Colby Windham. HB-1193, Mississippi's War On DEI

Laws targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are sweeping the nation, with many laws targeting specifically educational institutions. On April 2, 2025, the Mississippi Legislature passed a law that would specifically target “divisive content” being taught in schools and the permissible materials to be taught in all levels of schools from K-12 to institutions, including some private, in the state. The description of the act, as signed by the governor, states that it defines and prohibits schools from taking discriminatory actions. However, the law itself is very vague—one that is in line with the recent actions nationwide that are restrictive and push for a more “closed” society. First, the language in its descriptions is concerning regarding official stances on topics. Then, its impacts and goals are especially concerning due to their vagueness. Lastly, the bill disregards proven academics to further a partisan goal. This is a huge cause for concern and shows that political happenings are becoming more of a real threat to educational institutions. 

The Laws sections detail exactly what it is talking about with an entire section defining what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion mean by its statements. These include things such as; altering or influencing the composition of employees and student body based on ”race, sex, color or national identity”, promoting differential treatment or providing special benefits to individuals, promote policies designed to favor those individuals. Require training to “change their beliefs with reference to race, color, national origin, gender identity or sexual orientation”. And other various explanations. In the shortest terms possible. This law defines DEI as any promotion, or influencing, and even includes things such as Diversity statements, and voluntary programs. Per this new law, all of those are now banned. 

Later lines in the bill parrot talking points of the political climate that have been around for decades online, and other forms of public forums. And takes it further with the insinuation that it is believed “ Meritocracy or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular class to oppress another class.“ The language in just the first section defining meaning shows that this is not a simple “civil rights bill” as it proclaims to be. It is a highly partisan piece of legislation that furthers policy and goals of the American Right. And as such, it must be examined under the lens of the modern political landscape. Especially in one of its now-banned lines of thought, per section 2. J, it is now no longer acceptable for an institution of learning to claim that it “reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum…” as it “ …does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.”

The bill’s 3rd section makes direct statements regarding what all institutions, colleges, and public schools are no longer allowed to do. This includes things that many have expected such as maintaining an office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. However, it claims that schools may not engage in “divisive concepts” while the 2nd section does describe those divisive concepts to some degree. It also maintains that it is a non-exhaustive list. Leaving vagueness for what constitutes divisive. Especially so as a large chunk of studies such as history, communication, and especially so with sociology and other liberal arts are inherently “divisive.” Leaving concerns about entire academic programs currently offered by universities in the state.

This vagueness is somewhat dispelled by the very troubling direct prohibitions outlined. The law takes a wide range of current topics and leads attacks on them. Including the inclusion of a section that prohibits academic programs or courses that promote “ diversity, equity, and inclusion, endorse divisive concepts or concepts promoting transgender ideology, gender-neutral pronouns, deconstruction of heteronormativity, gender theory, sexual privilege or any related formulation of these concepts.” While this section and it’s prohibitions are filled with political buzzwords of our time, this directly states that nothing may promote DEI, nothing may discuss transgender “ideology”, courses may not teach about gender theory, and none may promote or utilize gender-neutral pronouns. This is extremely dangerous, not only for the reason that a governmental entity is now outright prohibiting academia, but it is also doing so with a wide berth and vagueness.

 If a course can not teach about “transgender ideology” it is fair to say it can not mention the history of LGBTQ or its impacts on historical movements. If gender theory can not be taught, we likely can conclude that Gender Studies as a program is no longer permissible, with all of its sociological impacts and learnings. By outright and vaguely banning programs from diversity, equity, and inclusion. The state has essentially prohibited a large number of liberal arts and their teachings. Whether it ranges from race, class, disability, or even gender from being able to be maintained by institutions. 

 

 

In Section 4 however, the law aims at another issue that has become highly politicized. The bill unilaterally changes the curriculum on the terms “female” “male” and “sex”. Bringing the state in line with President Trump’s administration’s position. As such, completely disregards the academic, medical, and scholarly findings of gender in the modern era. As a “DEI” Bill, it includes the connotation that gender is not considered DEI, as it is not a true basis for identification. As such based on other laws with this new definition in mind if the state chooses to pursue it, gender is no longer a protected class, only sex. That is one of the biggest issues with the vagueness and the law as a whole. It upends years of settled information that has been studied, researched, and served as the foundation for countless other things in our legislature. 

The law as a whole is incredibly dangerous for the future landscape of the academic world. And its ramifications will leave colleges in limbo of what action to take to ensure funding.

 

 

 

Email me at cjw743@msstate.edu with any questions