The substitute bill for Republican state Rep. Emily Chenevert’s HB 421 finishes an incomplete job in a way that promotes unbiased learning and respectful treatment of individuals.

The bill, which advanced, on a party-line vote in the House and Governmental Affairs Committee with all from the GOP in favor,came in the form of a substitute as it underwent substantial changes. It prohibits public colleges from including in instructional content any material related to concepts such as critical race theory, white fragility, white guilt, systemic racism, institutional racism, anti-racism, systemic bias, implicit bias, unconscious bias, intersectionality, gender identity, allyship, race-based reparations, race-based privilege, or the use of pronouns. It also bars content that promotes differential treatment of any individual or group based on race or ethnicity, imputed bias, or other ideology related to diversity, equity, or inclusion. This includes any course descriptions, overviews, objectives, proposed student learning outcomes, written examinations, or written or oral assignments containing such content.

The original version of the bill only prohibited preferential treatment of suspect categories by state government agencies. The substitute expanded this by including dismantling parts of any state agency involved in these activities and placing oversight in the hands of the Legislative Auditor, with potential corrective action by the legislative and executive branches.

On that front, it significantly improves upon previous actions – such as those taken by the Louisiana State University System—to eliminate DEI concepts and applications in name only, while the other three higher education management boards failed to act. DEI assumes that individuals of a non-minority race or sex unreasonably discriminate by default and that government must compensate by bestowing privileges on others.

The LSU System eliminated by name DEI practices and offices, but it is unclear whether these continued in other forms. The new law makes such subterfuge far less likely.

And it discourages the forcing of DEI nonsense into the heads of college students unless they willingly choose to expose themselves to it. Unfortunately, the “scholarship” purporting to inform DEI often resembles a mutilated form of Marxism—half-baked, scant in empirical support, and appealing more to emotion than reason. Worse, it degrades certain students solely based on their innate characteristics, imputing guilt rather than fostering intellectual engagement.

Of course, academia is historically prone to such ideological fads dressed up as wisdom. But the freedom to explore and even promote foolishness is part of the tortuous road to truth. Wisely, the bill does not ban such exploration outright. Its instructional prohibition applies only to general education requirements and program requirements that are not explicitly centered on racial, ethnic, or gender studies. In other words, DEI material is not barred from elective courses that treat it as a theory of how the world works—only from being foundational in courses required for students outside such specialized curricula. Students may still pursue these courses, fully aware of the ideological slant and the potential for disrespectful treatment embedded within them.

Nor does the bill run afoul of instances where use of racial or other distinctions in instruction outside of academia that have a helpful, legitimate end, as laid out in existing federal law. It also allows for science-based instruction and historical discussion of events involving discrimination and its rationale. Finally, it reaffirms protections of academic freedom.

None of this is unreasonable or unduly restrictive. DEI can still be taught—it simply cannot serve as the linchpin of an entire curriculum—subject only to time, place, and manner restrictions well within the purview of taxpayers. Faculty or students who find these limits objectionable are free to teach or study at private institutions.

Perhaps an improvement would be to require institutions to notify students of their right not to receive foundational DEI content in required courses. Otherwise, the substitute language deserves passage to ensure better use of taxpayer dollars and an improved educational experience.