Guest written by legislative intern Madelyn White
The New Wave of Anti-DEI
On February 18th, Governor Sanders signed Senate Bill 3 into law, now known as Act 116, with lawmakers claiming its purpose is to “prohibit affirmative action and preferential treatment in state-supported institutions.” Beneath this seemingly neutral title lies an alarming rollback of policies designed to advance fairness and diversity. This move weakens decades of progress in Arkansas and poses severe downstream consequences.
A National Trend Rooted in the Trump Era
Arkansas’ SB3, filed by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Jonesboro), is far from an isolated effort. It is part of a national trend where policies aimed at promoting diversity and equity are being dismantled. Republicans started to champion similar policies shortly after President Trump took office. These policies target initiatives like affirmative action and DEI that have historically worked to level the playing field. In its language, SB3 calls for a prohibition “on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin,” effectively erasing DEI considerations from state agencies.
Senator Sullivan relied on Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders as the driving force behind SB3. Representative Mary Bentley (R-Perryville) went as far as reading off Trump’s executive order during the presentation of SB3 in the House State Agencies Committee, despite the fact that these executive orders do not obligate states to take action.
Even more concerning is that Rep. Bentley repeated Trump’s incorrect claims that a deadly plane crash in Washington, D.C., in late January was caused by DEI programs. Such rhetoric distorts the real purpose behind DEI initiatives and manipulates public attitudes to justify harmful policy changes.
The Misleading Title
At first glance, a bill that purports to “prohibit discrimination” might seem like a progressive safeguard. However, this is a gross misnomer. In reality, this legislation doesn’t protect against discrimination; instead, it actively restricts efforts designed to combat long standing inequities.
By eliminating policies that encourage diversity, these laws pave the way for what Sullivan calls a “merit-based” hiring approach. Yet how can one truly assess a person’s merit if systemic barriers have prevented them from ever having the opportunity to prove themselves? This so-called “meritocracy” ignores the uneven playing field that has historically marginalized many groups.
Equity, far from being an unfair advantage, recognizes that individuals from different backgrounds often have to work significantly harder to overcome obstacles that others may never face. Dismissing these challenges in the name of “merit” not only erases the lived realities of countless Arkansans, but also sends a dangerous message to future generations: that diversity and progress are no longer priorities.
Arkansas, a state with a long history of discriminatory practices, now finds itself at a crossroads. Passing legislation that turns its back on hard-won progress tells our children that we do not care about diversity or the collective advancement of all citizens.
The Far-Reaching Downstream Effects
The impact of SB3 extends well beyond the immediate realm of hiring practices. This legislation has the potential to dismantle several critical education programs across the state, which Sen. Alan Clark (R-Lonsdale) pointed out during the Senate State Agencies committee meeting. The bill targets specific education practices by outlawing minority teacher retention and recruitment initiatives.
This is especially harmful given the substantial body of research demonstrating that students benefit significantly when their teachers reflect their own backgrounds. By stopping these programs, Arkansas risks undermining the academic and social development of students who need role models that understand their unique challenges.
Furthermore, the legislation sets a precedent that other states may replicate, leading to a domino effect across the nation. Similar bills have already passed in places like Texas, where longstanding programs at the University of Texas have been shuttered. These programs include: New Black Student Weekend, the Latino Leadership Council, the Native American and Indigenous Collective, and Students for Equity and Diversity.
In what world are initiatives that provide support, mentorship, and community engagement for students considered negative? The dismantling of these programs doesn’t just erase vital support systems for marginalized groups. It suppresses the academic and personal growth of students who benefit most from such initiatives and who can contribute unique and enriching experiences to broader communities.
Economic and Workplace Implications
The repercussions of anti-DEI policies in Arkansas won’t be limited to education. Employers across the state are being urged to resist the tide of political intimidation and maintain open, inclusive hiring practices. Legal advocacy groups and state attorneys general have emphasized that abandoning DEI programs risks perpetuating inequality, alienating diverse talent, and even violating equal employment laws (ACLU).
This isn’t just a theoretical risk. For instance, the loss of DEI initiatives means that companies will likely see fewer guaranteed workplace accommodations for neurodiverse individuals. Such outcomes would further marginalize individuals who already face significant challenges in the job market.
Furthermore, a new wave of “merit-based” hiring, advertised as a solution, fails to recognize that merit cannot be measured in a vacuum. If candidates are not given the opportunity to showcase their talents due to systemic barriers, then any assessment of merit becomes inherently biased.
In reality, DEI programs work to level the playing field, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their background, have the chance to succeed. Abandoning these programs could ultimately cost businesses monetarily by depriving them of diverse perspectives that drive innovation and success.
More Consequences
It is important to note that the effects of anti-DEI legislation are not only economic or educational, but are deeply cultural and social. Senator Jamie Scott (D-North Little Rock) concisely framed the issue when she stated, “Considering someone’s sex, race and background is not a handout or unfair advantage. It’s about a chance to break down barriers in a system that has historically excluded far too many people.” This sentiment reflects the core purpose of DEI initiatives: to provide opportunities for those who have been systematically marginalized.
It’s telling that not a single Black legislator supported this legislation. The absence speaks volumes about how deeply these policies are misaligned with the needs and realities of minority communities.
In a society where women continue to earn less than men and where racial disparities persist, the elimination of DEI programs sends a powerful, negative message. It suggests that the voices and experiences of those who have traditionally been dismissed are no longer valued, diminishing decades of progress toward a more inclusive society.
The Unknowns
Beyond the immediate consequences, the long-term implications of anti-DEI legislation raise significant concerns. By setting a precedent that cuts back supportive programs and inclusive practices, Arkansas opens the door to a host of other harmful policies. Programs like “Girls Who Code” provide essential support and encouragement to young women in technology and may face similar challenges. Likewise, initiatives that offer preferential treatment to students with Individualized Education Programs (IEP) or 504 plans might be jeopardized under the illusion of eliminating favoritism.
Furthermore, there is a real risk that these policies will lead to self-censorship among educators. Already, teachers are beginning to avoid discussions on social or political topics in the classroom as they fear that any mention of race, gender, or sexual orientation could lead to severe repercussions. This chilling effect on free discussion not only stifles academic exploration but also denies students the opportunity to engage with the diverse perspectives that are crucial for their personal and intellectual development.
What Can We Do
Clearly, evidence suggests that anti-DEI legislation, under the facade of “prohibiting discrimination,” is a dangerous misstep that threatens to undo years of progress. Narrow interpretations of “merit” represent regressive approaches that ignore systemic inequities long faced by marginalized communities. As the anti-DEI wave continues to make land in states like Arkansas, we must resist efforts to strip away the hard-won gains of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
In the end, DEI programs are not about giving undue advantages or tipping the scales unfairly. They recognize and address the persistent barriers that many face. By ensuring that every individual has a genuine opportunity to demonstrate their merit, DEI initiatives help create environments where everyone can succeed. Abandoning these programs not only risks the progress of today but also jeopardizes the promise of a more equitable tomorrow.
The stakes could not be higher. It is up to all of us to speak out and demand that diversity and inclusion remain at the heart of our educational, economic, and social policies. Only then can we truly break down the barriers that have long excluded too many and pave the way for a more just and inclusive future.
