Georgia Takes Aim at DEI: The Story of SB120
In the early days of the 2025 legislative session, a bill emerged in the Georgia Senate poised to significantly reshape the landscape of public education and higher learning in the state. GA SB120, introduced on February 6th, carries a clear and controversial mandate: to prohibit public schools, local education agencies, and public postsecondary institutions from promoting, supporting, or maintaining most programs or activities that advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
What Would SB120 Do?
The core of SB120, as detailed in its introduced version, seeks to add a new section (20-1-12) to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. This section explicitly states that educational institutions funded by the public purse "shall not promote, support, or maintain any programs or activities that advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion beyond upholding the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section I, Paragraph II of the Georgia Constitution."
Critically, the bill includes enforcement mechanisms, specifically targeting higher education. Any postsecondary institution—defined as part of the University System of Georgia or the Technical College System of Georgia—found violating this provision would face the withholding of state funding and state-administered federal funding. This includes not only direct institutional support but also funding for scholarships, loans, and grants for students attending those institutions. If enacted as introduced, the law would take effect on July 1, 2025, applying to the 2025-2026 school year.
A Contentious Legislative Path
SB120's journey began with its introduction by Senator Marty Harbin (R-SD-016), who boasts a moderate effectiveness score of 50.0 according to LegiEquity data. He was joined by a formidable group of 15 additional Republican co-sponsors, including influential figures like Senators Steve Gooch, Max Burns, and Matt Brass, many with high success scores. Notably, the bill lacked any Democratic sponsors, highlighting its partisan nature from the outset – a fact confirmed by LegiEquity's analysis indicating no bipartisan support.
Following its introduction, the bill was assigned to the Senate Higher Education Committee on February 10th. This committee, wielding considerable influence with a LegiEquity Power Score of 75.0, reviewed the legislation. On March 3rd, the committee issued a favorable report, albeit "By Substitute," suggesting the original text may have been altered or replaced during deliberations. This positive step moved the bill forward, leading to its Second Reading in the Senate on March 4th.
However, the bill's momentum hit an abrupt wall. On March 6th, 2025, SB120 was Tabled in the Senate. Tabling a bill effectively halts its progress; while it doesn't kill the bill outright, it requires a separate vote to bring it back for consideration, often signaling significant opposition or a strategic decision to pause its advancement.
LegiEquity Analysis: A High Potential for Bias
Beyond the legislative maneuvering, LegiEquity's analysis reveals deep concerns about the potential impact of SB120. The bill received an Overall Impact score of 80% Bias with High Confidence. This stark figure suggests the legislation, if passed, would likely have disproportionately negative effects on specific demographic groups.
The analysis breaks down further, indicating significant bias across multiple categories:
- Disability: 80% Bias, including Mental Health (MH) at 80%.
- Gender: 80% Bias overall, with a particularly high 90% Bias score concerning Transgender (TG) individuals and 80% for Females (FM).
- Race: 80% Bias overall, with pronounced potential bias against Black/Hispanic (BH) individuals at 90% and Latinx (LX) individuals at 80%.
These scores are not abstract numbers; they point to the potential real-world consequences of eliminating DEI initiatives. Such programs often provide crucial support, resources, and advocacy for students from marginalized backgrounds, including those with disabilities, women, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially transgender students), and racial and ethnic minorities. Prohibiting these programs could dismantle support networks, reduce representation, create hostile environments, and ultimately hinder the educational success and well-being of these student populations. The threat of withdrawing funding from universities further chills the climate for any activities perceived as promoting inclusion beyond the narrow definition proposed in the bill.
National Context and Current Status
Georgia's SB120 does not exist in a vacuum. It mirrors legislative efforts seen in other conservative states like Florida and Texas, where similar anti-DEI bills have been introduced and, in some cases, enacted. These bills are part of a broader national debate and political movement questioning the value and implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusion principles in public institutions, particularly education.
Opponents argue that DEI initiatives foster division, promote preferential treatment, and stray from core educational missions. Proponents counter that these programs are essential for addressing historical inequities, fostering understanding across differences, preparing students for a diverse workforce, and ensuring all students have the opportunity to succeed.
As it stands, GA SB120 is Tabled in the Georgia Senate. Its journey reflects the contentious nature of DEI debates. While it garnered enough support among its numerous Republican sponsors and the Higher Education committee to advance initially, its progress stalled before reaching a full Senate vote. The reasons for tabling could range from internal party disagreements to strategic calculations about its political viability. Regardless, the bill represents a significant legislative attempt to curtail DEI efforts in Georgia's education system, and its potential impact, as highlighted by LegiEquity's bias analysis, remains a serious concern for advocates of inclusive education.
LegiEquity analyzes proposed legislation to determine its potential impact on various demographic groups. Our goal is to provide objective insights into how laws may affect different communities.
Related Articles
You might also be interested in these articles