Legislators, university officials and concerned citizens gathered in February to discuss proposed bills that could affect higher education in South Carolina.
The discussion sparked back-and-forth conversations about House Bill 4289, which aims to remove DEI within higher education in South Carolina. The meeting even drew the attention of university officials, such as Julian Williams, the vice president for Acces Civil Rights and Community Engagement at USC.
Williams said during the meeting that the university believes DEI is important to its mission.
"Diversity is America’s strength," Williams said. "And we believe the same goes for our campus and our state."
The bill could impact higher education through its admissions and faculty, and potentially affect the classroom setting in South Carolina if it is passed by the South Carolina Senate and signed into law. One of the main aspects of the bill is that universities would not be able to consider an individual’s background when offering a job or admission to their university and cannot ask for statements of beliefs or ideology.
But students believe that the bill could cause more harm on campus than good.
A complicated history
Another major part of the bill is that universities would have to release a statement every January highlighting how they complied with this law and which programs on campus support diversity, equity and inclusion. The bill does not explicitly state that certain things cannot be said in classes, but it could potentially limit the conversations that will be permitted regarding race, ethnicity and gender.
South Carolina is not the first state to discuss bills that restrict these ideas, nor is this the first bill to be seen in the state legislature. Thirty states have had anti-DEI legislation introduced. And of that, 10 have passed in at least one chamber and three have been enacted, according to NBC.
H. 4289 was first introduced on April 6, 2023, and since then has been revised and voted on nearly 20 times. Throughout the changes and revisions, the content of the bill at its core has remained the same with only minor changes being made to the language used. The language changes have been focused on making the bill more specific and detailed than its original form.
The support for this bill originates from the idea of protecting young adults from potential harm to their education, said Rep. Josiah Magnuson (R-Spartanburg), who is one of the legislators sponsoring the bill. He said he believes the bill is necessary because of DEI's potential dangers when promoted in higher education.
“DEI is the practice of what we call critical theory, it’s a Marxist idea philosophy," Magnuson said. "And it’s implementing the belief that group identity determines your privileges and your responsibilities rather than relying on individual rights and your god-given talent."
Concerns over campus culture
Genesis Ragland, a fourth-year information science student, is the president of the Freedom Riders Organization on campus. The organization advocates for social justice issues and aims to educate people about how those issues affect the campus community.
Ragland said she is worried that if the bill passes there could potentially be a decrease in the number of minority students wanting to come to campuses in South Carolina, and a potential decrease in the security of students who are already here. She said she believes the issue itself isn't the language in the bill but the language backing the bill.
“Personally, I probably wouldn’t even want to go to a campus that isn’t really focused on diversity,” Ragland said. “It was hard enough as a Black person to be here around a predominantly white institution .”
Ragland believes the bill will likely discourage diverse students from coming to USC, leading current students in those groups on campus to feel less supported, she said.
“It was an extreme culture shock for me, coming from a predominantly Black I guess you could say county,” Ragland said. “It could affect a lot of people deciding to come to campus, people interacting, not making friends.”
She isn’t the only one with these concerns, though. Will Gunter, a third-year political science and philosophy student and vice president of the American Civil Liberties Union on campus, said he has concerns about free speech in classrooms being limited.
“I think that one of the most important things about (higher) education … is that you’re able to learn from all sorts of different experiences … and the risk of not being able to have that authentic experience to see different people’s perspectives, even if you might disagree with them, it's really important to be able to learn from other people and see their perspectives on things,” Gunter said.
University spokesperson Collyn Taylor said the university is "committed to maintaining diverse and welcoming campus environments for all." And that USC is having conversations with the legislature about the bill and its potential impact.
"As always, our policies will remain consistent with federal and state law," Taylor said.
Inside the classroom
The bill doesn’t specifically target student organizations, but it does open the door to restricting them, said Kirk Randazzo, a political science professor. If organizations are made to support minority groups, the bill could put them at risk of being restricted on campus, he said.
"I think the bill in its current iteration could have implications on (minority) groups," Randazzo said. “Those organizations would be difficult to continue operating … or risk running not in compliance with this bill."
Randazzo has been following this bill closely, he said. He said he believes the bill could compromise the university’s ability to confront controversial issues in a classroom setting.
“I think people may just avoid discussing controversial subjects out of fear of violating this law, and that’s really part of what a university is supposed to do,” Randazzo said. "To confront controversial or difficult issues in order to create a broad understanding of what’s acceptable.”
Limited speech in the classroom would likely come from a "chilling effect" that this bill would cause, Randazzo said. A chilling effect is a societal ramification, where individuals censor themselves to ensure that they don’t accidentally violate the law, Randazzo said.
USC requires its students to have a "Founding Documents" credential. Within these courses, there are many different documents, including the Emancipation Proclamation, that students must read for the course.
If H. 4289 is passed into law, it could put professors who teach these courses in a potentially compromising position where they must decide between teaching these essential documents or refraining from mentioning anything DEI-related in the classroom, Randazzo said.
Randazzo said he and other professors have worked to make USC's campus more inclusive, where difficult conversations can be had. But if that is limited, it puts the integrity of higher education at stake, he said.
Educating the student body
Ragland and Gunter are worried about how aware and informed students are of the bill and its potential effects on campus.
Ragland said she believes the bill is known on campus, but individuals are not well-informed on its content or potential backlash. Gunter, on the other hand, doesn’t believe that students are aware of this bill, despite efforts to raise awareness.
But both agree that it is important to show up and spread awareness about the potential issues the university will face if this bill passes.
“There's a lot of activism that can be done, but having this kind of shared community of people who want to protect these values, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of different group or party affiliation,” Gunter said.
Discussing these issues is not the only way to spread awareness. There needs to be better standards for education to prepare individuals to be in a world where there are issues that they need to stand up against, Raglan said.
Despite the bill's broad language, Ragland, Gunter and Randazzo believe that the likelihood of the bill having any potential positive outcomes for the university is low. But there is the potential for students who may currently feel underrepresented to be given more of a voice but that is a bit of reach, Randazzo said.
Randazzo said he believes that at its core, the bill is an anti-DEI bill. He thinks it could prohibit universities from considering an individual's background or perspective when making decisions, he said. But there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding how it will affect the university, he said.
The bill still need to pass the Senate, which will resume discussion surrounding the bill in the next legislative session in January.