Last week, a bill was introduced in the Kansas House of Representatives that would eliminate required DEI and Critical Race Theory courses at public universities while adding new civics requirements.

Kansas House Representatives Kristey Williams, Susan Humphries and Bob Lewis introduced House Bill 2428 on Jan. 12 to the Kansas House of Representatives and that was then sent to the House Committee on Education for further hearing.

The committee heard HB2428 on Feb. 3, with testimonies from six in-person proponents and seven in-person opponents of the bill. In total, there were 29 testimonies, with 15 being written only opposition testimonies and one neutral written only testimony.

The committee opened with a presentation by Heidi Zimmerman, principal auditor, regarding an audit conducted in 2024 on DEI spending and foreign contributions in state universities.

According to Zimmerman, Kansas’s six state universities reported $9 million in state funding for DEI related staffing, training and other services.

“A quick caveat on this, which is, that the six universities did not have a single shared definition of what DEI activities are,” Zimmerman said.

Following this presentation, Representative Linda Featherston asked Zimmerman about food pantries being listed on page 4 of the audit and asked Zimmerman to explain how “feeding hungry students” falls into DEI.

Zimmerman responded again by stating that there is no definition for DEI in state law or by the regents. Following this presentation, Jason Long, revisor of statutes, gave a brief overview of the bill prior to testimonies.

One of HB2428’s authors, Williams, testified that this bill props up free speech by making sure that no students are compelled to take DEI courses if they do not agree with the content. In response, Representative Jerry Stogsdill, asked Williams how professors can teach classes such as American history without diversity, equity and inclusion. Williams did not answer the representative’s question. She instead spoke on her personal beliefs regarding DEI.

“That’s a political ideology and I do not subscribe to the theories that are incumbent and part of DEI…So teaching our young people victimhood or teaching them that there’s a hierarchy of goodness and value is actually anti-gospel from my perspective. So DEI is very well against my belief system,” Williams said.

Williams also answered another representative’s question by stating that universities should allow more diverse academic opportunities that are not against a student’s political, religious, moral or ethical beliefs. The committee then transitioned into its next testimony from another sponsor of HB2428.

“It [HB2428] provides several remedies for the teaching of DEI mandated courses. Students will not be required to enroll in such courses as a condition of satisfying that program’s requirements. It also protects professors from being forced to participate in DEI oriented courses or mandates if they choose not to teach those courses,” Humphries said.

Humphries also clarified in her testimony that this bill is not meant to be an assault on academic freedom, as it still allows for the discussion of controversial issues in history. She closed her testimony by asking the committee why should publicly funded universities mandate the teaching of ideology and propaganda.

Representative Megan Steele, another proponent of HB2428, spoke on the mandates in Kansas universities regarding DEI courses. Her testimony consisted of examples from university handbooks featured in her PowerPoint presentation. 

According to Steele, opposing DEI doesn’t mean opposing support for people. 

The final sponsor of HB2428, Lewis, spoke on the point that in many cases, general education classes required promotion of DEI/CRT. Lewis claimed that universities in Kansas are “requiring students to be indoctrinated.”

“I think it’s one thing to have a discussion and present different perspectives, but it’s another for— especially a composition course in English to tell the students what this course is really going to be about is for you to rethink gender and identity issues,” Lewis said. “I just don’t think that is what our university is about. It does not encourage free expression and discussion of ideas.”

After the proponents of the bill gave testimonies, the committee then moved to hearing the testimonies of the bill’s opponents, the majority of which were Kansas professors.

Tonya Ricklefs, president of the Kansas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, testified against HB2428, by stating that social work programs must meet a national standard and this bill places social work programs in Kansas at risk.

“If programs fall out of compliance, Kansas risks losing social work programs altogether. When programs disappear, students leave Kansas to obtain degrees,” Ricklefs said. “We know from our own organizational survey, if you are educated in Kansas, you want to stay in Kansas.”

Ricklefs also stated that the exceptions in the bill are narrowly written and the National Association of Social Workers welcomes the opportunity to work with the committee on wording the bill in a way that protects academic accreditation while supporting Kansas.

Another opponent of the bill, Ian Smith, private citizen with teaching experience, opposed this bill because of the condescending message he believes it sends to Kansas students.

“I say that because our students can and should be trusted to make up their own minds about DEI/CRT if they are exposed to it…If a state provides an avenue in which a student can opt out of any DEI/CRT content, they may not understand DEI/CRT, they may not be able to engage in discourse about it, and they may not be able to make up their own minds about it,” Smith said. “This bill, in short, sends the message to our students that we don’t trust that they can come to their own view about DEI/CRT. It sends the message that we have to protect them from DEI/CRT.”

Other opponents backed up Smith’s points, such as Chris Jones, private citizen with teaching experience, who stated that while this bill claims to be freedom from indoctrination, it does not do what the representatives think it does. 

Jones noted that he welcomes free and open debate to ideas, but this bill would forbid him from grading a student if they chose to research DEI for a required project.

“If students have to limit their own choices to get their degree, that’s not education, that is the definition of indoctrination,” Jones said.

Jones’ points on grading sparked discussion in the committee and the need for revisions within the bill.

The next opponent of the bill was Kim Morse, private citizen with teaching experience, who stated that the bill defines what is good and bad and what students should and shouldn’t learn.

“It takes away the freedom of choice. It undermines their ability to think critically, to engage in process and understanding that learning is a process. It actually undermines the title of the bill, the freedom from indoctrination— trust students. They will blow you away every time,” Morse said.

With many more citizens opposing the bill being professors, the last opponent was Rabbi Moti Reber, executive director of Kansas Interfaith Action, who brought in a t-shirt that said, “You can’t spell Imago Dei [Latin for ‘image of God’] without DEI.”

“Diversity is God’s gift to us and we want to promote it and help support it whenever we can…I think that secondary education is an important place to get exposed to important concepts,” Reber said.

Reber discussed the idea that it is inevitable that books or thoughts by minorities are pulled off curriculum. He also held up a poster of someone painting over African Americans. Reber said that black history and minority history are erased when ideas are pulled from shelves.

The committee hearing concluded after Reber spoke.

After the hearing, the audience spoke with one another regarding the bill and how the hearing itself proceeded.

When asked for thoughts on the bill, Stogsdill responded by saying that he thinks the bill itself is horrible and will have a chilling effect on academics in the country. Stogsdill argued that this bill was generated from the very top of the Trump administration, which has been attacking DEI since President Donald Trump entered office, finding his usage of DEI to be racist and bigoted.

“Their version of DEI is not really diversity, equity and inclusion…If you had a course called diversity, equity and inclusion, you could also call it American History, because that’s what this country is based on,” Stogsdill said. “We used to be a melting pot where we encouraged people from all over the world…This administration trickles down the idea that, nope, we don’t want certain people here.”

Audience members, such as George Burdick, Washburn student, attended the hearing as concerned citizens. Burdick spoke on how the bill limits his ability to learn. The bill limits something actively happening in the world.

“I’m going to get a worse educational experience because we aren’t allowing the experts to teach us what they think is best to teach us,” Burdick said.

Just as the audience was filled with concerned professors, students and citizens, anyone can attend hearings at the capitol building.

Citizens are highly encouraged to attend hearings and call representatives to make their voices heard. If you want to watch previous or future hearings, check out the Kansas Legislature YouTube channel for livestreams and updates.

Edited by Stuti Khadka