There is no better way to emphasize the importance of free speech than by restricting the topics that people are exposed to. That is exactly what some Kansas representatives want to accomplish with House Bill 2428.
Currently, the bill has been removed from the hearing schedule, with no indication of whether it will come back up this session.
Despite the bill’s uncertain fate, it is still important to understand the legislation’s purpose. Especially since a current budget proviso would effectively accomplish many of the same goals of restricting diversity, equity and inclusion content in classrooms.
HB 2428 would require that Kansas public universities “include among general education requirements the study of American institutions” for undergraduate students completing bachelor’s programs in school years 2027-28. This requirement includes inarguably important topics such as understanding the U.S. Constitution and its major developments, separation of powers, equal protection under the law, freedom of speech, etc.
But legislators also targeted DEI-CRT (diversity, equity, and inclusion, and critical race theory) related content by focusing a majority of the bill on restricting the discussion of these topics. The bill would ban these topics from most courses required for bachelor’s degrees.
Over 75% of this bill’s language focuses on defining these restrictions.
The bill prohibits promoting the idea that colorblind laws “perpetuate oppression, injustice, race-based privilege, including white supremacy or white privilege, etc,” in these classes. Despite there being plenty of research showing this to be the case.
The article “Colorblind racial ideology as an alibi for inaction” in the Journal of Social Issues states, “White people were more likely to participate in antiracist practices when they reject power evasion CBRI (colorblind racial ideology) partly because rejecting CBRI enhanced their awareness of White Privilege.”
There are also restrictions on how topics can be presented, discouraging relating them to modern-day life. Topics including systemic racism, intersectionality and cultural competence can not be related to “contemporary American society.”
At the same time, historical examples of racial hatred or discrimination are permitted. It would seem that this bill is focused more on students learning about topics they can no longer have an impact on, while hindering their understanding of how they can impact similar events today.
Students understanding the importance of free speech and American institutions is incredibly valuable, but that value is undercut when the ability to apply that knowledge to the world they live in is taken away.
These restrictions extend to prevent students from understanding how their race or sex can affect how they interpret certain events, barring content that “promotes the idea that a student is biased on account of such student’s race or sex.”
Students should be able to express how they see the world, while also understanding where their blind spots are.
Supporters of the bill could argue that it does not prevent students from taking classes that cover DEI-related topics; it seeks to restrict them from being required. It simply states that students should have the option to complete general education requirements without being forced to take a class covering DEI-CRT-related content.
The primary issue is that to understand the importance of foundational institutions and freedom of speech requires discussing these topics.
How can honest discussion on a majority of women in the U.S. disapproving of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade happen without understanding how a person’s sex affects their bias? Can conversations about the under representation of marginalized people in government be honest if professors are not allowed to teach about voter suppression laws, a remnant of systemic or institutional racism?
Students should understand the free speech protections and rights they have in the country they live in. They should be allowed to understand how American institutions came to be and the values they hold.
This bill, and the budget proviso, continue a pattern, at both the state and federal levels of government, of restricting DEI at public universities.
This includes changes made last year through executive orders, which put WSU outside of federal compliance, forcing changes that included removing web pages and changing the names of some university-affiliated groups
There were also changes made by WSU such as those caused by Kansas Senate Bill 125 last year. State agencies were out of compliance, if they had positions, programs, activities and more related to DEI.
Regardless of your opinions on topics related to DEI and CRT, people should push back against this bill, and similar legislation, that is preventing students from being exposed to larger social conversations. Students should be able to develop their own opinion and worldview on these topics, not be shielded from reality by politicians.
