North Carolina Senate Passes Controversial Bill Banning DEI In Public Schools

The Trump administration continued to make news this week as it has repeatedly threatened to withhold federal funding from public schools and universities for their failure to follow its guidance on policies relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). This week alone, the federal government has announced it is freezing $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard University after the university refused Trump’s request to restrict activism on its campus, and it has sued the state of Maine for its refusal to ban transgender athletes from women’s and girl’s sports.

These lawsuits and restrictions from the federal government are part of a larger trend that can be seen throughout the country, and while North Carolina has not yet experienced these challenges on a federal level, the state legislature is mounting its own war against DEI initiatives in the state’s public schools. 

On March 11, the North Carolina Senate passed Senate Bill 227, “Eliminating ‘DEI’ in Public Education,” to prevent instruction regarding “divisive concepts” in K-12 public schools. The bill, which passed the Senate along party lines—all Republicans in favor and all Democrats against—aims to ban all DEI initiatives in North Carolina public schools. Among the extensive list of co-sponsors for the bill is Senator Steve Jarvis, Davie County’s state senator.

What is DEI?

DEI, which stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, is a framework that focuses on fostering a more representative, fair, and welcoming environment within organizations, including educational institutions. In education, DEI initiatives can include hiring diverse faculty and staff members, inclusive curriculum development, outreach programs, and cultural centers. 

Proponents of DEI argue that the framework benefits disenfranchised minorities, leveling the playing field for a diverse group of individuals. BBC reports that, in 2022, companies with larger DEI programs “were better able to respond to challenges,” suggesting that the practice can be beneficial to corporations. 

The Marsh McLennan Agency, an insurance and risk management brokerage, claims DEI “can be a smart business strategy that has been proven to benefit companies and employees in fundamental ways.”

Conversely, opponents of DEI claim that it actively disfavors certain societal groups, contributing to discrimination and inequality. They often attribute claims of political indoctrination and biased educational practices as evidence of the framework’s weakness. 

Christopher F. Rufo, a contributing editor of City Journal, a conservative magazine, says that DEI initiatives lead to “inequality justified under the ideology of ‘equity.’” Rufo also claims that DEI initiatives fall short of scholarly standards, diminishing their validity in the classroom. 

Why Does The Bill Matter?

Senate Bill 227’s vague wording makes its impact on North Carolina schools uncertain. It prohibits educators from providing instruction on twelve “divisive concepts.” Among these concepts are:

A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist.
The United States was created by members of a particular race or sex for the purpose of oppressing members of another race or sex.
The rule of law does not exist but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.

It is unclear to what extent this will affect North Carolina instructors. The prohibition of certain academic instruction does not clarify whether intellectual discussion is possible. Important questions are bound to appear because of this bill’s ratification. For instance, could AP U.S. Government students debate the alleged racism and sexism of a meritocracy, or would their teacher be acting in violation of state law? 

“The bill’s vague language and intent may make it difficult for teachers to know what they can and cannot teach in the classroom,” says the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, dubbing the legislation a “classroom censorship bill.” 

“Other states where similar bills have passed have seen a chilling effect on free speech and productive classroom discussion,” the organization adds. 

The North Carolina Association of Educators also voiced concerns about the bill’s ratification. “Restricting [DEI] programs devalues the expertise of teachers and could worsen North Carolina’s ongoing educator shortage by making schools less inclusive and supportive workplaces,” they claim. “Research consistently shows that schools embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion foster stronger student engagement, reduce bullying, and create a sense of belonging—factors that are crucial for academic success and social development.” 

In contrast, Senator Michael Lee (R-New Hanover) praised the idea behind DEI initiatives but recognized significant flaws in the framework. “Unfortunately, a lot of these policies haven’t really opened doors for people to compete fairly, but have forced artificial outcomes at the expense of fairness and competency,” he said during a senatorial committee meeting. 

Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) echoed similar sentiments. “Our schools should not be in the business of teaching inaccurate history or creating a learning environment that doesn’t allow for free thought or expression,” he said, suggesting that the bill will not harm history instruction if the instruction is impartial.

 “So-called ‘DEI’ initiatives were pitched as a tool to help our children better understand our history, when in reality they’re merely a façade used by Democrats to alter curriculum to fit their agenda,” Berger claims.

The question of impartiality poses significant concerns regarding instruction stemming from the bill’s ambiguity. When discussing events involving clear moral wrongs—like the Holocaust or the Spanish colonization of the Americas—do Republican lawmakers expect teachers to show no emotion whatsoever? Would a neutral approach not downplay the unethical crimes of the past?

This phenomenon is often referred to as the argument to moderation. Logically Fallacious describes this fallacy as “asserting that given any two positions, there exists a compromise between them that must be correct.”

From a historical perspective, it is ‌obvious when an unethical or immoral event has occurred. However, because of the bill’s ambiguity, public school teachers have no way of knowing what the legislators who passed this bill had in mind. This could potentially coerce them into taking a more mediated—and logically fallacious—approach to their teaching.

Long-Term Implications

As Senate Bill 227 progresses, it remains unclear how the bill’s broad language will ultimately shape the teaching environment in North Carolina’s public schools. The outcome of this legislation could have far-reaching consequences for the way history and social studies are taught in the state, but the full impact will remain unclear until schools begin adapting to the bill’s guidelines. How the bill will specifically affect Davie High’s social studies department, including its Holocaust & Peace Studies class, is especially unclear. Understanding both sides of the argument without falling prey to the argument to moderation is vital not only for understanding the contents of this legislation, but for the application of the bill itself.