State Republicans Aim to Oversee DEI in Education Through Funding Control

The Arizona House is poised to vote this week on a contentious proposal to cut state funding for universities that maintain courses on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

This legislative move reflects ongoing debates among lawmakers who are struggling to define DEI and the criteria that might lead to educational institutions losing substantial public dollars.

In a national context, actions by former President Donald Trump regarding educational content have created ripples across various institutions. Recent directives prompted the U.S. Naval Academy to pull nearly 400 books from its library to align with executive orders.

As institutions react to the fear of funding loss, the University of Arizona has altered its acknowledgment of Indigenous lands by removing the phrase “committed to diversity and inclusion.”

Currently, Arizona law prohibits gender and racial preferences in public sector hiring. The proposed bill, sponsored by Senator David Farnsworth, R-Mesa, seeks to extend these restrictions by linking funding to the elimination of DEI coursework.

Farnsworth, who has taken community college courses, expressed surprise at the references to concepts such as “hidden curricula” that he believes predominantly showcase white, middle-class norms.

Senate Bill 1694 outlines the denial of funds to any educational institution offering courses categorized as DEI, providing extensive definitions for what constitutes such coursework.

Courses discussing systemic issues like racism or promoting racial or gender diversity would face elimination, alongside any material that insinuates racially neutral laws perpetuate injustice.

During recent discussions, Representative Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, emphasized that the bill’s provisions target funding for colleges whose coursework promotes differential treatment based on race or ethnicity.

He argued that principles forbidding bias are simply “common sense.” While noting that discussions on historical injustices like slavery are not outright banned, Kolodin stated that such discussions must adhere to broader legislative guidelines.

In contrast, Representative Nancy Gutierrez, D-Tucson, asserted that these measures would limit educational exploration and cultural understanding necessary for fostering respect among diverse individuals.

Similarly, Representative Cesar Aguilar, D-Phoenix, criticized the bill as an attempt to erase critical history, asserting that understanding past injustices is essential for progress.

Representative Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, noted a significant lack of consensus among legislators about what DEI entails, highlighting a potential overreach of state power into academic dialogue.

He articulated his opposition to preferential treatment based on race or gender, maintaining that discussions about historical discrimination should remain within educators’ purview.

Reflecting on his past experiences, Blackman emphasized the importance of merit over race in hiring, while also acknowledging the historical context of racial discrimination in America.

Representative Quantá Crews, D-Phoenix, offered her perspective on racial bias, sharing her experience of being overlooked for interviews due to her name.

She argued that the legislation would limit the teaching of social justice and hinder understanding of the complex historical and contemporary landscape of race relations.

Critics of the bill, including Rep. Betty Villegas, D-Tucson, expressed confusion over resistance to teaching principles like inclusivity and fairness, which she argued are fundamental to educational integrity.

Notably, the American Civil Liberties Union and Arizona Students Association have voiced opposition to the bill, alongside concerns that the Arizona Board of Regents has remained silent on the proposal.

While the bill has legislative momentum, its fate may hinge on Governor Katie Hobbs’s response should it reach her desk; she has previously indicated opposition to initiatives lacking bipartisan support.

Additionally, the proposed measure lacks a clear mechanism for enforcement or complaints related to course content, a gap Farnsworth acknowledged may need addressing in future iterations of the bill.