DEI in public education: Texas House committee considers ban in K-12 schools
Senate Bill 12, dubbed a "parental rights bill," also seeks to tighten parental notification requirements regarding issues like changes to a child's mental or physical health, criminal offenses, uncertified teacher assignments, or sex education.
The effort to limit DEI in public schools mirrors a similar push in 2023 to ban DEI in public universities and colleges in Texas. That 2023 law, SB 17, reshaped equity-based student support practices in higher education, led to university staff layoffs and dismantled offices meant to help minority students. The Trump administration is also seeking to strip DEI from the federal government, including in education.
During the House Committee on Public Educating hearing on the bill, Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, said that SB 12, passed by the Senate in March, aims to provide parents greater oversight of their children's education. Leach is sponsoring the bill by Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, in the House.
'I am concerned when it comes to our history and being inclusive in that history,' said Rep. Gina Hinojosa, D-Austin.
When Hinojosa asked if a school lesson about Harvey Milk — the first openly gay man elected to public office in California — would violate the bill, Leach told her no.
Hinojosa also noted that when lawmakers talk about banning DEI, they need to be clear about exactly what that means for teachers.
'They need to have a specific understanding of what is prohibited in their jobs,' Hinojosa said.
Rep. John Bryant, a Dallas Democrat, pushed back on the fact that the bill would prohibit districts from specifically seeking minority teachers for schools that serve primarily minority students.
'Don't you agree that some considerations should be given to trying to have a faculty in school that looks a little bit like the student population there?' Bryant asked.
Leach instead maintained that schools should be conducting their hiring practices based on merit and qualifications alone.
'This is about performance and achievement and instruction, and very strongly stands against and prohibits discriminatory practices,' Leach said.
The House version of SB 12 cut out a limit on district-sponsored student clubs that are 'based on sexual orientation or gender identity,' Leach said Tuesday.
While education advocates said this was a good move, they still fear the bill might limit minority and LGBTQ+ students' access to information and resources about their communities.
Ash Hall, policy and advocacy strategist on LGBTQIA+ rights at ACLU of Texas, said the bill would mandate that educators disclose personal information about a student's identity, even without the student's consent. Hall said SB 12 could also lead to classroom censorship.
'This bill creates red tape and compliance burdens that distract schools from teaching and learning,' Hall said during a news conference Tuesday. 'It is not about improving education. It is about controlling it.'
During the news conference, Rep. Ron Reynolds, D-Missouri City, called the bill a further attack on minority and LGBTQ+ students and said Texas should be celebrating diversity.
'If passed, this bill would undermine educators by giving parents complete control over their students' education and strip students of their personal autonomy and privacy, force school staff to out their students to their parents, limit educators' ability to tailor their lessons due to vague language, (and) effectively ban district staff and contractors from carrying out DEI duties,' Reynolds said.
The committee left the bill pending Tuesday.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas House panel weighs DEI ban in public schools
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Trump Clashes With Reporter Over Tariffs, Citing Pandemic and ‘Fighting Lunatics'
President Donald Trump clashed with a reporter Thursday over questions about a newly signed tariff, telling him that he had spent his first term "fighting lunatics like you." The intense exchange follows a White House signing ceremony for a series of executive actions aimed at expanding reciprocal tariffs and strengthening U.S. trade policy. While speaking with reporters at the White House after the signing, a reporter confronted Trump on why he is emphasizing tariffs more in his second term. "You're weighing your decision to do that, your authority to do that based on a 1977 law. It's never been invoked before," said the reporter. "Why didn't you invoke this law in your first term? You could have taken in billions upon billions of dollars in your first term, but you waited until your second term?" Without missing a beat, the president shot back: "Yeah, because in my first term, I was fighting lunatics like you who were trying to do things incorrectly and inappropriately to a president that was duly elected." "And we did do certain tariffs in the first term," he continued. "If you look at China, China, we took in hundreds of billions of dollars from China." He also said that the COVID-19 pandemic also played a factor in his decision to not emphasize tariffs as much in his first term. "When Covid came the last thing I was going to do is tell France and Italy and Spain and a couple of other countries that we're going to hit you with tariffs," he explained. "We had to fight the Covid situation when that came." "But if you look at my first term," he went on, "We took in hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of tariffs, but you people didn't cover it very well." A statement by the White House said that Trump's executive actions taken on Thursday "reflects the President's continued efforts to protect the United States against foreign threats to the national security and economy of the United States by securing fair, balanced, and reciprocal trade relationships to benefit American workers, farmers, and manufacturers and to strengthen the United States' defense industrial base." This comes shortly after Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a trade deal between the U.S. and E.U. on Sunday. "We are agreeing that the tariff straight across for automobiles and everything else will be a straight-across tariff of 15%," Trump said. "So, we have a tariff of 15%. We have the opening up of all of the European countries, which I think I could say were essentially closed. I mean, you weren't exactly taking our orders. You weren't exactly taking our agriculture," he added, addressing von der Leyen. Von der Leyen said Europe will also purchase $150 billion worth of U.S. energy as part of the deal, in addition to making $600 billion in other investments into the U.S.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trump goes after Susan Collins for her voting record
The simmering dispute over the FBI's future headquarters derailed Senate efforts Thursday night to launch floor debate on the legislation that funds the agency, as well as the departments of Commerce and Justice, NASA and science programs. Sen. Chris Van Hollen objected Thursday night to including the bill in a larger package of funding measures. The Maryland Democrat demanded that the Senate agree to adopt language that would require the FBI to meet a specific security threshold for its headquarters, as the Trump administration keeps the agency in downtown Washington instead of relocating it to the suburban Maryland campus previously selected after a yearslong competition. But Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), who chairs the funding panel that handles the bill, shot down that request on the Senate floor Thursday night, after the dispute over the FBI headquarters already snagged committee action on the bill. Tearing up as he spoke on the floor, Moran said he knows 'no path forward' that would allow Van Hollen's amendment. 'Our appropriations process is fragile,' he said. If Van Hollen, who serves as the ranking member on the Commerce-Justice-Science Subcommittee, hadn't objected, his amendment would have been teed up for a vote. But Van Hollen didn't want to take the risk that the language would not have been adopted. 'That is a simple request that I would have thought all of us could stand behind,' Van Hollen said, 'making sure that the new headquarters of the men and women of the FBI meets the security requirements that we and they have set out.' Senate appropriators already killed another amendment Van Hollen proposed in committee, which would have barred the Trump administration from dipping into a $1.4 billion construction account for anything besides relocating the FBI to the previously selected site. After the proposal was initially adopted, the committee later voted to strike the language because so many Republicans were threatening to tank the underlying bill if it rebuked Trump on the headquarters decision. 'We did it because the president of the United States was going to throw a fit if that provision stayed on, that's why people reversed the position,' Van Hollen said on the Senate floor Thursday night. 'And we shouldn't make our decisions out of fear about what somebody in the White House is going to do, because that distorts the entire process here in the United States Senate.' Moran's Thursday evening request was to tie together four bills to fund the government for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Those bills would collectively fund the departments of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture, as well as military construction projects, the operations of Congress and the FDA. The Kansas Republican touted that those four measures had made it through the full Senate Appropriations Committee with bipartisan support and 'in some instances, unanimously.'
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Pentagon recalls another 1,000 National Guard troops from Los Angeles
The troops were sent to suppress protests and to protect ICE agents conducting immigration raids. The Pentagon has withdrawn more than a thousand National Guard troops sent to Los Angeles, further scaling back President Donald Trump's controversial deployment. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on July 30 recalled 1,350 California National Guardsmen assigned to protect federal buildings and personnel amid public uproar following recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids across the city and Southern California. The troop withdrawal comes with about a week left in what the White House described as a 60-day deployment that started on June 7. Two weeks ago the administration called back 2,000 California National Guardsmen from their assignments in Los Angeles. Troop withdrawal, phase 1: Pentagon pulls 2,000 National Guard members from Los Angeles in immigration rollback Approximately 250 troops will remain in Los Angeles to protect personnel and property, the Pentagon said. At the peak of their deployment, nearly 5,000 service members were dispatched to the region: most were National Guard troops, but Trump also sent 700 Marines to guard federal property in the city. The troops were directed to suppress protests and to protect ICE agents conducting immigration raids. Newsom: Trump's 'political theater backfired' Several California Democratic lawmakers criticized the June deployment, calling it an overreach of presidential authority, accusing Trump of inciting violence. Trump's response at the time was that "Los Angeles would be burning right now" without the military presence. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, sued the Trump administration, alleging the deployment was unlawful. A San Francisco appeals court ruled that the troops could remain. Newsom said July 30 in a post on X that Trump's "chaotic, needless takeover of the California National Guard, his political theatrics in LA have blown up in his face." "President Trump is realizing that his political theater backfired. This militarization was always unnecessary and deeply unpopular," Newsom said in a statement. Raids and deportations has a heavy cost: Deportations are taking a toll on California's economy - and have only just begun Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also viewed the deployment as a "political stunt" and said in a July 30 post on X the withdrawal was a "win." Bass said she would continue to pressure the administration until "ALL troops are out of L.A." Hegseth responded to Bass in an X post of his own. "You're welcome Mayor. These brave troops are redeploying because their mission was so successful. You should be thanking them for saving your city from mobs & chaos," Hegseth said. "We will continue to support law enforcement – even when you won't." The troop deployment has been estimated to cost about $134 million, according to the Pentagon.
