North Carolina House Republicans on June 24 overrode four vetoes from Gov. Josh Stein, three of which — SB 153, SB 558 and SB 227 — became law under the sponsorship of Republican Representative Kevin Corbin (R-Macon).
Even as the state still has not passed a budget, leaving school systems in limbo without proper funding, each new policy could have far-reaching impacts on K-12 and higher education, potentially influencing campus-wide administration while restricting instructional content.
For the most part, SB 153 is about punitive immigration enforcement. A four-part bill, one of its provisions states that certain agencies, such as the State Highway Patrol, must now enter into 287(g) agreements. The partnership requires full cooperation with federal immigration enforcement while mandating officers to identify the citizenship status of an individual in custody and provide ICE with that determination.
The provision of the bill applicable to education takes a page out of the Trump administration playbook by prohibiting UNC-system institutions from enacting “sanctuary” policies that restrict ICE and CBP activity on campus beyond what is federally permitted. Western Carolina University currently provides a framework for interactions with immigration agents, directing faculty and staff to contact the public safety department and Office of Legal Counsel and Institutional Integrity to ensure the properly authorized release of any requested information.
No state public university appears to have declared itself a “sanctuary campus.” However, in Western North Carolina alone, there have been several student-led demonstrations challenging ICE access to campus or advocating for a “sanctuary” designation. Under SB 153, it’s illegal to pursue either option.
Educational institutions are the focus of the other two pieces of legislation. So is DEI — diversity, equity and inclusion — a method of addressing systemic barriers to access, from the racial wealth gap to the gender pay gap, through policies and practices that promote participation of folks with a wide spectrum of identities and backgrounds.
SB 558, coined “Eliminating ‘DEI’ in Public Higher Education” claims that “so-called ‘DEI’ programs promote a worldview that demands people, especially young students, judge others based on their race, sex, or other factors and attack true diversity of thought, stifle opportunity, and stoke division.”
The policy makes it illegal for public higher education institutions, including community colleges, to do such things as “engage in or advocate for discriminatory practices”; “endorse divisive concepts” and have a paid staff position, maintain an office or, with certain exceptions, offer a prerequisite course with work that “include[s] promoting discriminatory practices or divisive concepts.”
Discriminatory practices are defined as, except allowed under federal law, “treating an individual differently solely to advantage or disadvantage that individual as compared to other individuals or groups, excluding an individual from employment …[and] excluding an individual from participation in an educational program or activity.”
Divisive concepts include, among other beliefs, the idea that a race or sex is “inherently superior”, “a meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist” and “the rule of law does not exist but instead is a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.” SB 558 likely affects faculty more than administration, not only because it generally concerns the classroom, but also because throughout recent years, higher education has already adapted to politically motivated legislation.
UNC in September 2024 shut down its Office of Diversity and Inclusion and terminated 20 employee positions after the Board of Governors discarded a 2019 policy requiring system schools to hire DEI staff and meet diversity-related benchmarks.
Trump executive order 14173, signed in January 2025, demanded universities receiving federal funding eliminate all DEI programs and requirements. In response, the UNC Board of Governors instructed system institutions to suspend mandatory DEI course requirements.
Indeed, Southwestern Community College described SB 558 as one of many policies it adheres to.
“As with any legislation affecting higher education, the College reviews new legal requirements and continues to ensure its policies and practices comply with applicable law. Our focus remains on serving students and fulfilling our mission to the communities we serve,” wrote Public Relations Director Tyler Goode in a statement.
Haywood Community College President Shelley White told The Smoky Mountain News that at the time of executive order 14173, HCC reviewed its policies and practices to ensure compliance.
“I think the biggest addition to that for us is going to be that the state board of community colleges is being directed now, I think, by this legislation to create a policy that will ensure that that reporting requirement is met for all community colleges,” she added.
The reporting requirement is, in fact, a requirement not to report.
The State Board is directed to “adopt a policy prohibiting community colleges from establishing, maintaining, or otherwise implementing a process for reporting or investigating offensive or unwanted speech that is protected by the First Amendment, including satire or speech labeled as microaggression,” the bill reads.
It’s unclear whether hate speech would be considered part of this policy, as it does not specify what is considered satire or microaggression.
However, the 14th Amendment states that all legislation must explain what “conduct is [legally] sanctionable and what is not.”
According to the American Federation of Teachers, anything less constitutes a due process violation.
WCU American Association of University Professors President and Co-Founder Vincent Russell said AAUP is also concerned about the constitutionality of the law, especially since it limits the teaching of certain things — for example, the racist and sexist basis of meritocracy — but permits the opposite.
“That can constitute viewpoint discrimination,” he said.
Russell pointed out what he saw as ironic within the legislation.
“The language of the law is saying that it prohibits compelled speech — it is actually compelling speech in its own way, because it’s compelling educators to endorse or avoid these particular viewpoints that the legislature is now deemed divisive,” he said.
Several years ago, New Hampshire had its own version of a divisive concepts law, which was struck down in 2024 as an unconstitutional limitation on instructional content.
Russell doesn’t think the state should be dictating what professors instruct because faculty should have primary responsibility for curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction.
“Faculty,” he told SMN, “are distinctly qualified to exercise this decision-making authority in our areas of expertise.”
A PEN America report in early 2026 found that 23 states in the past five years have passed laws restricting content taught in higher education. North Carolina joined that group in 2023 with the passage of anti-DEI bills HB 8 and SB 195.
SB 227, ‘Eliminating “DEI” in Public Education’ includes a list of divisive concepts and discriminatory practices that is identical to SB 558. The law prohibits public school units from “providing instruction on divisive concepts,” partaking in certain professional development-related actions that “[include] or [advocate] for divisive concepts or discriminatory practices” and maintaining an office or holding a position with responsibilities including said concepts or practices.
Further in the document, the text clarifies that SB 227 does not limit teaching of “the impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history” or the “impartial discussion of the historical oppression of a particular group of people,” a phrase potentially insinuating that sharing a moral belief of a controversial subject — i.e. “slavery was bad” — could constitute a violation.
“We believe the law leaves educators with genuine questions about how to apply it, since, for example, it restricts instruction on certain concepts while expressly and appropriately preserving the teaching of difficult history,” NC Superintendent Mo Green and State Board of Education Chair Eric Davis wrote in a June 25 joint statement.
Representative Kevin Corbin and Western Carolina University did not respond to a request for comment.