Prohibit public postsecondary educational institutions from having a diversity, equity, and inclusion office and taking certain actions relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion
LB552 would prohibit Nebraska’s public postsecondary educational institutions — including the University of Nebraska, state colleges, and community colleges — from establishing or maintaining a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) office. It would also bar those institutions from hiring or contracting for a DEI office, requiring or soliciting DEI-related statements, giving preference based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation, requiring participation in DEI programs, or spending public money on DEI offices or programs, except where federal law requires otherwise.
The bill defines DEI office and DEI program broadly, including offices or activities that influence hiring practices, promote differential treatment or special benefits, or advance a wide range of concepts associated with DEI training and theory. At the same time, it preserves certain institutional activities, such as sexual harassment training, legal compliance offices, grant or accreditation statements about serving first-generation, low-income, or underserved students, data collection, scholarly research and art, and approval of student activities or guest speakers. It also creates a private right of action for employees required to participate in a DEI program, allowing them to seek injunctive relief if the institution violates the section.
LB552 would amend state law governing public postsecondary education by imposing new restrictions on how public colleges and universities may organize staff, allocate funds, and conduct training or programming related to DEI. It would directly affect the University of Nebraska, the state colleges, and community colleges, and could limit existing offices, trainings, and initiatives that reference race, sex, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation. The bill also exposes institutions to employee lawsuits for injunctive relief if they require participation in prohibited DEI programs.
Based on the bill’s text and procedural history, the measure appears to have been introduced as a restrictive response to DEI initiatives in higher education and ultimately did not advance, as it was indefinitely postponed. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate in the supplied materials. The structure and breadth of the bill suggest it was likely controversial, particularly among supporters of DEI programming and institutional autonomy, while appealing to those seeking to limit identity-based programming in public education.
The main points of contention are the bill’s broad definitions and sweeping prohibitions. Opponents would likely object that it reaches beyond offices to cover trainings, programs, hiring preferences, and even certain statements or concepts related to race, gender identity, and sexual orientation, potentially chilling lawful academic, administrative, and student activities. Supporters would likely argue that the bill preserves compliance, legal, research, and student-activity functions while preventing compelled ideological programming and the use of public funds for DEI offices. The private right of action for employees and the exception for federal law are additional likely flashpoints.