Christine Downing

I am opposed to this bill because it purports to narrow HB2 with the following, presumably in response to the preliminary injunction decision: “DEI shall not include activities of registered student organizations, mental or physical health services by licensed professionals, bona fide qualifications based on sex, or any attempt to comply in good faith with the Americans with Disabilities Act.” This does not cure the many ambiguities identified by the court, and this does not reference the IDEA. That said, with this purported narrowing, the bill actually expands the law’s penalties (still without a mental state requirement) by doing the following: (i) stating that any contract (presumably the entire contract) made in violation of this law is void as a matter of law, (ii) any taxpayer is allowed to sue to enforce the law’s terms, (iii) expanding the penalty such that any violation is a violator of the educator code of conduct – a provision which clearly goes after school administrators in particular who would be perceived as entering into a DEI initiative on behalf of their districts, and (iv) investigations by the DOE are mandatory. These penalties are even more punitive than the original HB2. Also, this still does not cure the applicability of HB2 to higher ed institutions and private schools that receive school voucher money.