Little Rock, AR – (JonesboroRightNow.com) – Jan. 30, 2025 – Sen. Dan Sullivan’s (R-District 20) bill aiming to end government affirmative action passed the Arkansas Senate Wednesday after nearly an hour of debate.
The Senate voted 24 to seven to send the bill to the Arkansas House of Representatives. Two voted present and two didn’t vote.
What is This Bill?
Senate Bill 3 intends to prohibit “discrimination by public entities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” The bill also states that it does not intend to affect any “preferences provided to veterans.”
If passed, SB3 would eliminate required minority recruitment and retention plans in place at public school districts and colleges/universities. Sullivan said this would not affect the private sector.
It amends a scholarship to attract qualified minority teachers to the Delta, removing any mention of awarding scholarships to minority teachers. Instead, it would award scholarships to “individuals declaring an intention to serve in the teaching field who actually render service to this state while possessing an appropriate teaching license.”
SB3 would repeal language requirements in government agency contracting calling for minority participation, and the adoption of equal opportunity hiring programs to increase the number of minority employees. It would eliminate language requirements encouraging women and minority-owned businesses to bid in public improvement contracts exceeding $75,000.
The bill is nearly identical to failed legislation from 2023, which barely passed the Senate and failed to pass the House.
“This bill strengthens competition and innovation by removing unnecessary or enforced diversity over merit within the commercial frameworks. It adds transparency and accountability,” Sullivan said. “It rejects the bias of situations. It empowers institutions to focus on excellence.”
Discussion During Senate Chambers:
While presenting the bill on Wednesday, Sullivan said SB3 is in line with President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders aiming to end affirmative action, or diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the federal government.
The orders call for the end of DEI programs, mandates and policies, as well as reviewing and revising existing federal employment practices, union contracts and training policies/programs.
Sullivan added that while the bill “firmly rejects” discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, it still preserves veterans’ benefits. He said these preferences are maintained to acknowledge “the sacrifices made by specific individuals.”
Sen. Stephanie Flowers (D-District 8) questioned the bill after its presentation, asking Sullivan what he defined as “merit.”
Sullivan responded that merit would be based on a person’s quality of work, such as their education level, work experience and more.
Flowers then asked Sullivan if he thought there were people of color or women who currently lack merit for their jobs and asked him where he saw it.
“Yes,” Sullivan replied. “I ran for election on this bill. My people in my district knew that I ran this bill. So, the question is, “Did the people of Arkansas want to see us end discrimination and treat people equally and fairly?’ I’d say yes.”
Flowers was also the first to speak against the bill, calling it “mean-spirited.”
“You don’t have the skin color that I have,” she said. “I’ve been feeling attacked most of my life. It’s because of my color, sometimes it’s because of my gender. It’s something to be said about walking in somebody else’s shoes.”
Sen. Reginald Murdock (D-District 9) was next to speak in opposition to SB3, saying without minority scholarships and policies, he wouldn’t have had the opportunity to attend the University of Arkansas, where he earned a degree in industrial engineering.
“These policies were put in place years ago to try to level the playing field because this is what you must know: the Constitution was not enough. It said that we shall be treated equal,” Murdock said. “The Bible, the scripture, was not enough for Christians because the Bible says to seek first those that are the most lowly and underserved among us and treat them best. That didn’t happen.”
Sen. John Payton (R-District 22) was the only senator to speak in favor of the bill. He said racism was a “horrible disease” and laws were implemented to “cure that disease.”
“The argument we’re having today is, are we over the disease and addicted to the cure, or is this a disease that needs forever, ongoing treatment? I’d like to think that we’re over this disease and we’re going to have to break the addiction to the cure,” Payton said.
Sen. Alan Clark (R-District 7) spoke against SB3. He was the only Republican to do so. He said he’d complimented it in private and he agreed with merit-based hiring, but he had a problem with Section 5.
Section 5 removes the Teacher and Administrator Recruitment and Retention Plan, which requires public school districts and colleges/universities to set recruitment goals and work to increase the number of employed minority teachers and administrators over three years.
Clark said the state has an incredibly low number of teachers who are Black men, and he did not agree with making it more difficult for districts to hire Black male teachers. He added that employing more Black male teachers would only improve educational outcomes for Black male students.
“We ought to be able to we have to do to get special ed teachers on merit. We ought to be able to do whatever we do to get science teachers,” Clark said. “But we also ought to be able to get Black male teachers without apologizing for it and especially without breaking the law. So, for that reason, as much as I want to vote for this bill, I can’t.”
Other senators who spoke against the bill were Sen. Jamie Scott (D-District 12), Sen. Clarke Tucker (D-District 14), Sen. Frederick Love (D-District 15) and Sen. Greg Leding (D-District 30).
Public Testimony During Committee:
Before it went before the full Senate, SB3 was subject to lengthy discussion from the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday, Jan. 28, and saw over two hours of testimony from 11 people from across the state. Ten spoke against the bill.
Representatives from organizations such as the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, the Arkansas NAACP, Arkansas Civic Action Network, Stand Up Arkansas and more were present.
Lance LeVar, a former public school program adviser for the Equity Assistance Center, was the first of the public to give comments. He spoke against the bill.
The Equity Assistance Center is directly mentioned in the SB3. It would be renamed the “Equality Assistance Center” and would assist school districts in “desegregation and nondiscrimination” through workshops, on-site visits, program reviews and more.
The bill would remove mention of the Center assisting school districts with “affirmative action, program accessibility, human relations awareness and desegregation.”
LeVar spoke about the recruitment plans for minority teachers, saying anyone who said the Teacher and Administrator Recruitment Plan was designed to hire “unqualified minority candidates” misunderstood the plan.
In addition to increasing the number of minority teachers and administrators, the plan requires that the racial/ethnic makeup of the administrative body at minimum reflect the diversity of the district’s students.
“Diversity is key,” LeVar said. “It was designed to ensure that we reach out and make sure our pool is deep enough and then we hire the [qualified] candidates from that pool. Our pool is too shallow.”
Robert Steinbuch, a professor of law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, spoke in favor of the bill. He was the only person to speak for it, praising that it was moving for the “merit-based” hiring of teachers.
“The best teachers make for the best learning. I’m a Jew from New York and I teach a bunch of Arkansans law. Could you imagine if people were to tell me ‘Sorry, Rob, give up your spot for a local Arkansan to teach law to these Arkansans because that person looks or sounds or acts more like that of those students?'” he said. “The bill says we go for merit. Go for the best teachers that we can find.”
One person who spoke against the bill, Jimmie Cavin, said while he supported its plan, he felt the penalties for violating SB3 weren’t harsh enough and it would be difficult to prosecute. If passed, knowingly violating SB3 is a Class A misdemeanor, which carries up to one year in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500 in Arkansas.
In addition, anyone who believes their rights were impacted by the bill may bring civil action to circuit court. If the court finds a violation occurred, it would award injunctive relief and court costs and attorney’s fees.
“There’s no teeth,” Cavin said. “I love what is in this bill, but until we start making laws that have teeth and accountability, you’re putting it on me as a citizen to hold people accountable.”
Kwami Abdul-Bey, Political Action Chair for the Jacksonville chapter of the Arkansas Conference of the NAACP, spoke against the bill during the committee hearing. He said SB3 was essentially the same as the failed 2023 legislation but with a “poor attempt” to provide preferential treatment for veterans.
“The wording actually leaves out Black veterans, Latino veterans, women veterans and disabled veterans. I am a Black, disabled veteran who wonders if this added language will even benefit me,” he said. “The Arkansas NAACP is against this bill.”
Deborah Springer-Suttlar also spoke against the bill, asking why legislators would want to change the law when they “know racism and discrimination exist.”
“Some people cannot be trusted. That’s why we have affirmative action because when we walk in the room, we are seen for the color of our skin before you even know if we’re qualified for a position,” Springer-Suttlar said. “God created diversity. Man created hate. God commands equity and inclusion. I’m here because it’s a horrible bill.”
During committee, Tucker and Clark voted against the bill. All other committee members voted to send it to the full Senate.
Click here to see the full bill.