Senate Bill 1198 creates a new section of Idaho law governing public higher education and certain private institutions that receive state appropriations. The bill is framed as a “freedom of inquiry” measure and is intended to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs the Legislature describes as rooted in critical theory. It defines DEI broadly to include a wide range of trainings, offices, officers, practices, and course content, and it prohibits institutions from maintaining DEI offices or officers, conducting DEI trainings, using bias reporting systems, or requiring DEI-related courses or faculty practices as part of degree programs or employment decisions.
The bill also bars institutions from discriminating or giving preferential treatment in admissions or hiring based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, while creating limited exemptions for compliance-related legal work, certain academic departments focused on racial, ethnic, or gender studies, and student organizations. It requires annual compliance reports to the attorney general and legislative education committees, authorizes attorney general enforcement and civil penalties, and creates private causes of action for students and staff seeking injunctive relief. The act takes effect July 1, 2025, and applies prospectively only.
In practical terms, the bill would significantly alter how Idaho public colleges and universities structure student support, training, hiring, compliance, and academic programming. Funds previously used for DEI offices or officers in fiscal year 2026 may be redirected to merit scholarships for in-state students. The bill also preserves certain activities, including academic research, creative work, guest speakers, registered student organizations, and legally required compliance training, and it expressly allows support for American Indian students through designated centers, cultural events, and scholarships.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text and voting history is strongly supportive among proponents and notably divided overall. The bill passed the Senate and House on third reading, but with substantial opposition in both chambers, indicating that it was controversial even as it advanced. The legislative findings use forceful language criticizing DEI and critical theory, suggesting the measure was driven by a policy and ideological push to reshape higher education governance and campus culture.
The main points of contention are the breadth of the DEI definition, the prohibition on DEI offices and trainings, and the enforcement mechanisms. Critics would likely focus on the bill’s sweeping restrictions on campus programming, faculty incentives, and student support structures, as well as the attorney general’s investigative authority, civil penalties, and private right of action. Supporters appear to view the bill as protecting viewpoint neutrality, merit-based decision-making, and academic freedom from compelled ideological programming.
The bill would add Section 67-5909D to Idaho Code and impose new statewide restrictions on public institutions of higher education and certain state-funded private-institution subdivisions or affiliates. It would prohibit DEI offices, DEI officers, DEI trainings, bias reporting systems, and required DEI-related course or faculty participation tied to degree programs or employment evaluations, while also mandating annual compliance reporting and creating enforcement tools for the attorney general and private litigants. The bill would also allow reallocation of certain DEI-related funds to merit scholarships for in-state students and would take effect July 1, 2025, without retroactive application before that date.
The bill appears to have strong support from its sponsors and a majority of legislators in each chamber, as shown by successful third-reading votes in the Senate and House. At the same time, the vote margins indicate meaningful opposition, suggesting the measure was politically contentious. The bill’s findings and structure reflect a clear anti-DEI policy stance, while the exemptions for legal compliance, academic freedom, student organizations, and American Indian support programs suggest an effort to narrow the scope of the restrictions and address anticipated concerns.
The most significant contention centers on whether the bill’s definitions of DEI, diversity training, and bias reporting systems are too broad and could reach ordinary academic, student-support, or compliance activities. Opponents are likely to object to the elimination of DEI offices and officers, the limits on faculty incentives and required coursework, and the possibility of attorney general penalties and private lawsuits. Supporters likely argue that the bill is necessary to prevent compelled ideological programming, preserve viewpoint neutrality, and ensure that institutions focus on legally required nondiscrimination compliance rather than DEI initiatives.