IV 
119TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. RES. 947 
Expressing that compelled political litmus tests used by public institutions 
to require individuals to identify with specific ideological views are di-
rectly 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 
DECEMBER 11, 2025 
Mr. MURPHY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
Committee on Education and Workforce 
RESOLUTION 
Expressing that compelled political litmus tests used by pub-
lic 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.’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:29 Dec 12, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR947.IH
HR947
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 947 IH 
Whereas 10 years later in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, the 
Supreme Court further elaborated on Sweezy and de-
clared that academic freedom ‘‘is a special concern of the 
First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast 
a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.’’; 
Whereas in Healy v. James, the Supreme Court held that 
‘‘[T]he precedents of this Court leave no room for the 
view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, 
First Amendment protections should apply with less force 
on college campuses than in the community at large. 
Quite to the contrary, ‘the vigilant protection of constitu-
tional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the commu-
nity of American schools.’ ’’; 
Whereas in West Virginia State Board of Education v. 
Barnette, the Supreme Court held that the First Amend-
ment prohibits the Government from compelling an indi-
vidual to engage in speech, writing that, ‘‘if there is any 
fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no 
official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be ortho-
dox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of 
opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their 
faith therein.’’; 
Whereas many colleges and universities require or invite cur-
rent or prospective faculty to demonstrate their commit-
ment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), often 
through a written statement that factors into hiring, re-
appointment, evaluation, promotion, or tenure decisions; 
Whereas ideologically motivated and required DEI statement 
policies can too easily function as litmus tests for adher-
ence to prevailing ideological views on DEI, penalize fac-
ulty or applicants for holding dissenting opinions on mat-
ters of public concern, and ‘‘cast a pall of orthodoxy’’ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:29 Dec 12, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR947.IH
HR947
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 947 IH 
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 in-
stitutions 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 re-
quired 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 aca-
demic activities; 
Whereas in order to push favored views, colleges and univer-
sities 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 de-
partments 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 admis-
sions has been found in 36 of the top 50 medical schools; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:29 Dec 12, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR947.IH
HR947
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
•HRES 947 IH 
Whereas demanding that students endorse specific beliefs or 
face roadblocks in their education is an appalling action 
from professional schools and far from the meaning of 
academic freedom; and 
Whereas colleges and universities are also prioritizing ideolog-
ical programming for students over programming to sup-
port viewpoint diversity, and according to a report from 
Speech First, in the 2021–2022 school year, 90 percent 
of college freshman orientation programs focused on DEI 
as a topic, while only around 30 percent of orientation 
programs reviewed free speech or viewpoint diversity: 
Now, therefore, be it 
Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 
(1) condemns public institutions of higher edu-
cation for conditioning admission to any student ap-
plicant, or the hiring, reappointment, or promotion 
of any faculty member, on the applicant or faculty 
member pledging allegiance to or making a state-
ment of personal support for or opposition to any 
political ideology or movement, including a pledge or 
statement regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, 
or related topics; and 
(2) discourages any institution from requesting 
or requiring any such pledge or statement from an 
applicant or faculty member, as such actions are 
antithetical to the freedom of speech protected by 
the First Amendment. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
04:29 Dec 12, 2025
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR947.IH
HR947
kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB