Tennessee House Bill HB1948

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/24
• Refer: 1/25/24
• Failed: 3/4/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to public institutions of higher education.

Impact

If enacted, the bill will significantly alter the operational framework for public higher education in Tennessee, effectively shutting down existing diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and preventing the creation of new ones. Institutions will be required to adhere strictly to the outlined regulations, and those in violation may face funding consequences. Compliance audits by the state's comptroller will ensure accountability, giving the state government greater oversight of university governance and resource allocation. The bill's approach may fundamentally change how institutions address diversity and equity, focusing on compliance with broad state mandates rather than tailored efforts to meet the needs of diverse student populations.

Summary

House Bill 1948 aims to amend the Tennessee Code Annotated in relation to public institutions of higher education by placing restrictions on the establishment and operation of diversity, equity, and inclusion offices. The bill outlines specific prohibitions against practices that promote differential treatment based on race, sex, or ethnicity in employment and training within educational institutions. It seeks to limit the influence of such offices in hiring and employment practices, thereby enforcing a color-blind and sex-neutral approach in these areas. Additionally, the bill mandates that no funding can be spent without compliance reports being submitted to the state assembly, reinforcing legislative oversight over educational institutions' activities in these domains.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 1948 is contentious, largely reflecting a divide in views on diversity and inclusion initiatives in higher education. Supporters advocate for the bill as a necessary move to ensure fairness and avoid what they see as discriminatory practices under the guise of diversity efforts. Critics argue that the bill undermines essential support systems intended for underrepresented groups, limiting the ability of educational institutions to foster an inclusive environment. This tension highlights broader societal debates over race, equity, and the role of higher education in promoting social justice.

Contention

Key points of contention include the effectiveness and necessity of diversity and inclusion offices in promoting student success and the implications of restricting their activities within educational frameworks. Opponents of the bill contend that its passage would dismantle critical support for marginalized groups in higher education, potentially lowering retention and graduation rates among these populations. Furthermore, the bill's requirement for compliance audits and the financial penalties for institutions failing to adhere to the new regulations raise concerns regarding academic freedom and institutional autonomy.