An introduction is made by Senator Ben Brown, a Republican from Washington, to his legislative aide on the opening day of the 2024 Legislative Session.
One of the state senators in Missouri is taking aim at colleges and institutions in the state that require prospective students or job candidates to provide an explanation of how they will contribute to the diversity, equity, and inclusion goals of the individual institution.
The proposed legislation would make it illegal for educational institutions to demand that applicants submit a diversity, equity, and inclusion statement in order to be considered for employment or admission. Additionally, it would make it illegal to give applicants preferential consideration on the basis of an unsolicited submission of a statement of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
In accordance with a template provided by Notre Dame University, diversity, equality, and inclusion statements (DEI statements) are brief writings that provide an explanation of the candidate’s dedication to these principles.
Sen. Ben Brown, a Republican from Washington who is the sponsor of the bill, referred to these remarks as “DEI loyalty oaths” and stated that they are utilised as a political litmus test for politicians.
The statement was made by Brown during a committee hearing on the bill that took place on Tuesday. “(Candidates) are expected to commit to shaping their teaching and research priorities around DEI’s radical ideology,” Brown added.
At this time, the University of Missouri does not need declarations of this nature for admission or employment purposes. Nevertheless, the portions of the measure that deal with “unsolicited statements” can have repercussions for the University of Missouri.
Applicants for jobs or admissions who submit a diversity, equity, and inclusion statement regardless of whether or not they are offered preferential treatment would be prohibited by the bill.
“There would have to be proof that someone was given preferential treatment due to the statement that was submitted,” Brown stated. “So absent that evidence, it wouldn’t really have any impact on current practices.”
Senator Maggie Nurrenbern, a Democrat from Kansas City, asked if any of these behaviours were occurring at the state’s institutions at the moment.
Many universities, including Missouri State University, could have modified their policy since he presented the bill last year, but Brown said he hadn’t looked since.
Regardless of how many schools presently need the submission of DEI statements, Brown stated that the legislation is still necessary.
“It is something that has been required,” Brown stated, “and I imagine would be in the future as well as things change and something that I feel we need to prevent now.”
Before she finished her inquiry, Nurrenbern referred to the bill as the “epitome of big government.”
On behalf of Cicero Action and Do No Harm Action, two advocacy organisations that claim on their websites that they reject “destructive” and “divisive” ideas, James Harris spoke in favour of the bill.
According to him, mandating DEI statements may drive candidates to seek employment elsewhere, which would ultimately hurt the state’s institutions and universities.
Read Also: Harvard Professor Studying ALS Loses Funding After Federal Freeze
Paul Wagner of the Council on Public Higher Education, which advocates for Missouri State University, Truman State University, and other public universities in the state, was among the bill’s opponents.
The council does not include MU as a member. He questioned the bill’s ambiguous wording throughout his testimony.
“It just opens (universities) up to so much legal liability on the basis of things that are really just vague and could just be hearsay,” Wagner stated. “It puts the state and our institutions at risk.”
In an interview, Brown stated that he would consider modifying the wording and was receptive to the suggestions made during Tuesday’s session.
