Prohibitions and Limitations on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Requirements for Medical Institutions of Higher Education
SB 1710 would significantly restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion activity within Florida state agencies and certain state-funded recipients. It defines DEI broadly to include a wide range of race-, sex-, gender identity-, and sexual orientation-related policies, trainings, programming, and official positions, while carving out limited exceptions for equal opportunity materials and certain court- or law-compliance activities approved by the Attorney General. The bill also bars state agencies from using any funds to establish or staff DEI offices or officers, and it creates a complaint-and-enforcement mechanism allowing a person to notify the Attorney General, who may seek mandamus relief against a noncompliant agency.
The bill also adds new transparency and certification requirements tied to state contracting and grants. State agencies applying for certain federal health care-related grants involving DEI would have to post application materials online and submit the proposal to designated legislative committees. Separately, any potential recipient of a state contract or grant would have to certify to the Chief Financial Officer that it does not and will not require employees, contractors, volunteers, vendors, or agents to ascribe to, study, or be instructed in DEI material using state funds.
In higher education, the bill imposes new requirements on medical institutions of higher education. It would require letter-grade assessments for all required courses, prohibit pass/fail grading for required courses, and require a standardized admissions test focused on science and medical critical-thinking skills as a condition of admission. The bill defines medical institutions broadly to include Florida College System institutions, state universities, and certain state-funded trade schools that offer health care-related programs.
The bill would amend Florida law by creating new sections in chapters 20, 287, and 1004, and by adding admissions requirements to section 1007.263. Its practical effect would be to limit DEI-related spending and programming in state government, impose certification obligations on contractors and grantees, and regulate grading and admissions practices in medical education programs. It is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2025.
The available voting history suggests the bill has support in committee, passing the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee 6-2. No committee transcript was provided, but the structure and scope of the bill indicate that the main policy debate likely centers on whether the state should restrict DEI-related activity and funding, and whether the higher-education provisions improve academic rigor or unnecessarily constrain institutional autonomy.
SB 1710 would create new statutory limits on state agency spending for DEI offices and officers, establish a reporting and enforcement process through the Attorney General, and require certification from state contract and grant recipients regarding DEI-related instruction funded with state money. It would also add new requirements for medical institutions of higher education regarding grading systems and admissions testing, affecting Florida College System institutions, state universities, and certain state-funded trade schools offering health care-related programs.
The limited voting record indicates generally favorable committee sentiment, with the bill advancing 6-2 in the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee. Based on the bill’s content, supporters appear to favor restricting DEI activity in state government and increasing accountability in medical education, while opponents likely object to the breadth of the DEI definition, the limits on agency and contractor discretion, and the intrusion into higher-education policies.
The most notable points of contention are the bill’s broad definition of DEI, which reaches trainings, policies, and official positions involving race, gender identity, sexual orientation, and related concepts, and its prohibition on using any funds for DEI offices or officers. Another likely dispute is the certification requirement for state contractors and grantees, which could be viewed as extending the state’s DEI restrictions into private entities receiving public funds. In higher education, the required standardized admissions test and ban on pass/fail grading for required medical courses may be contested by institutions that prefer flexibility in admissions and assessment practices, while supporters may argue these measures promote rigor and consistency.