based programming or risk losing federal funds. (The agency later followed up with guidance clarifying that affinity clubs and heritage month celebrations don鈥檛 automatically violate the law.)
Also last month, the Education Department launched a public portal to solicit reports of 鈥渋llegal discriminatory practices鈥� at schools.
The national political climate has made more forceful state action possible, Duncan said.
鈥淲hen you have a federal government that鈥檚 essentially saying, 鈥榃e agree with you states, we think diversity, equity, and inclusion is illegal; we are signaling to you we are not going to challenge these laws,鈥� what it allows states to do is say, 鈥� 鈥榃e鈥檙e going to push the envelope a little bit,鈥欌�� he said.
Bills could have a 鈥榗hilling effect鈥� on school operations
In several states, including Texas, North Carolina, and Mississippi, proposed legislation would explicitly ban DEI offices or training.
In Texas, Republican Sen. Brandon Creighton, the bill鈥檚 sponsor, that DEI programs were 鈥渦sing millions of taxpayer dollars meant for the classroom to fund political activism and political agendas.鈥�
Mississippi Rep. Joey Hood, a Republican and the state bill鈥檚 sponsor, wrote in a Facebook post about the bill that he would 鈥渘ot be silent when it comes to protecting our conservative values.鈥�
Neither Hood nor Creighton responded to requests for comment.
These bills are 鈥渋ntended to have a chilling effect,鈥� said Jerry Wilson, the policy and advocacy director for the Center for Racial Equity in Education, a North Carolina nonprofit that advocates for racial justice in education and works to close opportunity gaps.
North Carolina鈥檚 bill prohibits 鈥渄iscriminatory practices鈥� and 鈥渄ivisive concepts鈥濃�攕imilar to a 2021 bill that former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed鈥攂ut it also bans schools from maintaining any office or division referred to as 鈥渄iversity, equity, and inclusion.鈥�
Educators are 鈥済oing to have to think long and hard鈥� about the risks involved with running DEI programs if the bill passes, Wilson said.
Sen. Michael Lee, a Republican and a sponsor of the North Carolina bill, that children are 鈥渄isadvantaged when DEI policies take precedent [sic] over academic excellence.鈥� (Lee didn鈥檛 respond to a request for comment.)
But Wilson said policies designed to foster equity actually bolster academic success, supporting children with disabilities, students of color, and English learners, among others. The bill鈥檚 introduction could cause school and district leaders to think twice about maintaining these efforts, he said.
鈥淚t鈥檚 really created an environment that is going to put marginalized students in a very, very difficult situation, even if it doesn鈥檛 pass,鈥� he said.
