An Arkansas legislative panel has revived a contentious debate over diversity requirements in government entities, advancing a bill that would eliminate racial and gender quotas from state boards and commissions. The move has sparked strong opinions from both supporters and opponents, raising questions about fairness, representation, and legal vulnerabilities.
What House Bill 1365 Proposes
The bill, House Bill 1365, seeks to strip requirements mandating that a certain number of seats on various state boards, councils, and commissions be reserved for women and racial minorities. Sponsored by Rep. Karilyn Brown, a Republican from Sherwood, the measure would amend 22 sections of Arkansas law.
Under the proposed changes, the following entities would no longer be required to have Black, Hispanic, female, or other underrepresented members:
- The State Board of Education
- The Arkansas Ethics Commission
- The Arkansas State Board of Pharmacy
- The Commission on Closing the Achievement Gap in Arkansas
- The State Athletic Commission
- The Arkansas Financial Education Commission
- The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System Board of Trustees
- The Arkansas Tobacco Control Board
Brown, along with Laura D’Agostino, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued that such requirements unfairly categorize individuals based on their demographic traits rather than their qualifications.
Supporters Say the Bill Promotes Fairness
Supporters of the bill argue that eliminating quotas would create a level playing field for all Arkansans. D’Agostino, who is based in Virginia but works for the California-based Pacific Legal Foundation, contends that the current system forces people into racial and gender classifications that don’t necessarily reflect their individual perspectives.
“People are so complex and different that it’s extremely demeaning to say, ‘Well, if you’re of this racial perspective or if you’re a woman, you’re automatically going to bring a diverse perspective,’” D’Agostino said. “The government should not be in a position to use racial classifications to assume it knows better than its own people.”
Brown echoed this sentiment, insisting that the bill does not seek to reduce diversity but rather to increase opportunities for all Arkansans, regardless of background.
Opponents Warn of Reduced Representation
Critics of HB 1365 argue that removing diversity requirements could significantly reduce representation for historically marginalized groups. They warn that without quotas, these boards could become overwhelmingly homogenous, limiting perspectives in decision-making processes that impact a broad range of communities.
Opposition to the bill is not just theoretical. Some civil rights groups have pointed to existing disparities in leadership roles across the state and fear this move would widen the gap rather than close it.
One opponent of the bill, speaking on condition of anonymity, remarked, “Diversity quotas exist for a reason. Without them, we risk reverting to a time when these boards were not representative of the people they serve.”
A Legal Perspective: Potential Lawsuits on the Horizon?
A key argument put forth by proponents of the bill is that Arkansas could face legal challenges under current law. D’Agostino suggested that requiring racial and gender quotas on state boards could expose Arkansas to lawsuits for unequal treatment of its citizens.
This legal argument aligns with a broader national trend, where courts have been increasingly skeptical of race-based policies in government institutions. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action in college admissions has emboldened similar challenges to diversity-based requirements in government and business.
Given the legal landscape, some believe Arkansas is preemptively removing quotas to avoid expensive legal battles down the road.
A Broader Push for Merit-Based Selection
HB 1365 follows in the footsteps of Act 116 of 2025, a recently passed law that prohibits public entities from engaging in discrimination or preferential treatment based on race or gender. The law also eliminated requirements for minority recruitment and retention plans in public schools and higher education institutions.
The sponsors of Act 116, Rep. Mary Bentley and Sen. Dan Sullivan, argue that these policies ensure merit-based selection rather than decisions based on demographic factors. Critics, however, claim that such measures ignore systemic inequalities and could lead to fewer opportunities for minorities and women in leadership roles.
What Happens Next?
With the bill clearing the House Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs, the next step will be a vote in the full House of Representatives. If passed, it will move to the Senate for consideration.
The debate is far from over. While supporters claim this bill is a necessary step toward fairness and legal clarity, opponents fear it may roll back hard-won progress in representation. As Arkansas lawmakers prepare to take up the issue, the outcome could set a precedent for similar measures across the country.
Comments