Rep. Terry Alexander, D-Florence, speaks to Rep. Tim McGinnis, R-Myrtle Beach, during a House committee meeting before the committee voted to advance a bill banning diversity, equity and inclusion from state agencies and universities on Wednesday, March 19, 2025. (Screenshot of SCETV legislative livestream)
COLUMBIA — A pared-down version of a bill prohibiting state agencies, local governments and universities from using diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives advanced to the House floor Wednesday.
As amended, the bill says government agencies can’t have an office named with the words that form the DEI acronym and can’t require diversity training or statements.
It’s similar to legislation the House passed last year that applied only to colleges, which never got a vote in the Senate.
Legislators rewrote the new bill after hearing hours of testimony from people opposed to it. The amended version, which advanced Wednesday on a party-line vote of 13-4, removed the ban on contracting with private companies that have DEI programs. It also clarified wording to be sure it would not affect organizations such as the NAACP or events that celebrate a specific group of people, such as an LGBTQ Pride festival or Black History Month.
SC anti-DEI bill could impact everything from school cafeterias to university bookstores
“We listened to you,” Rep. Tim McGinnis, who spearheaded the amendment, told dozens of people watching Wednesday.
Opponents of the bill who testified two weeks ago raised concerns over wide-ranging consequences.
Universities might have to cut ties with textbook suppliers. School districts might have to find new companies to provide school lunches, and state agencies might not be able to work with major vehicle manufacturers, people told the committee.
That goes too far, McGinnis, R-Myrtle Beach, told reporters after the meeting.
“I just don’t think we need to go in and tell private businesses that this is how you have to operate,” McGinnis said.
The version of the bill passed Wednesday would still ban state agencies, local governments, school districts and public universities from giving any sort of deferential treatment to a person based on their race, gender, sexual orientation or other characteristic.
For example, a university would not be able to accept a person based on their race or gender. Likewise, a company considering two candidates would not be allowed to select one because of their race or gender.
The bill also prohibits any parts of state or local government from requiring employees or prospective students to sign a diversity statement or take diversity training courses.
Universities and agencies would still be allowed to offer that type of training to employees and students. If a person declined, they could not be punished for that, McGinnis said.
“These programs aren’t inherently bad, but they don’t need to be mandatory,” McGinnis said.
The bill would have no effect on Black History Month programs, teacher recruitment initiatives for Black men, school curriculum teaching about the Holocaust, programs for veterans with disabilities or local Pride events, McGinnis said, in response to specific concerns from legislators.
Clemson University among 45 colleges named in federal DEI-related investigation
Most state universities have already gotten rid of diversity statements and DEI division names in preparation for a law change. The bill only prohibits offices that use the words “diversity, equity and inclusion,” McGinnis said.
For instance, Clemson University changed the name of its equity and inclusion office to the Division of Community Engagement, Belonging and Access. Under that name, the office would not violate the bill, legislators said. Neither would a student-run NAACP chapter or LGBTQ club.
The ban on requiring students to sign a diversity statement as part of their application would not preclude students from laying out their identity or thoughts on diversity in a different part of their application, such as an essay portion, said committee Chairwoman Shannon Erickson.
“This isn’t prohibiting a student from sharing that they believe any of the beliefs they have,” the Beaufort Republican said.
If the agency that accredits the state’s universities or grants that bring in federal funding require some sort of diversity, equity and inclusion office or statement, universities would be allowed to comply with those requirements, legislators said. For instance, universities would be able to continue accepting needs-based Pell Grants without violating the bill, Erickson said.
The idea of removing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives rankled the panel’s Democrats, all of whom are Black. The four Democrats, all of whom voted against the bill, argued it’s good for public institutions to promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
“Are we telling the people of this state that we have no dealings with making sure that every person has the same rights as others?” said Rep. Terry Alexander, D-Florence.
Some questioned whether such practices are really happening in South Carolina, or if the bill is simply in response to executive orders signed by President Donald Trump banning DEI initiatives at a federal level.
“Are we doing this because it is a problem in this state, or are we doing this because there is a political narrative from a certain party coming from D.C., trickling down to South Carolina, at almost election time?” said Rep. Hamilton Grant, D-Columbia.
The goal is to prevent people from hiring someone based solely on their race, not to prevent agencies and universities from remaining diverse and inclusive, supporters of the bill said.
“If you make a GPA of 5.0 and I make one of 3.2 and we go out for the same job, I don’t care what color you are,” said Rep. Doug Gilliam, a Buffalo Republican and the bill’s main sponsor. “I want the person that is going to do the best job and who is most capable of doing the job for me.”
The new proposal representatives approved Wednesday closely aligns with a clause initially included in the House’s spending plan. When representatives passed the budget last week, however, that clause was not included.
Democrats successfully got the clause thrown out late into the debate for not actually dealing with dollars and cents. So, legislators brought it back as a separate law.