by Cassandra Stephenson, Tennessee Lookout
April 23, 2025

Two bills barring state and local governments, school districts and public colleges and universities from having diversity, equity and inclusion offices and considering race, ethnicity, sex or age in employment decisions will go to Gov. Bill Lee for his signature.

The “Dismantling DEI Departments Act” and the “Dismantle DEI in Employment Act” are meant to align Tennessee with the priorities of President Donald Trump’s administration, according to Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, a Franklin Republican and the senate sponsor of both bills.

The Republican supermajority’s passage of the bills came over the staunch opposition of their Democratic colleagues — many of whom are minorities — who recounted their personal experiences facing hiring discrimination because of their race or ethnicity.

Johnson and House sponsor, Clarksville Republican Rep. Aron Maberry, said diversity is beneficial but DEI is a form of discrimination and enforces “ideological viewpoints.” They said the bills aim to center merit, qualifications, skill and competency in employment decisions, and diversity will “happen naturally through fair hiring practices.”

“The big problem in DEI is equity. We all know diversity, we all love including people. Equity is not equality, and it’s not about treating people fairly or ensuring equal opportunity … equity in the context of DEI is essentially that everybody gets the same outcome,” Maberry said.

Sen. Raumesh Akbari, a Memphis Democrat, said it is “funny” people believe they live in a post-racial society. 

“Because, quite frankly, as much as we aspire for the ideals of Dr. King, where people are not judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character, that is not the case,” Akbari said.

Sen. London Lamar, a Memphis Democrat, said DEI initiatives are meant to address groups of people who are fully qualified but have been excluded from access to resources and jobs. 

“You can’t even be considered for these jobs if you don’t meet the basic criteria,” Lamar said Tuesday. “So the idea that people are being chosen based on their race or their gender is false.”

The Senate passed both bills Tuesday. The House passed the “Dismantling DEI Departments Act” Tuesday, and passed its counterpart last week after the bill’s supporters cut debate short.

“Many of us were denied the opportunity to even speak and represent our people,” Democratic Caucus Leader Rep. Karen Camper said Tuesday. “Not only were we silenced, but really it almost felt like we (were dismissed). It was a lot of laughter and smugness, as if our lived experience of discrimination and injustice in this country were nothing more than some political talking points.”

What the legislation says

The “Dismantling DEI Departments Act” prohibits state and local governments, public institutions of higher education, and governor-appointed boards from using “a discriminatory preference in an effort to increase diversity, equity, or inclusion or maintain an office, division, or department for such purposes.” 

Decisions that grant or withhold benefits must be based on “individual merit, qualifications, veteran status or lawful eligibility criteria,” according to the bill. The legislation also scrubs Tennessee Code of provisions that encourage support of women- and minority-owned businesses and goals for including minorities on appointed boards.

The act exempts demographic-based outreach for medically substantiated reasons in public health, medical research or disease prevention programs, in addition to “lawful and neutral outreach programs that ensure equal access to state services or contracting” as long as there is no demographic-based “preferential treatment.”

Entities can also submit written notice to the state comptroller requesting an exemption if complying with the act would cause the loss of federal funding.

The “Dismantle DEI in Employment Act” prohibits government entities in Tennessee from “considering race, ethnicity, sex, age, or any other demographic characteristic” in employment decisions.

It contains the same exemption request process for instances that would jeopardize federal funding.

Johnson and Maberry said neither bill will affect existing state laws or programs that support people with disabilities.

Rep. Harold Love, Jr., a Nashville Democrat, said the legislation has implications beyond the printed word. Love described a “chilling effect”: people who are hiring may reconsider selecting minorities for roles even if they are qualified, because they don’t want to be perceived as breaking these laws.

Rejected amendments

The Senate rejected an amendment proposed by Nashville Democratic Sen. Jeff Yarbro that would have prohibited hiring on the basis of familial relationship, past or present political activity, campaign involvement, service as an elected official, financial contributions and referrals by elected officials, political appointees or campaign representatives that were not based on merit.

Johnson said those issues were already covered by two pieces of legislation regarding state government employment. In rejecting the amendment, the legislature declined to extend these rules to local governments and educational institutions throughout the state.

Yarbro said some of the pieces of Tennessee Code eliminated or re-written by this legislation had been on the books for decades.

“Using this political cudgel that’s been developed in the last three or four years as a rationale to go back in time and repeal progress that was made in the 70s, 80s and 90s? We shouldn’t do that,” Yarbro said.

The House rejected an amendment proposed by Rep. Larry Miller, a Memphis Democrat, that would have required reporting on hirings and firings based on merit broken down by demographic. Miller argued the amendment should be welcome if the supermajority thought it would prove their justification for the bill.

Johnson, when pressed by Lamar for examples of situations in which someone has been hired based on race or gender over merit, said he had examples but could not disclose them. 

“If you’ve not been contacted by someone who feels like they were overlooked because of diversity, I don’t know what to say about that,” Johnson said.

Asked if Black people or women currently employed by state or local governmental entities were hired based on their qualifications or their demographics, Johnson said he believes they were hired because they were qualified, but the DEI movement has become “insidious.”

The legislation does not infringe on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he said, noting he is “glad (those protections) are there.”

“Diversity is a good thing, but diversity for diversity’s sake alone is not a good thing,” Johnson said.

Several representatives later said on the house floor that they do not know of any Black man who has gotten a job who was not qualified for that position. 

Rep. Antonio Parkinson, a Memphis Democrat, said DEI is not meant to put one group of people above another.

“It is simply to show you that we exist,” he said. “It removes the invisible cloak from veterans, disabled individuals, Black people, women and others. We exist.”

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com.

The post Republican supermajority passes bills to “dismantle” DEI in state, local government appeared first on tennesseelookout.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

Explanation: The content primarily discusses the passage of two bills in Tennessee aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It highlights criticism from Democratic representatives, who argue that these bills may perpetuate discrimination. The framing of the Democratic opposition, particularly their personal experiences with discrimination and their arguments about the necessity of DEI initiatives, suggests a leaning towards progressive values associated with social justice. While there are voices from the Republican sponsors defending the bills, the overall emphasis is on the dissent and implications of the legislation from a progressive viewpoint. The narrative structure, which prioritizes the Democratic perspective and critiques the bills more prominently, aligns with Center-Left bias.