Georgia committee hears proposal for statewide Title VI coordinator for K–12; supporters welcome infrastructure while ACLU and community groups press for edits

The Georgia House Higher Education Committee on Feb. 26 heard testimony on House Bill 1363, a substitute (LC650082S) that would create a statewide Title VI coordinator to help K–12 districts handle complaints of race, ethnicity, national origin and religion discrimination.

Sponsor remarks and several witnesses described the proposal as a way to fill a gap between local school procedures and federal enforcement. The sponsor told the committee the bill would designate existing staff to take on Title VI responsibilities and said the University System of Georgia (USG) worked with drafters to align language with higher‑education practice. "There are people already addressing this," the sponsor said, adding the substitute does not create a new funded position but would broaden responsibilities.

Supporters said a state resource could identify trends, provide expertise, and offer an appeal path when schools fail to address severe or pervasive harassment. "School districts are doing what they should in educating kids. They cannot be experts on Title VI. It is hard," Jeremy Berry of the Georgia Solidarity Network said, urging a single statewide resource to master Title VI and assist K–12 personnel.

Education advocates urged more structure and resources. Mikayla Arciaga, Georgia advocacy director for the Intercultural Development Research Association, recommended that the committee adopt an infrastructure that includes immediate support for complainants, triage at the local level, clear timelines for investigations and protections against retaliation. "If this is going to be a single individual, they should be exclusively dedicated and extensively trained in civil‑rights law," Arciaga said.

Civil‑liberties concerns centered on the substitute's references to an antisemitism definition that witnesses identified as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (referred to in the transcript as "IRA") definition and said has been codified in Georgia law. Sarah Hunt Blackwell of the ACLU of Georgia said language drawn from that definition—particularly the examples—could sweep up constitutionally protected expression and chill speech. "At its core, HB 1363 is a good bill," Blackwell said, but she urged the committee to remove the codified IHRA/"IRA" reference and specific lines cited in the substitute; she said the ACLU would support the bill if those changes were made.

Witnesses and members also raised procedural questions the bill does not yet resolve: who the Department of Education would designate, whether designees must have Title VI training, what evidentiary or fact‑finding standards would apply, what appeal rights and anti‑retaliation protections exist, and whether any sanctions (the substitute mentions potential withholding of state funds for noncompliance) are appropriate without clear notice and timelines. Yulin Jang of the Asian American Advocacy Fund and a former OCR attorney warned that the draft lacks defined investigative standards, notice, appeal rights and protections for respondents and complainants, and said the draft risks creating inconsistent state and federal outcomes without amendments.

Community advocates from Muslim, Sikh and interfaith organizations urged explicitly inclusive language. "Because the bill explicitly names antisemitism, we are concerned the discrimination experienced by students from other faith backgrounds may not be addressed as clearly in implementation," Arsheila Huda of the Georgia Muslim Voter Project said. Multiple witnesses asked that if a definition is retained, it be broadened or clarified to ensure protections across faiths and shared ancestry groups.

Committee leadership responded by holding HB 1363 so the author can consider the feedback and circulating suggested language; members encouraged stakeholders to meet with the author and return revised language. No formal vote was taken on HB 1363 at the hearing.

What happens next: The committee held the bill to allow the author to consider amendments recommended by witnesses, including removing or revising the IHRA/"IRA" reference, adding procedural safeguards, clarifying the coordinator's training or team structure, and defining timelines and appeal processes.

Sources: Testimony to the Georgia House Higher Education Committee (hearing on HB 1363, LC650082S).