SB 2392 would have broadly restricted what North Dakota public institutions, school districts, and government employers can require, request, or use in employment, admissions, aid, training, and program participation decisions when the material is tied to race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or related “personal identity characteristics.” The bill defines a wide range of conduct as “prohibited discriminatory practices,” including policies or trainings that suggest one identity group is inherently superior or inferior, that assign privilege or oppression based on identity, that promote concepts such as critical race theory, implicit bias, intersectionality, anti-racism, or racial privilege, or that are labeled diversity, equity, and inclusion. It also bars mandatory trainings that promote those concepts and limits the use of certain submissions or statements in hiring, admissions, aid, and participation decisions.
The bill applies separately to higher education, K-12 public education, and state and local government employers. In each setting, it would prohibit offices, positions, or third-party contractors dedicated to promoting the covered concepts, while requiring institutions to maintain student success and support services and to provide annual or biennial training on academic freedom, free speech, or separation of personal political advocacy from official duties. It also creates reporting and complaint procedures, requires compliance reviews by the state board of higher education, the Department of Public Instruction, the governor, or executive agency directors, and authorizes legislative management reporting and possible withholding of future appropriations for institutions that do not cure violations.
The bill’s impact on state law would have been significant, adding new chapters to Titles 15, 15.1, and 54 and a new section to chapter 54-10 of the North Dakota Century Code. It would have imposed new statewide limits on DEI-related programming, mandatory training, and identity-based decision-making across public higher education, public schools, and government employment, while carving out exceptions for conduct required by state or federal law, including anti-discrimination and harassment laws. It also would have expanded oversight duties for state agencies and educational boards and created a formal enforcement and reporting structure.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history was strongly negative: the bill failed on Senate second reading by a vote of 1-46. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded committee debate in the materials, but the floor vote indicates overwhelming opposition. The lone recorded support suggests at least one senator favored the bill’s restrictions, while the near-unanimous defeat indicates broad resistance to its approach.
The main point of contention is the bill’s sweeping treatment of DEI, anti-racism, and related concepts as prohibited discriminatory practices. Supporters likely viewed it as a way to prevent compelled ideological training and identity-based preferences in public institutions, while opponents likely saw it as overbroad, potentially chilling lawful diversity efforts, academic freedom, and workplace or educational initiatives aimed at addressing discrimination. The breadth of the definitions, the inclusion of many common higher-education and government practices, and the threat of funding consequences were likely central concerns.
SB 2392 would have created new statutory restrictions on public higher education institutions, school districts, and government employers by prohibiting certain identity-based policies, mandatory trainings, and decision-making practices. It would also have required new compliance reviews, complaint processes, and periodic reports to legislative management, with potential budget consequences for institutions that failed to cure violations. The bill would have affected state agencies, local political subdivisions, schools, colleges, and universities, while preserving compliance with state and federal anti-discrimination law.
The central contention was over the bill’s broad definition of prohibited discriminatory practices and its explicit inclusion of concepts such as DEI, critical race theory, implicit bias, intersectionality, anti-racism, and racial privilege. Critics likely objected that the bill could restrict legitimate educational, employment, and training practices, while supporters likely argued it prevented compelled ideological conformity and identity-based preferences. Additional concerns likely centered on the bill’s enforcement mechanisms, reporting requirements, and the possibility of withholding appropriations from noncompliant institutions.