```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 282 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

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, 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 adherence 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;
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
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns public institutions of higher education for 
        conditioning admission to any student applicant, or the hiring, 
        reappointment, or promotion of any faculty member, on the 
        applicant or faculty member pledging allegiance to or making a 
        statement of personal support for or opposition to any 
        political ideology or movement, including a pledge or statement 
        regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, or related topics; 
        and
            (2) discourages any institution from requesting or 
        requiring any such pledge or statement from an applicant or 
        faculty member, as such actions are antithetical to the freedom 
        of speech protected by the First Amendment.
                                 <all>
```