Texas’ 89th Legislative Session officially concluded over the summer after two special sessions. During the session, there was a large focus on education bills focused on “improving” children’s education in Texas through changes to the practices allowed in K-12 schools. Senate Bill 12, one of these bills, went into effect on September 1, 2025. To gain a better understanding of SB 12, this article uses a feminist lens that focuses on gender, race, and class to reveal the underlying effects intended by the bill. 

What are DEI and Senate Bill 12?

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion was originally implemented as a way to help marginalized groups access opportunities that were not previously available because of systematic oppression. Intended to have a time limit, DEI was a needed force to correct structural discrimination. The allotted time for DEI has now passed, and the debate over whether it should be kept has been at the forefront of today’s politics and media. Republicans target DEI, arguing that it is no longer needed. Senate Bill 17 dismantled DEI practices in higher education’s admissions, school-sponsored organizations, and course content. It passed as part of the political push to take America back to its conservative ideals. Socially, both SB 17 and SB 12’s goals are to keep children and young adults from having access to diversity through “unnaturally occurring” or “forced” means. 

Senate Bill 12 is a bill “Relating to parental rights in public education, to certain public school requirements and prohibitions regarding instruction, diversity, equity, and inclusion duties, and social transitioning, and to student clubs at public schools.” The sections 11.005, Prohibition on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Duties, and 33.081, Certain Requirements for Student Clubs, specifically address the use of DEI practices in K-12 public and open-enrollment charter schools. These sections are newly added to the Texas Education Code. Senate Bill 17 helped inform this addition as it brought controversy about DEI into the limelight when it dismantled DEI at public universities in Texas. The harm caused by DEI has been subject to major debate in recent American politics, spearheaded by the Trump Administration. Republicans everywhere have aligned themselves with these ideals. Texas’ legislature is a Republican majority, so Republican bills are extremely likely to pass, only requiring votes from their own party. 

The Bill’s Creation

When viewing anything through a feminist lens, it is important to consider the creator of the text, specifically whether they included voices from marginalized groups. The author of SB 12 is Texas State Senator Brandon Creighton, a white Republican man. Other Republican members of the Texas Senate co-authored the bill, most of whom are also white men. During the drafting of the bill, there were no Democrats or marginalized voices represented. None of the authors were people of color, working class, non-Christian faiths, or disabled. Rural authors were also not included in the writing process. Similarly, there were no current educators who helped author the bill. As such, there was no input from those who see the effects of DEI practices in schools. As the authors of the bill all work within government, they have the authority through statutes to force local-level institutions to comply with any provision that is set. In the context of SB 12, the government has the power to determine what actions are allowed by schools and what can be taught within them.

The political climate greatly influenced what was written into the bill, revealing that the ideas presented are not ones that the majority holds. DEI policies were in place for many years without a major push to dismantle them. In fact, many people believe them to be a needed step to reaching a non-racist society. Even though these opinions exist, the Republican majority prevented these voices from having a real say in passing of the bill. The gaps in who was included and the overgeneralized statements in the bill make it difficult to believe that it was written for the good of everyone. Rather, it was written by the rightwing within the state government to encourage the continuation of power by the white elite. 

The Language of the Bill

The text itself was written in academic and legal language, which makes it harder for the general public to understand. The word choice suggests large nuances. For example, the statute uses both “shall” and “may.” In some cases, these words can be interpreted to mean two different things, with “shall” meaning mandatory compliance and “may” meaning optional compliance. In this instance, both terms refer to mandatory compliance to follow SB 12. To gather the true meaning of this text, readers would have to know the Texas legislature’s standards for these legal terms. Additionally, the authors had to be careful with how extreme their wording was. They could not blatantly state the true objective of the bill, to oppress marginalized groups, so they simply stated that its purpose was to remove DEI practices. The Republicans did not need any Democrat votes for the bill to pass, yet they could not use racist, ableist, or sexist language so as to not draw negative attention from the general public. 

Section 11.005, Prohibition on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Duties, specifically uses the term “duties” to describe the forbidden actions relating to DEI. This is a very vague statement that can refer to many practices, depending on the application. As stated in the bill, some of these prohibitions include hiring through DEI practices, sponsoring DEI organizations, and teaching DEI curriculum in the classroom. Although there are some definitions of DEI duties, using “duties” allows for schools and districts to apply the statute as broadly as they are willing. Not only does this easily misconstrued definition create an issue in equal enforcement, but it may also cause an overenforcement of the statute. Instances where this limiting of DEI does not apply are also written into the bill. These include eliminating discriminatory practices while still protecting students’ free speech, recognizing federal holidays, contracting or employing those from marginalized groups, collecting and reporting data, and anything meant to enhance student academics that do not relate to DEI practices. While these exceptions seem to protect feminist goals of justice, they only guarantee the protection of already established anti-discriminatory practices and government interests. 

The Effects of SB 12

The document directly impacts knowledge production as it pertains to primary education systems. It limits DEI, which affects qualified candidates who face systematic barriers. This continues the lack of representation for marginalized students, upholding these barriers. Through SB 12, the government is attempting to control the access of opportunities for marginalized groups. This not only directly affects those groups, but also those who are outside of them. The limitations on “DEI duties” keep children from being exposed to different cultures, ideologies, and practices. Children will be less knowledgeable about diversity in the world, restricting their abilities to venture further than where society keeps them contained. The Republicans in the Texas Senate would like to see the return of “merit” hiring practices, or hiring the most qualified candidates without consideration of their race. Even so, implementing these policies simply limits the capabilities of the students involved to gain access to diverse opportunities. 

Conclusion

By using a feminist lens to analyze Senate Bill 12, one can see how the context of the bill matters greatly in revealing its intended purpose. Today’s current administration and political climate greatly influenced the Republicans who authored the bill. It is clear by the language used in the bill that it was written to restrict marginalized groups’ access to the education system, along with keeping children from receiving an education inclusive of diverse populations. By acknowledging these aspects of SB 12’s creation, it is the goal of feminist research to help inform future amendments to the bill, new policy, and further implementations of safeguards to protect marginalized groups in K-12 schools.