IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 282 

Expressing that compelled political litmus tests used by public institutions 

to require individuals to identify with specific ideological views are directly at odds with the principles of academic freedom and free speech 

and in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2023 

Mr. MURPHY (for himself and Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing that compelled political litmus tests used by public institutions to require individuals to identify with 

specific ideological views are directly at odds with the 

principles of academic freedom and free speech and in 

violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

Whereas in Sweezy v. New Hampshire in 1957, the Supreme 

Court wrote that, ‘‘The essentiality of freedom in the 

community of American universities is almost self-evident 

. . . To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual 

leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the 

future of our Nation . . . Teachers and students must 

always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 282 IH 

to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise, our 

civilization will stagnate and die.’’; 

Whereas 10 years later in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, the 

Supreme Court further elaborated on Sweezy and declared that academic freedom ‘‘is a special concern of the 

First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast 

a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.’’; 

Whereas in Healy v. James, the Supreme Court held that 

‘‘[T]he precedents of this Court leave no room for the 

view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, 

First Amendment protections should apply with less force 

on college campuses than in the community at large. 

Quite to the contrary, ‘the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.’ ’’; 

Whereas in West Virginia State Board of Education v. 

Barnette, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the Government from compelling an individual to engage in speech, writing that, ‘‘if there is any 

fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no 

official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of 

opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their 

faith therein.’’; 

Whereas many colleges and universities require or invite current or prospective faculty to demonstrate their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), often 

through a written statement that factors into hiring, reappointment, evaluation, promotion, or tenure decisions; 

Whereas ideologically motivated and required DEI statement 

policies can too easily function as litmus tests for adherVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:59 Apr 06, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR282.IH HR282

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HRES 282 IH 

ence to prevailing ideological views on DEI, penalize faculty or applicants for holding dissenting opinions on matters of public concern, and ‘‘cast a pall of orthodoxy’’ 

over the campus that the Supreme Court warned against 

in Keyishian; 

Whereas a survey by the American Association of University 

Professors of hundreds of colleges and universities found 

that more than one-fifth of higher education institutions 

include DEI criteria in tenure standards, and of the institutions that do not include such DEI criteria, nearly 

half indicated they are considering adding such criteria in 

the future; 

Whereas a survey by the American Enterprise Institute of 

academic job postings found that nearly 20 percent required DEI statements; 

Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits 

public universities from compelling faculty to assent to 

specific ideological views or to embed those views in academic activities; 

Whereas in order to push favored views, colleges and universities are increasing the number of faculty dedicated to 

programs and initiatives to support these ideological 

views; 

Whereas the Heritage Foundation found that large public 

universities averaged 45 DEI personnel, while other departments in universities are understaffed by comparison, 

and this proliferation of DEI administrators and 

prioritization of DEI adherence in personnel decisions 

places importance on adherence to a social movement 

rather than on education and serving students; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
4 

•HRES 282 IH 

Whereas medical schools are also probing student applicants 

on their views on, or experience in, DEI efforts, and this 

overt test on identity politics for medical school admissions has been found in 36 of the top 50 medical schools; 

Whereas demanding that students endorse specific beliefs or 

face roadblocks in their education is an appalling action 

from professional schools and far from the meaning of 

academic freedom; and 

Whereas colleges and universities are also prioritizing ideological programming for students over programming to support viewpoint diversity, and according to a report from 

Speech First, in the 2021–2022 school year, 90 percent 

of college freshman orientation programs focused on DEI 

as a topic, while only around 30 percent of orientation 

programs reviewed free speech or viewpoint diversity: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) condemns public institutions of higher edu3 cation for conditioning admission to any student ap4 plicant, or the hiring, reappointment, or promotion 

5 of any faculty member, on the applicant or faculty 

6 member pledging allegiance to or making a state7 ment of personal support for or opposition to any 

8 political ideology or movement, including a pledge or 

9 statement regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, 

10 or related topics; and 

11 (2) discourages any institution from requesting 

12 or requiring any such pledge or statement from an 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
5 

•HRES 282 IH 

1 applicant or faculty member, as such actions are 

2 antithetical to the freedom of speech protected by 

3 the First Amendment. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB