Diversity, equity and inclusion; prohibit instruction, assessment and training on conducted by public schools and charter schools.
House Bill 1542 would prohibit local school boards of public schools and governing boards of charter schools from implementing programs, instruction, assessments, trainings, or activities designed to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The bill defines DEI broadly to include practices or instruction related to race, sex, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation, while carving out exceptions for actions needed to comply with state or federal law or court orders. It also allows schools to make limited statements for grant applications or accreditation purposes, such as describing support for low-income or underserved students or certifying compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
The bill would also require school districts and charter schools to certify compliance with the DEI restrictions before spending appropriated state funds for the fiscal year. In addition, governing boards would have to testify on request before legislative education committees, and the State Auditor would be required to audit each public school or charter school for compliance at least once every four years. If a violation is found, the school would have 180 days to correct it, and failure to do so could make the district or charter school ineligible for certain future funding increases or exceptional items. Students or employees compelled to participate in prohibited instruction or training could seek injunctive or declaratory relief in court.
HB1542 would add new restrictions on how public schools and charter schools may use state funds and conduct student and employee programming, effectively barring DEI-related curricula, trainings, statements, and preferential treatment based on protected characteristics except where required by law. It would create a compliance-reporting and audit regime involving the Legislature, the State Board of Education, and the State Auditor, and it would condition access to state appropriations and certain future funding on compliance. The bill would also expose schools to potential legal action by students or employees and require districts and charter schools to adopt discipline policies for violations by staff or contractors.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a policy restriction rather than a negotiated compromise. The caption and operative provisions suggest support from sponsors seeking to limit DEI-related activity in public education, while the breadth of the prohibitions indicates the bill would likely be controversial among educators, civil rights advocates, and school administrators. No vote history or transcript is provided to show formal support or opposition in committee.
The main points of contention are the bill’s broad definition of DEI and its reach into instruction, assessments, employee training, hiring preferences, and required statements. Critics would likely focus on the inclusion of gender identity and sexual orientation, the potential chilling effect on school programs serving underserved students, and the enforcement mechanisms tied to funding and audits. Supporters would likely emphasize color-blind, sex-neutral practices, compliance with anti-discrimination law, and the bill’s exceptions for legal obligations and grant/accreditation statements. The bill also contains an apparent drafting anomaly referencing the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in a Mississippi school bill, which may draw attention as a technical issue.