An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, in miscellaneous provisions relating to institutions of higher education, prohibiting certain divers . . .ity training and courses.
HB246 would amend Pennsylvania’s Public School Code to prohibit certain public and state-affiliated institutions of higher education from requiring students to complete diversity training or a diversity course as a condition of graduation, earning a degree, or receiving credit hours. The bill applies to community colleges, rural regional colleges, State System universities, State-related institutions, and Thaddeus Stevens College of Technology.
The bill defines “diversity course” and “diversity training” narrowly as programs or training based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, or privilege are inherent in U.S. institutions and were created to maintain social, political, or economic inequities. It also specifies that these definitions include elements using diversity-focused pedagogy. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.
If enacted, HB246 would add a new section to the Public School Code of 1949 and directly limit curricular and training requirements at specified Pennsylvania higher education institutions. It would not ban diversity-related instruction outright, but it would prevent schools from making such coursework or training mandatory for graduation, degree completion, or credit accumulation. The bill would affect institutional academic policy, student degree requirements, and potentially general education or orientation programming at covered colleges and universities.
Based on the bill’s sponsorship and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the available context suggests the measure is being advanced by sponsors who are critical of mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion-related requirements in higher education. Because there are no transcripts or vote records here, there is no documented bipartisan or committee sentiment to assess, but the bill’s framing indicates support from lawmakers concerned about compelled ideological instruction and likely opposition from those who favor institutional DEI requirements.
The main point of contention is whether colleges and universities should be allowed to require diversity-related courses or training as part of a degree program. Supporters are likely to argue that students should not be compelled to complete instruction grounded in theories about systemic oppression or privilege, while opponents may view the bill as restricting academic freedom and limiting institutions’ ability to address diversity, equity, inclusion, and campus climate. The bill’s definitions are also likely to be disputed because they focus on specific theories and could be read broadly to capture a range of diversity-focused pedagogy.