RALEIGH, N.C. — The North Carolina Senate approved legislation Tuesday that would ban diversity, equity and inclusion programs in public schools and put in place new rules for how teachers can discuss racism and sexism in classrooms.

Senators voted 28-18, along party lines, to pass the “Eliminating ‘DEI’ in Public Education” bill that was introduced by Senate leader Phil Berger just over a week ago, and send it to the House.

The bill, which prohibits schools from teaching or compelling students or employees to affirm “divisive concepts,” also requires public schools and charter schools to dismantle their DEI offices.

A total of 12 such concepts are spelled out in the bill, including the notions that a person’s race or sex makes them “inherently superior” to others, makes them “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,” determines their “moral character,” or makes them responsible “for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.”

Other prohibited concepts include the arguments that meritocracies are “inherently racist or sexist,” that the United States “was created by members of a particular race or sex for the purpose of oppressing members of another race or sex,” and “the rule of law does not exist but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.”

Republicans and Democrats clash on what DEI programs entail

Critics of the bill have questioned its constitutionality, and argued it is similar to laws in other states like one in New Hampshire, which was struck down by a federal judge for being too vague.

Sen. Michael Lee, one of the bill’s primary sponsors, disputed another criticism that the bill is seeking to limit the teaching of history and “past injustices.”

During a committee meeting last week, Lee argued that DEI programs may have “laudable goals” such as the promotion of diverse perspectives, but in reality, have ended up trying to impose ideological conformity.

Lee said during floor debate Tuesday that he’s received calls and emails from people who are concerned about the bill prohibiting things it doesn’t.

Sen. Lisa Grafstein said in response that the bill “presupposes” that some students are being made to feel bad about themselves based on their race or sex, and questioned if there was evidence of that.

“Inclusion is not a divisive word, or shouldn’t be,” Grafstein, a Raleigh Democrat, said.

Grafstein offered an amendment to make the bill apply to private schools that accept taxpayer-funded vouchers, but it was defeated with the adoption of a substitute amendment.

Sen. Val Applewhite, a Fayetteville Democrat, said the bill was “misguided” and sought to “erase fundamental truths” about American history.

“Are we now choosing to silence the truth because it may offend some?” Applewhite asked.

Another Democrat, Sen. Kandie Smith of Greenville, said the programs and trainings the bill seeks to block actually “promote all people, no matter who they are, having a seat at the table.”

Another bill filed in the House would prohibit state agencies from implementing or adopting DEI programs, policies, or initiatives. Those who knowingly violate that ban would face criminal penalties, and elected officials who fail to comply may be impeached.

Responding to that bill, Democrats rejected the notion that banning DEI programs would help advance a meritocracy.

Sen. Caleb Theodros, a Charlotte Democrat, said last month that if lawmakers “want a true equal society based on who the best person is, then you need to have inclusive policies, you need to have diversified policies.”

The GOP bills to eliminate DEI programs in public schools and state agencies follow the Trump administration’s quick moves to ban DEI in the federal government.

Senate sends bill limiting attorney general’s powers to House

The Senate also gave approval Tuesday to a bill Republicans introduced last month that would block Attorney General Jeff Jackson from challenging any of President Donald Trump’s executive orders in court.

Republican senators took the second of two required votes to send the bill to the House for more consideration, but not before it was amended.

Democrats offered an amendment to delay implementation until January 2029, after the next election for attorney general. That amendment was defeated after Republicans put up a substitute amendment that addressed a criticism Democrats made last week of Senate Bill 153, an immigration enforcement measure. Democrats moved to include in that bill a criminal penalty for people who impersonate U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

The GOP’s amendment on Tuesday, which was approved, directs Jackson to report to state lawmakers by June 1 of this year how many times someone was convicted over the last four years for impersonating law enforcement, and in particular, ICE agents.

Jackson, a Democrat, has joined a handful of multistate lawsuits against Trump’s actions and other administration policies that have been brought by several Democratic attorneys general.

While state attorneys general of both major parties have frequently challenged policies coming out of Washington, particularly from presidential administrations of the other party, Republicans have argued in recent weeks that Jackson should be focused on the state, and not the political “preferences” of national Democrats.

“I don’t recall an instance of Attorney General Jackson telling the voters that he intended to get elected attorney general and fight the Trump agenda,” Berger told reporters last month as the bill was advancing through committees.

“If he had done that and got elected, then I wouldn’t think that the voters would have as much of a problem with him doing so,” he said. “But the reality is he is partnering with other Democrats in federal court, for the most part, in fighting against the policies that the people of the state heard articulated by President Trump, and voted for.”

Democrats have questioned if Republicans would be moving to limit the attorney general’s ability to sue over executive orders they think are harmful to North Carolina if last year’s elections had gone differently.

During floor debate last week, Democrats said the bill would prevent Jackson from defending North Carolinians from “federal government overreach” and said it “reeks of weakness and appeasement.”

Sen. Mujtaba Mohammed, a Charlotte Democrat, said Republicans might think it’s “politically convenient now” to restrict the attorney general’s powers while a Democrat is in office, but could regret it in the future under a different administration.

“Unchecked power, whether held by a Republican or a Democrat, is a threat to democracy,” Mohammed said.

_____

©2025 The Charlotte Observer. Visit charlotteobserver.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.