HB 685 would substantially restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion-related activity in Louisiana state government and public higher education. It defines “DEI” broadly to include efforts tied to race, ethnicity, sex, national origin, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and then bars state agencies, departments, offices, and public postsecondary institutions from maintaining DEI offices or initiatives, hiring for DEI functions, requiring DEI statements, or giving preferential treatment based on those characteristics in hiring, admissions, financial aid, or other services. The bill also requires each agency and public postsecondary management board to report to legislative leaders on compliance efforts.
For public postsecondary education, the bill goes further by requiring management boards to adopt plans to ensure undergraduate degree programs do not require DEI-related instructional content in general education or major, minor, or certificate requirements, while allowing exemptions for programs clearly centered on racial, ethnic, or gender studies. It defines DEI-related instructional content to include topics such as critical race theory, systemic racism, implicit bias, intersectionality, gender identity, allyship, and race-based reparations, but excludes discussion of historical discrimination, certain medical and biological instruction, sex-based differences, and programming required by anti-discrimination laws or court orders. The bill also states that faculty academic freedom, classroom discussion, research, student organizations, guest speakers, health services, recruitment, and admissions are not intended to be restricted when they are not institutionally mandated DEI requirements.
The bill would amend Louisiana law by adding a new Title 49 chapter governing DEI restrictions in executive branch agencies and a new Title 17 provision governing undergraduate coursework at public postsecondary institutions. It also prohibits renaming existing departments, majors, minors, or certificate programs to create an emphasis on racial, ethnic, or gender studies. In effect, the measure would create statewide limits on DEI offices, trainings, hiring practices, curricular requirements, and related institutional policies, while preserving compliance with federal civil rights laws and constitutional speech protections.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote suggests the bill was supported by a majority of House members but remained divisive. It passed final House passage 56-32, indicating meaningful support but also substantial opposition. The bill text and amendments show an effort to frame the measure as a restriction on institutionally mandated DEI requirements rather than on individual speech or academic inquiry, which appears aimed at addressing concerns from higher education and civil liberties stakeholders.
The main points of contention are likely the breadth of the DEI definition and the extent to which the bill reaches public universities, hiring, admissions, and curriculum. Supporters appear to favor eliminating what they view as preferential treatment or compelled ideological content, while opponents are likely concerned that the bill could chill academic freedom, limit institutional diversity efforts, and create uncertainty around what counts as DEI-related content. The amendments narrowing some definitions and adding explicit exceptions for faculty discretion, medical education, anti-discrimination compliance, and privately funded scholarships suggest these issues were central to the debate.
The bill would add new statutory restrictions in Titles 17 and 49 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, creating enforceable limits on DEI-related programs, trainings, hiring, statements, and preferential treatment in state agencies and public postsecondary institutions. It would also require public higher education boards to develop compliance plans and would impose annual reporting obligations to legislative leaders, while prohibiting the renaming of existing academic units to emphasize racial, ethnic, or gender studies.
The most notable contention centers on whether the bill is a narrow ban on compelled DEI programming or a broader restriction on diversity-related efforts in government and universities. Opponents are likely to object to the breadth of the definitions, especially the inclusion of topics such as critical race theory, systemic racism, gender identity, and intersectionality, and to the limits on DEI offices, trainings, and curricular requirements. Supporters likely argue the bill preserves academic freedom and legal compliance, while critics may view those carve-outs as insufficient given the bill’s effect on admissions, hiring, and course design.