A bill was proposed in the South Carolina legislature earlier this month that would ban mandatory diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training at universities and prohibit universities from requiring or asking for diversity statements as part of their application for both education and employment.
The bill would also prohibit universities from giving preference to prospective students and employees based on factors such as race, sex, color, sexual orientation, ethnicity and national origin. This prohibition is subject to exceptions based on current federal requirements.
The bill was referred to the House Education and Public Works Committee on April 6 of this year where it currently is waiting to be debated on.
This proposed legislation defines DEI as “ a particular, widely contested opinion referencing unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgender ideology, microaggressions, group marginalization, anti-racism, systemic oppression, social justice, intersectionality, neo-pronouns, heteronormativity, disparate impact, gender theory, racial or sexual privilege, or any related formulation of these concepts.”
The bill also defines DEI training as “training, seminar, discussion group, workshop, or other instructional program, whether provided in-person, online, or by any other means, with a purpose of advising, counseling, demonstrating, explaining, instructing, or teaching participants about diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
This bill would not allow training on topics such as systemic oppression, inclusive language, gender theory and allyship, among others.
Winthrop students expressed their displeasure with the proposed bill.
“Obviously this is a huge step backwards not just for inclusion and representation purposes, but also for how unrealistic this is. I think many people often forget that DEI is important for creating real world environments,” TJ Carbon, a political science student and member of the LGBTQ community, said
“ People now have the knowledge, power and support to make themselves seen. This is particularly important in higher education. The recognition and acceptance of diverse peoples now will lend itself later to greater diversity in the professional world. ” Armon Robinson, a sophomore political science student, said.
The Johnsonian recently discovered that one of the newest appointees to the Board of Trustees, Joel Hamilton, who was appointed by current State Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver on Feb. 2 , had liked tweets that called for the abolition of affirmative action and DEI after his appointment to the Board of Trustees.
Hamilton, whose Twitter handle is @joelthamilton, liked a tweet from Feb. 21 of this year by Vivek Ramaswamy that said ““Eliminate affirmative action. Dismantle climate religion. 8-year limits for federal bureaucrats. Shut down worthless federal agencies. Declare total independence from China. Annihilate the drug cartels. Make political expression a civil right. No CBDCs. Revive merit & excellence.”
Hamilton also liked a tweet from March 19 of this year by Dr Jordan B Peterson that was in response to a tweet from Christopher F. Rufo. Rufo’s tweet said “The Wall Street Journal has thrown its support behind our campaign to abolish the DEI bureaucracies in public universities. We are fighting the forces of left-wing racialism and we will not stop until colorblind equality is once again the law of the land.”
Peterson’s response, which Hamilton liked, said to “Abolish the universities along with the DIE administrators. The cowardice and mendacity of the professoriate enabled the woke authoritarians. And very little has yet been learned in consequence.”
Students at Winthrop reiterated the potential effects that this bill could have.
“ Each student deserves to feel like they belong, that is a part of the higher education experience. Higher education experiences should be enhanced, not limited and this bill only places limits,” Ella Miller, a political science student, said.
“A bill allowing for the banning of DEI training would allow institutions to purposefully avoid the issues surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion in today’s society. The intentional avoidance of a known issue is different from simple ignorance to the fact that an issue exists. One is problematic, but understandable, while the other is sinister in nature and intent. I’ll leave you to decide which is which,” Robinson said.
