Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indiana senators advanced a hotly debated bill Thursday that cracks down on diversity, equity and inclusion, known as DEI, in schools and state government.
Senate Bill 289 advanced from the chamber in a 34-13 vote after more than three hours of floor debate—and following a contentious, unprecedented challenge to Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith’s Senate presidency.
While presiding over the bill’s debate, Beckwith posted on his personal X account that Indiana “torpedoed woke indoctrination” by passing the legislation. But Senate Bill 289 was still being debated, and Beckwith was in charge of the chamber.
Tensions boiled over as Democrats objected to the post. Their call to remove Beckwith as the Senate chair was unsuccessful, however.
Four Republicans crossed party lines to vote against the legislation.
Key provisions in the bill, authored by Republican Sen. Gary Byrne, prohibit mandatory DEI training in K-12 public schools and restrict DEI programs within state universities.
The legislation was amended earlier in the week to include pieces of a related measure, Senate Bill 235, authored by Sen. Tyler Johnson, R-Leo. That language would bar state agencies and colleges from funding DEI offices or employees and from bestowing contracts or grants on entities that mandate DEI training. It also lets Indiana’s attorney general sue for violations.
Byrne said the proposal “centers [on] one thing: the government should treat everyone equally.”
“The DEI worldview is trying to convince Americans that discrimination can actually be a good thing—so long as it’s the right kind of discrimination. I respectfully, but wholeheartedly disagree with that thinking,” said Byrne, of Byrneville. “I think it pits people against each other, and it causes people to lose trust that they will be treated fairly.”
Democrats pressed Byrne about what agency operations and school curricula would specifically be affected or outlawed under the bill. The Republican senator largely dodged those questions and instead repeatedly maintained that his bill “is about transparency and ending discrimination.”
Johnson pushed back, arguing that Democrats had “created confusion” about a bill that intends to “remove divisive and discriminatory, top-down manipulative ideology.”
“All I’m asking is that you agree with me that it’s not right to discriminate,” he continued. “Because you can’t fix discrimination with discrimination.”
Many Republicans nationally believe that DEI—which aims to increase participation of women, people of color and other minority groups—is used to discriminate against others. But no one specifically said white people in Thursday’s debate.
‘Transparency and ending discrimination’
Byrne held that his bill seeks to “prevent discrimination at the state level” and ensure that “Indiana government must treat all citizens equally.”
DEI is explicitly described in the legislation “as any effort” to do the following:
- Manipulate or otherwise influence the composition of employees with reference to race, sex, color, or ethnicity, which does not include ensuring color blind and race neutral hiring in accordance with state and federal anti-discrimination laws.
- Promote differential treatment of or provide special benefits to individuals on the basis of race, sex, color, or ethnicity.
- Promote or promulgate policies or procedures designed or implemented with reference to race, sex, color, or ethnicity that are not policies or procedures approved in writing by the attorney general for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with any applicable court order or state or federal law.
- Promote or promulgate training, programming, or activities designed or implemented with reference to race, sex, color, or ethnicity that are not training, programming, or activities developed by an attorney and approved in writing by the attorney general for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with any applicable court order or state or federal law.
A carveout in the bill says DEI does not include efforts or materials that “inform individuals about the prohibition of discrimination based on protected status under state or federal law.” Also not affected are activities to “retain or support” students and employees—as long as those efforts “do not promote differential treatment and are open to all individuals irrespective of race, color, ethnicity, or any other protected status under state or federal law.”
State employees and students could still voluntarily attend DEI training or programs, per the bill.
They can additionally “independently” access DEI-related materials and conduct related research.
“Discussion or teaching” on DEI topics would be permitted in classrooms so long as the school “makes clear that it does not sponsor, approve, or endorse” those beliefs and concepts.
State agencies would further be banned from having DEI offices or hiring practices. They also wouldn’t be allowed to “promote, embrace, or endorse stereotypes.”
Byrne said schools and agencies would be mandated to post their “DEI-related materials” online so “citizens can see for themselves what ideals are being promoted.”
That section of the bill stipulates that all staff training and instructional materials concerning nondiscrimination, diversity, equity, inclusion, race, ethnicity, sex and bias must be publicly available.
Another piece of the proposal would prevent DEI training requirements for state-regulated health care licensure.
“I know people have strong feelings on this bill, and I want to be crystal clear that while I’m against the ideology called DEI, I’m not against diversity,” Byrne said. “Hoosiers come from many walks of life and many backgrounds, and it’s good to celebrate that. What I don’t want is the government to say that everyone with a certain trait should automatically get preferential or adverse treatment.”
Democrats push back
Democrats and other opponents raised concerns that anti-DEI bill language will harm marginalized communities and suppress meaningful discussions on systemic inequality.
Byrne maintained that schools can still teach about slavery, the Holocaust, the Civil Rights Movement and other historical topics, although the bill does not say so, specifically.
“In short, the bill says you shouldn’t teach a particular group is superior or inferior, or that a person’s moral character is determined by (certain) traits, or that an individual today should be blamed for its group’s past actions,” Byrne said. “(Schools and teachers) would absolutely be able to condemn things like slavery and the evils of the Holocaust. I want Hoosier kids to be taught that slavery is and was evil. The same for the Holocaust, too—or whatever historical events someone might bring up.”
After numerous Democrats questioned whether taxpayer-funded scholarships for minority students would be affected, Johnson said those awards “would be handled separately from the bill.” The Republican senator pointed to a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision ending the use of race in college admissions, including for scholarships.
Even so, Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray was confident scholarships, like those aimed at Black and Latino students, wouldn’t be affected.
“Nothing in there says they can’t accept scholarship money, and the scholarships themselves are a very specific statute that were not deleted in this bill,” he told reporters. “The way that really works, at least in my opinion, is that specific statutes prevail over more general statutes. Those statutes are going to stay in place, and they’ll be able to continue to be accepted by Indiana colleges and universities.”
Bray said trying to craft legislation on DEI was like “squeezing jello, because it’s a nebulous definition.” He called Sen. Greg Walker—the lone Republican senator to speak on the floor against the bill—a “very, very thoughtful” member of his caucus, and said he respected defectors who “didn’t think the right fit was there.”
Sen. Andrea Hunley, D-Indianapolis, said replacing “diversity” with “merit” is “just replacing one ideology with another.”
“I do not believe that the intent of any of the authors of the legislation is to be racist in any way. I do not believe that is their intent,” Hunley said. “What I do believe is that this bill is creating confusion, that it’s sowing division, that it’s making people feel unseen, and that it’s making them feel scared that practices that have been put in place to disrupt centuries of systemic racism are now going to be challenged. And that is absolutely a problem.”
The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
If you ask most Republican voters what they would prefer to DEI they usually describe a defining element of DEI policies.
If you ask a Conservative politician what it is they don’t like about DEI, they lie or use catchy phrases to dog whistle with zero policy substance.
Lots of focus on the issues that matter from Republicans, I see. More Culture War BS and nothing on making things materially better for Hoosiers.
Vote better.
The same folks who are really angry about that one boy playing girls sports (and who threw out the perfectly fine solution that Indiana had to that non-issue) are now back to legally ensure that every Girls in STEM program has to accept boys or risk Todd Rokita deciding to make their life miserable.
Well done, legislators. Glad this is easier than fixing roads.
We get it (sadly)…. Braun is against inclusion of anyone not like him. Also against equity in opportunity.
While I never liked the expression “throw the baby out with the bath water,” it keeps popping into mind when I see the raging debate over DEI, the latest flashpoint in the culture wars.
As someone who has been responsible for leading DEI efforts in several organizations, I have deep criticism for the rash of performative activity launched by many organizations post George Floyd. Poorly conceived and executed training programs were touted as enlightened efforts to redress longstanding inequities. Instead, they seemed to divide us into either oppressors or oppressed, unleashing unproductive dynamics. While awareness-raising is the first step to meaningful change, stoking further division is self-defeating. Failure to do the real work of creating an inclusive workplace – leadership training, recruiting, mentoring, supplier relations, board representation, equitable compensation, etc. – underscored the performative nature of so much of what was done. Not to mention excessive policies and practices that intended to signal virtue but only added to the muck.
DEI falls into that category of ideas with merit that are poorly executed. The result is to sour us on the idea rather than the flawed implementation.
In the old days, before the term DEI became a catchall, we talked about workplaces that were participatory, fair, and representative. Performance improved with teams that harnessed diverse viewpoints, had a connection with customers they served, and treated all with fairness and respect. We took on a longstanding pay gap between women and men doing similar work, gradually compensating women at equitable levels. We worked with managers who seemed to do all of their recruiting at their old fraternity to appreciate the value of having people with different experience in the mix. We reworked the roster of schools where we recruited to create a higher likelihood that we could find people with a range of experience that was beneficial to our work. When a manager had a hard time working with someone of another gender, we sought to bridge the divide. Barriers that prevented otherwise highly capable people with disabilities were removed. Capable board members were recruited to add needed perspective.
Some opponents of DEI wield it as a pejorative catchword for what has become another boogeyman concept – woke – reflexively claiming that women or people of color got their jobs got for reasons other than merit. It makes me wonder how those folks feel about children of alumni and other large donors who are admitted to elite schools despite not reaching minimum standards. Or at least some of the nominees to Trump’s cabinet who have few of the qualifications we usually seek. How can you profess to be a stickler for merit-based practice but not call out such visible examples of non-merit-based decisions?
As someone who has spent a career dealing with organizational effectiveness in the corporate, nonprofit, educational, and government sectors, I defy any leader to argue that fairness, transparency, and incorporation of diverse viewpoints does not contribute to better decision-making and performance. So let’s address the bathwater –things done under than banner of DEI that should be unwound, without forsaking the baby – ways of working that have proven to be effective.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment.
However, simply put, some people want Jim Crow America back and they’re going to use the last couple years as the cudgel to erase decades of progress. And they don’t care – they’re going to preach about MEI while at the same time *so clearly* hiring people based on anything but merit, excellence, or intelligence.