SESSION OF 2024
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE
BILL NO. 2460
As Recommended by House Committee on
Higher Education Budget

Brief*
Sub. for HB 2460 would prohibit postsecondary
institutions from taking certain actions concerning diversity,
equity, or inclusion (DEI).

Definitions
The bill would define “postsecondary educational
institution” to mean any public university, municipal university,
community college, and technical college, including any entity
resulting from the consolidation or affiliation of any two or
more of such postsecondary educational institutions.

Pledge or Statements
The bill would prohibit postsecondary educational
institutions from requiring an application for admission, hiring,
or promoting a faculty member to make a statement of
personal support or opposition to any political ideology or
movement, including a statement regrading DEI.
The bill would prohibit postsecondary educational
institutions from denying or accepting admission or
educational aid to a student; hiring an applicant for
employment; or hiring, reappointing, or promoting faculty on
the basis of viewpoints expressed in a pledge or statement,
including a pledge regarding DEI.
____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department
and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note
for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.kslegislature.org
Exclusions
The bill would not prohibit any student or faculty member
from:
● Complying with federal or state law pertaining to
anti-discrimination law or from taking action against
any student, faculty, or employee for violations of
the law;
● Being construed to limit or restrict the academic
freedom of faculty or to prevent faculty members
from teaching, research, or writing publications
about DEI or other topics; or
● Prohibiting the institution from considering, in good
faith, a faculty member’s scholarship, teaching, or
subject matter expertise in the faculty member’s
academic field.
Training Materials
The bill would require each postsecondary educational
institution to share publicly on such institution’s website all
training materials used for students and faculty on matters of
non-discrimination, DEI, race, ethnicity, sex, or bias and such
institution’s policies and guidance on such matters.

Investigation of Complaints
The bill would require the State Board of Regents
(Board) to investigate a complaint on behalf of any person
who believes their rights were violated. The Board would be
required to complete an investigation to determine whether a
violation has occurred within 45 days of receipt of the
complaint. If the Board determines that the postsecondary
educational institution is in violation, the institution must
remedy the violation within 90 days, and if the institution
2- 2460
should fail to remedy the violation within 90 days, the Board
would report the incident to the Attorney General, who may
file action in district court against the institution.
The bill would require that if the Board determines that
the institution was not in violation of the bill, the person who
believes their rights were violated may file a compliant with
the Attorney General, who would be required to investigate
the complaint within 45 days of receipt. If the Attorney
General indicates there has been a violation, the institution
would have 90 days to remedy the violation. If the institution
fails to remedy the violation within 90 days, the Attorney
General may file an action in district court against the
institution.
The bill would require that any action pertaining to the
violation of the bill be filed in the district court of the
postsecondary education institution’s primary campus
location. The bill allows the district courts of any county to
have jurisdiction to enforce any findings or violations. The
district court may take actions such as:
● Requiring the institution to comply;
● Imposing a civil penalty of $10,000 per violation;
and
● Requiring the institution to pay for expenditures
incurred by the Attorney General for enforcing the
violation.
The bill would require that any civil penalties assessed
by the district court be remitted to the State Treasurer and the
funds received be credited to the State Scholarship Program
account.
The bill would require that by January 12, 2026, and on
the first day of each regular session, that the Board submit a

3- 2460
report to the Legislature on the number of complaints filed
with the Board, the outcomes of the Board’s investigations,
the number of complaints filed with the Attorney General, the
outcomes of the Attorney General’s investigations, the
number of cases filed in district court, the outcomes of cases
filed, the number and dollar amounts of the civil penalties, the
costs by the Attorney General, and other information deemed
important by the Board.
The bill would require that within 10 days after a
determination has been made by the Board on whether a
violation has occurred, that the Board post its findings and
outcomes on its website.
The bill would require that if the postsecondary
educational institution or any affiliated participants are found
in violation of the bill, such institution may take disciplinary
action against responsible parties.

Background
The bill was introduced by the House Committee on
Appropriations at the request of Representative Howe.

House Committee on Higher Education Budget
In the House Committee hearing, proponent testimony
was provided by Representative Howe, a student from the
University of Kansas, and a representative of the Foundation
for Individual Rights and Expression.
Representative Howe stated he has visited with the
higher education learning community to learn more about
DEI, and included examples of DEI requirements on job
applications at the University of Kansas. He stated the
universities and the Board have not demonstrated any formal
actions to address DEI.

4- 2460
 The student from the University of Kansas stated that
DEI plays a large role in campus culture at the university and
that in order to enroll in classes, students must take DEI
training. The student stated that she believes a professor
should be hired based on merit and not DEI criterion.
The representative from the Foundation for Individual
Rights and Expression stated that DEI strays from a
discrimination-free environment that helps students succeed.
The representative stated that based on results from a
national survey, conservative faculty agree that requiring DEI
statements is a political litmus test.
Opponent testimony was provided by a representative
from the Health Forward Foundation, who stated that
removing DEI requirements would have a foundational impact
on students and faculty. The representative spoke about the
potential damage this could do the economy and stated that it
is important to consider the effects the bill would have on
workforce retention in the health care field.
Neutral testimony was provided by a representative
from the Board, who spoke about the diverse background of
all the university presidents and stated concerns on how the
bill would effect open admissions and the diverse population
of high school students in Kansas. The representative shared
concerns about litigation against community colleges and the
possibility of other incurred costs.
Written-only opponent testimony was provided by a
representative of American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas.
On March 7, 2024, the House Committee amended the
bill to:
● Remove the word “patriotism”;
● Include language pertaining to hiring an applicant
for employment;

5- 2460
 ● Change the penalty to be not more than $10,000
per each violation and require that the funds for the
penalties be deposited in the State Scholarship
Program account;
● Include language detailing the timeline for
investigation of complaints;
● Require the Board submit a report to the
Legislature on incidents pertaining to DEI; and
● Require the Board report on any finding of a
violation and post the outcomes of the investigation
on the Board’s website.
The House Committee recommended a substitute bill be
passed.

Fiscal Information
According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of
the Budget on the bill, as introduced, if the court were to find
a violation of these provisions occurred, the institution could
receive disciplinary action from the State Treasurer with an
administrative penalty of $100,000 for each violation.
The Board indicates that enactment of the bill would
increase expenditures for state universities to publish
additional items on each institution’s website; however, these
activities could be absorbed within current resources.
Emporia State University indicates that it would incur a
one-time cost of $5,000 for 200 hours of staff time to convert
all materials. Any fiscal effect associated with enactment of
the bill is not reflected in the FY 2024 Governor’s Budget
Report.
Fort Hays State University indicates that enactment of
the bill would increase expenditure costs associated with

6- 2460
publishing information on its website; however, these costs
would be negligible. Fort Hays indicates an increase in costs
associated with legal liabilities, litigation, and other legal
proceedings but is unable to estimate these costs.
The Office of the Attorney General indicates that the bill
could be challenged in state or federal court, which could
span over the course of several fiscal years.
The Office of Judicial Administration (OJA) indicates an
increase of expenditures for the Judicial Branch for additional
time spent by personnel in processing, researching, and
hearing cases due to increase in number of civil suits filed.
The OJA indicates the bill would increase the collection of
dockets in cases filed under provisions of the bill;however, a
fiscal effect cannot be estimated.
Postsecondary education ;diversity; equity; inclusion; DEI


7- 2460