Texas SB 17: DEI Ban Prohibitions, Exceptions, and Enforcement

Texas Senate Bill 17, signed by Governor Greg Abbott in June 2023 and effective January 1, 2024, prohibits every public college and university in the state from operating diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, requiring DEI-related training, mandating diversity statements, or using race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as a preference in hiring or admissions. The law is codified primarily at Texas Education Code Section 51.3525 and carries real financial consequences for institutions that fall out of compliance. Classroom teaching, academic research, and student organizations sit outside the ban.

Which Schools It Covers

SB 17 applies to every public institution of higher education in Texas as defined by Texas Education Code Section 61.003. That reaches four-year public universities, public junior and community colleges, medical and dental schools, public technical institutes, and other state-funded higher education agencies. If a school receives state appropriations and answers to a governing board within the Texas public higher education system, it is covered.

Private universities in Texas are not covered by SB 17. Neither are K-12 public schools under this particular bill, though other legislation has since addressed that area.

What SB 17 Prohibits

The prohibitions fall into four categories, and each governing board is responsible for ensuring every unit of the institution complies.

DEI Offices

No covered institution may establish or maintain a diversity, equity, and inclusion office. The statute defines a DEI office broadly: any office, division, or unit whose purpose includes influencing hiring practices based on race, sex, color, or ethnicity beyond what color-blind and sex-neutral processes require, promoting differential treatment based on race or ethnicity, or conducting trainings organized around race, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Institutions also cannot hire employees or contract with outside vendors to perform the functions of a DEI office.¹

A unit does not need “DEI” in its name to fall under the ban. If its core function matches the statutory definition, it qualifies as a prohibited office regardless of what the university calls it.

Diversity Statements

Institutions cannot require, solicit, or give preferential weight to diversity statements from job applicants, employees, or students. A diversity statement under the law is any statement about a person’s views on or experience with diversity, equity, inclusion, marginalized groups, antiracism, social justice, or intersectionality. Even an unsolicited statement promoting differential treatment based on race, color, or ethnicity cannot be used to advantage an applicant.²

Institutions can still ask applicants to certify compliance with state and federal antidiscrimination law, and they can ask about pedagogical approaches or experience teaching students with learning disabilities. Those are not diversity statements under the statute.¹

Mandatory Training

No student or employee can be required to participate in training designed or implemented in reference to race, color, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation. That includes programs suggesting a person is inherently biased because of their race or sex.³

One narrow exception exists. A training developed by an attorney and approved in writing by both the institution’s general counsel and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board can go forward if its sole purpose is to comply with a court order or with state or federal law. Trainings cleared through this process must be filed with the THECB.¹

Hiring and Admissions Preferences

Institutions cannot give preference based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to job applicants, employees, or participants in any institutional function. Faculty search committees cannot use diversity metrics as selection criteria, and admissions processes cannot use identity-based quotas or benchmarks. All hiring must use color-blind and sex-neutral processes consistent with federal and state antidiscrimination law.¹

What Scholarships Can Still Do

SB 17 does not ban scholarships outright, but it changes which ones a public university can administer. A scholarship is allowed as long as it is awarded without regard to race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin and does not require a DEI statement as part of the application. Universities can still weight academic record, financial need, veteran status, first-generation college status, and background from underserved populations, provided those criteria are applied regardless of race or ethnicity.¹

A scholarship restricted to applicants of a specific race, ethnicity, sex, or gender identity cannot be administered, advertised, or selected on by a public university. That applies to university-funded awards and to external scholarships offered by outside organizations. Existing scholarships that referenced “diversity” in their name or criteria had to be renamed and revised. Grant-funded stipends or research experiences originally reserved for students of a particular race or gender must comply with the same restrictions.

A scholarship tied to membership in a campus organization remains permissible if the organization itself does not restrict membership by race or sex.

What SB 17 Leaves Alone

The law carves out several areas from its prohibitions:

Academic research and creative work. Faculty, students, and research staff can study and publish on any topic, including race, gender, and social justice.
Course instruction. Professors retain authority over course content and classroom discussion. A sociology class on racial inequality or a history seminar on civil rights is not affected.
Student organizations. Registered student groups continue to self-govern, host events, and engage in advocacy that reflects their members’ interests.
Guest speakers. Visitors invited for short-term campus engagements can address any subject.
Data collection. Institutions may still gather and report demographic data required for federal compliance, accreditation, or grant eligibility.
Accreditation and grant applications. Universities may submit statements to grantors or accrediting bodies about their support for first-generation, low-income, or underserved students, and may certify compliance with antidiscrimination laws.

The line between administration and academics does real work here. A DEI office running a mandatory workshop on racial bias is prohibited. A professor teaching a course on the same material is protected.²

What Happens to DEI Staff

When SB 17 took effect, universities had to eliminate positions tied to prohibited functions. The statute itself does not dictate what happens to affected employees, but university systems adopted their own transition policies. Under the UT System’s compliance policy, for example, employees whose positions were eliminated could be reassigned to different roles within the institution or invited to apply for open positions, and the institution could provide letters of recommendation and reemployment assistance to employees in good standing.

The statute does require each institution to adopt policies for disciplining employees who violate the law’s prohibitions, up to and including termination. That applies going forward to any employee performing prohibited DEI functions, not just to staff from former DEI offices.¹

How Compliance Is Enforced

Enforcement runs through annual certification, legislative testimony, state audits, and financial penalties.

Before a university can spend state-appropriated money for a fiscal year, its governing board must submit a report to both the Texas Legislature and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board certifying compliance during the preceding year.¹ The THECB deadline for these certifications is September 1 each year.⁴

Between legislative sessions, each governing board or its designee must also testify before the standing legislative committees with jurisdiction over higher education at a public hearing on the institution’s compliance.¹

The State Auditor’s Office conducts periodic compliance audits and must adopt a schedule ensuring every institution is audited at least once every four years.¹

Penalties for Noncompliance

If an audit finds that a university spent state funds in violation of SB 17, the institution has 180 days to fix the problem. Failure to correct the violation within that window makes the institution ineligible for formula funding increases, institutional enhancements, or exceptional items during the next state fiscal biennium. That penalty does not strip an institution of its entire state appropriation, but losing eligibility for funding increases and special items can represent millions of dollars.¹

When an Individual Can Sue

SB 17 provides one avenue for individual enforcement. A student or employee who is required to participate in training that violates the law may bring a lawsuit against the institution seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. This right of action is narrow. It is limited to prohibited training requirements, does not reach other types of violations, and does not allow claims for monetary damages.²

1
State of Texas. Texas Education Code 51.3525 – Responsibility of Governing Boards Regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives
2
Texas Legislature Online. Texas Senate Bill 17 – Enrolled
3
Texas Legislature Online. 88(R) SB 17 – Committee Report (Substituted) Version – Bill Analysis
4
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Institutional Certification and Compliance