HB 118 would revise Texas Education Code provisions governing diversity, equity, and inclusion-related practices at public institutions of higher education. The bill preserves a limited ability for colleges and universities to describe work supporting first-generation, low-income, or underserved students when applying for grants or meeting accreditation requirements, and it allows certifications of compliance with antidiscrimination laws. It also clarifies several activities that are not covered by the prohibition, including academic instruction, scholarly research, student organization activities, guest speakers, data collection, admissions, and certain student-success programs that are designed and implemented without regard to race, sex, color, or ethnicity.
The bill adds new compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Institutions would be barred from spending state-appropriated money for a fiscal year until their governing board submits a compliance report to the Legislature and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Governing boards would also have to testify periodically before legislative committees, and the state auditor would be required to audit each institution at least once every four years. If an audit finds a violation, the institution would have 180 days to cure it or risk losing eligibility for certain funding increases, institutional enhancements, or exceptional items in the following biennium. The bill also creates a private right of action for students or employees required to participate in prohibited training, and it directs the Coordinating Board to study the law’s effects on student outcomes through 2029.
HB 118 would amend Section 51.3525 of the Education Code and strengthen state oversight of public higher education institutions’ use of state funds in connection with DEI-related activities. It would impose reporting, testimony, audit, and funding consequences tied to compliance, while also carving out express exceptions for instruction, research, student organizations, recruitment, admissions, and certain student-support programs. The bill would affect public universities and colleges, their governing boards, students, employees, and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, and it would create potential litigation exposure for institutions through the new injunctive or declaratory relief provision.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or vote-based sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a restrictive approach to DEI-related spending and training at public institutions, while attempting to preserve some student-support and academic exceptions. The inclusion of reporting, audits, and a study of student outcomes suggests an effort to monitor the policy’s effects rather than simply prohibit conduct without review.
The main points of contention are likely to be the scope of the DEI restrictions and the enforcement tools. Supporters may view the bill as ensuring compliance with antidiscrimination law and limiting compelled participation in DEI training, while opponents may argue it could chill campus programming, constrain institutional autonomy, and create administrative burdens through audits, reporting, and legislative testimony. Another likely dispute is whether the exceptions for student-success programs, research, and admissions are broad enough to protect ordinary university operations, and whether the private right of action and funding penalties are too punitive.