Missouri Senate Bill SB680

Missouri 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/27/23
• Refer: 4/6/23

Caption

Prohibits public institutions of postsecondary education from requiring the submission of diversity, equity, and inclusion statements

Impact

If enacted, SB680 will significantly alter the landscape of postsecondary education regulation in Missouri. It eliminates the ability of institutions to require DEI statements, which proponents argue could help protect free speech and prevent ideological bias in hiring and admissions. However, the bill includes provisions for individuals aggrieved by these practices to seek legal recourse, enabling them to pursue actions for injunctive or declaratory relief against such institutions. The removal of these requirements may also influence the diversity initiatives that higher education institutions adopt.

Summary

Senate Bill 680 (SB680) aims to prohibit public institutions of postsecondary education in Missouri from requiring the submission of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements by applicants, employees, students, or contractors. The bill defines discriminatory ideology as any belief that promotes unequal treatment based on immutable traits, such as race, religion, or gender. It outlines specific prohibitions against compelling individuals to endorse such ideologies or to submit DEI statements, thus impacting how institutions approach issues of diversity and inclusion within their hiring and admissions processes.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB680 is polarized. Supporters view it as an essential measure for protecting individual rights and free expression in academic contexts, arguing that it prevents discrimination disguised as inclusivity. Conversely, critics claim that the bill undermines the efforts needed to promote diversity and equity in education, arguing that it could lead to a less inclusive academic environment. This conflict highlights a broader national debate on the role of DEI initiatives in education and the impact of legislative action on institutional autonomy.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the balance between free speech and institutional responsibility towards inclusivity. Advocates for SB680 believe it will ensure that educational institutions do not engage in ideological coercion; however, opponents argue that it could diminish the commitment to diversity and inclusivity on campuses. Furthermore, the legal implications of the bill, allowing individuals to sue institutions for violations, raises concerns about the potential for increased litigation and the administrative burdens that may follow.