To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit graduate medical schools from receiving Federal financial assistance if such schools adopt certain policies and requirements relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
HB3518 would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to make graduate medical schools ineligible for federal financial assistance, including access to federally funded or guaranteed student loan programs, unless they certify that they do not require or incentivize certain diversity, equity, and inclusion-related statements, trainings, offices, or policies. The bill specifically targets practices it describes as compelling faculty, staff, or students to affirm ideas about oppression, systemic racism, collective guilt, or race-based treatment, and it bars schools from using DEI offices or diversity statements in ways the bill characterizes as coercive or discriminatory.
The bill also requires these schools to certify compliance with existing civil rights laws, including Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination Act. It adds a related accreditation provision directing accrediting agencies that oversee graduate medical education not to require schools to adopt policies that would violate the new section. The measure includes construction clauses stating that it does not prohibit instruction on medical conditions tied to demographic characteristics, collection of demographic data for informational purposes, First Amendment activity, research, student organizations, guest speakers, or compliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
If enacted, the bill would condition federal education funding and student loan participation for graduate medical schools on compliance with a new federal restriction on DEI-related practices. It would effectively amend the Higher Education Act to create a new eligibility standard for medical schools and would also affect accrediting agencies by limiting recognition of accreditors that require DEI-related policies as part of accreditation. The bill would not repeal existing civil rights obligations, but it would add a separate federal funding condition that could alter institutional hiring, admissions, training, and administrative practices at medical schools.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed by its sponsors as a civil-rights and viewpoint-neutrality bill aimed at limiting compelled ideological statements in medical education. The overall tone of the legislation is strongly critical of DEI programs, while also including explicit savings clauses to preserve anti-discrimination compliance and academic freedom protections. Because there are no transcripts or vote results provided, no formal bipartisan or committee sentiment can be measured from the record here.
The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in graduate medical schools, especially the prohibition on DEI offices, diversity statements, and any requirement that students or staff affirm concepts such as systemic racism or collective guilt. Supporters are likely to view these provisions as protecting free speech and preventing compelled ideological conformity, while opponents would likely argue that the bill undermines institutional efforts to promote diversity and address discrimination in medical education. Another likely dispute is whether the bill’s definitions are too broad or vague, particularly the terms describing prohibited DEI offices and statements, and whether the funding penalty would pressure schools to eliminate lawful diversity initiatives beyond what the bill expressly targets.