A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ENACTING THE "ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY ACT" BY ADDING ARTICLE 29 TO TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1 SO AS TO PROHIBIT EVERY OFFICE, DIVISION, OR OTHER UNIT BY ANY NAME OF EVERY OFFICE OR DEPARTMENT OF THIS STATE, AND ALL OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, INCLUDING ALL INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS, FROM PROMOTING DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION, AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS; AND TO PROMOTE INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE, EXCELLENCE, AND HARD WORK; AND TO SPECIFY APPLICABILITY.
H. 3927 enacts the “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity Act” and adds a new article to Title 1 of the South Carolina Code governing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in public entities. The bill declares state policy to end what it characterizes as illegal preferences and discrimination and to promote merit, individual initiative, excellence, and hard work. It applies to state agencies, political subdivisions, public institutions of higher learning, public school districts, and public charter schools.
The bill prohibits public entities from implementing, maintaining, or promoting DEI if it constitutes illegal discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It also bars preferential treatment, DEI statements, mandatory DEI training, and the creation or support of offices or units devoted to DEI. In addition, it requires certification from contractors, grant recipients, and organizations receiving public funds that they do not operate unlawful DEI-related programs or hiring practices, and it directs institutions of higher learning to seek a different accrediting agency if their current accreditor requires a DEI program deemed unlawful.
The bill creates enforcement and reporting mechanisms. The Inspector General may investigate complaints and establish a complaint process, public entities must report complaint data annually to the Department of Administration, and the Attorney General may seek injunctive or declaratory relief. The bill also repeals Section 1-13-110 of the Code, includes severability language, and takes effect upon gubernatorial approval, first applying to Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and School Year 2025-2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and voting history is strongly supportive among House Republicans and other supporters, who frame the measure as a civil-rights and merit-based reform. The House passed the bill 82-31 after defeating a motion to continue and a motion to recommit, and it repeatedly tabled numerous amendments, indicating organized majority support and an effort to move the bill forward without substantial alteration.
The main points of contention are the bill’s broad restrictions on DEI-related policies, training, statements, and offices, especially in higher education, schools, and public contracting. Opponents appear to have sought delay, recommittal, and multiple amendments, suggesting concern about the bill’s scope, its impact on institutional autonomy, and whether it could chill lawful speech or diversity-related efforts. The bill attempts to address some of those concerns by preserving First Amendment rights, disability protections, and certain veteran-related preferences, but the central dispute remains over whether the measure prevents unlawful discrimination or broadly suppresses DEI initiatives.
The bill would add a new chapter of state law restricting DEI-related practices across state government, local governments, public schools, charter schools, and public colleges and universities. It would also impose certification requirements on contractors, grant recipients, and organizations receiving public funds, and it would authorize oversight by the Inspector General and enforcement by the Attorney General. By repealing Section 1-13-110, it would also remove an existing statutory provision related to this subject area and replace it with a broader statewide framework governing DEI and antidiscrimination compliance.
The bill’s sentiment is predominantly favorable among its sponsors and House majority supporters, who describe it as a merit-based, civil-rights enforcement measure. The recorded votes show repeated success on procedural motions and final passage, with the bill advancing despite sustained opposition. The debate pattern suggests strong partisan or ideological division, with supporters emphasizing fairness and opposition to unlawful discrimination, and opponents attempting to slow or amend the bill substantially.
The most significant contention is whether the bill targets only unlawful discrimination or instead sweeps broadly enough to prohibit legitimate DEI programs, training, and institutional initiatives. Higher education, public schools, and public employers are the most directly affected, and critics are likely concerned about effects on admissions, hiring, training, accreditation, and speech. Supporters argue the bill preserves lawful conduct, First Amendment activity, disability rights, and veteran preferences, while opponents appear to worry about overbreadth, implementation burdens, and the potential chilling effect on diversity-related efforts and institutional policies.