North Dakota Senate Bill SB2247

North Dakota 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/23
• Refer: 1/13/23
• Report Pass: 2/10/23
• Engrossed: 2/15/23
• Refer: 2/17/23
• Report DNP: 3/21/23
• Refer: 3/27/23
• Enrolled: 4/20/23
• Passed: 4/24/23

Caption

Specified concepts at institutions of higher education.

Impact

If enacted, SB 2247 would significantly alter the landscape of education within state-controlled institutions by limiting the types of training and indoctrination that can occur. It explicitly prohibits mandatory training that includes specified concepts, thus impacting the implementation of diversity training programs. Advocates argue that this will protect students from ideological bias, while critics express concern that it may undermine the ability to discuss critical issues related to race and gender in an academic context.

Summary

Senate Bill 2247 aims to regulate the ideological practices and training within institutions of higher education in North Dakota by prohibiting the promotion of specific concepts related to race and sex. It defines a range of concepts that could be deemed discriminatory or divisive, including assertions of inherent superiority or inferiority based on race or sex, and the belief that individuals should feel guilt or distress based on their identity. The bill seeks to ensure that students and employees cannot be discriminated against or penalized for their beliefs or lack thereof regarding these topics, thereby promoting ideological neutrality in education.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 2247 is highly polarized. Proponents view the bill as a necessary measure to protect academic freedom and ensure that educational institutions do not impose specific ideological views on students and staff. Conversely, opponents argue that this may stifle important discussions around race and sex, inhibiting the educational environment. The debates highlight a broader national conversation around educational content and the balance between free speech and anti-discrimination efforts in the academia.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the definitions outlined within the bill regarding what constitutes 'specified concepts.' Critics argue that the terms used are overly broad and could censor legitimate academic discourse. Furthermore, the bill raises questions about the role of diversity training in academia and whether prohibiting such training can effectively foster an inclusive educational environment. The discussions indicate a fundamental conflict between the desire for inclusivity and the fear of ideological indoctrination.