S0368, titled the "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity Act," would add a new article to the South Carolina Code restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities across state government, political subdivisions, public higher education, and school districts. The bill defines DEI broadly to include hiring practices, preferential treatment, policies, trainings, and programs that reference race, sex, color, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, unless they are required to comply with federal or state law or court orders. It would prohibit public offices and institutions from maintaining DEI-focused units, hiring staff or contractors to promote DEI, requiring DEI statements, giving preferences based on protected characteristics, or mandating DEI training as a condition of enrollment or participation in institutional functions.
The bill also creates enforcement and oversight mechanisms. Public agencies and institutions would have to adopt discipline policies for employees or contractors who violate the restrictions, and they would be barred from spending appropriated or authorized funds until they submit compliance certifications to the General Assembly. The State Auditor would conduct periodic compliance audits at least once every four years, and unresolved violations could lead to withholding of future state distributions by the State Fiscal Accountability Authority. Contractors, subcontractors, and organizations receiving grants or other public funds would also have to certify that they do not operate prohibited DEI programs before receiving contracts, grants, or distributions.
In addition to the DEI restrictions, the bill states a broader state policy favoring individual initiative, excellence, and hard work, and directs agencies to terminate discriminatory preferences and seek assistance from the Attorney General in addressing illegal discrimination in the private sector. The Attorney General would be required to report to the General Assembly with recommendations for enforcing civil rights laws and ending illegal preferences, including DEI-related practices. The bill includes exceptions for veterans’ preferences, Randolph-Sheppard Act protections, First Amendment-protected speech, certain higher-education activities such as academic instruction, research, student organizations, guest speakers, data collection, and programs designed without regard to protected characteristics.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant, as it would impose statewide limits on DEI-related offices, programs, trainings, contracting, grantmaking, and institutional practices in government and public education. It would also add compliance reporting, auditing, and potential funding consequences, affecting state agencies, local governments, public colleges and universities, school districts, contractors, and grant recipients. Because it applies first to Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and School Year 2025-2026, it would require affected entities to adjust policies and certify compliance before using public funds.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call history in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly aligned with opponents of DEI programs and framed by supporters as an anti-discrimination and merit-based reform. Likely points of contention include the breadth of the DEI definition, the effect on higher education and school districts, the certification and audit requirements, and whether the bill restricts lawful diversity-related initiatives or speech despite its stated exceptions.
This bill would add new statewide restrictions on DEI-related offices, hiring, training, contracting, grantmaking, and institutional policies for state agencies, political subdivisions, public colleges and universities, and school districts. It would also require compliance certifications, audits by the State Auditor, and possible withholding of state distributions for noncompliance, while directing the Attorney General to enforce the act and report on civil-rights enforcement recommendations. The bill would not create a private right of action and includes exceptions for certain federal-law requirements, veterans’ preferences, Randolph-Sheppard Act protections, First Amendment speech, and specified higher-education activities.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no documented public sentiment in the supplied record. From the bill text, the measure is presented in supportive terms as a way to end illegal discrimination and restore merit-based opportunity, suggesting sponsor support for limiting DEI programs. At the same time, the scope of the restrictions indicates the bill would likely draw opposition from entities that operate DEI offices, diversity training, or race- and sex-conscious programs, especially in higher education and public employment.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s broad definition of DEI, its prohibition on DEI offices and training, and its reach into public universities, school districts, contractors, and grant recipients. Critics would likely argue that the bill sweeps in lawful diversity efforts and could chill speech or institutional programs aimed at supporting underrepresented groups, while supporters would argue the exceptions preserve compliance with law and protected speech. The funding holdback, audit, and certification provisions are also likely to be controversial because they create strong enforcement pressure on agencies and institutions.