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.

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 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 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 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, VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:59 Apr 06, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR282.IH HR282 pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB 2 •HRES 282 IH to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise, our civilization will stagnate and die.’’; Whereas 10 years later in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, the Supreme Court further elaborated on Sweezy and de- clared that academic freedom ‘‘is a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.’’; Whereas in Healy v. James, the Supreme Court held that ‘‘[T]he precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large. Quite to the contrary, ‘the vigilant protection of constitu- tional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the commu- nity of American schools.’ ’’; Whereas in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court held that the First Amend- ment prohibits the Government from compelling an indi- vidual to engage in speech, writing that, ‘‘if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be ortho- dox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.’’; Whereas many colleges and universities require or invite cur- rent or prospective faculty to demonstrate their commit- ment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), often through a written statement that factors into hiring, re- appointment, evaluation, promotion, or tenure decisions; Whereas ideologically motivated and required DEI statement policies can too easily function as litmus tests for adher- VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:59 Apr 06, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR282.IH HR282 pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB 3 •HRES 282 IH ence to prevailing ideological views on DEI, penalize fac- ulty or applicants for holding dissenting opinions on mat- ters 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 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; VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:59 Apr 06, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR282.IH HR282 pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB 4 •HRES 282 IH Whereas medical schools are also probing student applicants on their views on, or experience in, DEI efforts, and this overt test on identity politics for medical school admis- sions has been found in 36 of the top 50 medical schools; Whereas demanding that students endorse specific beliefs or face roadblocks in their education is an appalling action from professional schools and far from the meaning of academic freedom; and Whereas colleges and universities are also prioritizing ideolog- ical programming for students over programming to sup- port viewpoint diversity, and according to a report from Speech First, in the 2021–2022 school year, 90 percent of college freshman orientation programs focused on DEI as a topic, while only around 30 percent of orientation programs reviewed free speech or viewpoint diversity: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 1 (1) condemns public institutions of higher edu- 2 cation for conditioning admission to any student ap- 3 plicant, or the hiring, reappointment, or promotion 4 of any faculty member, on the applicant or faculty 5 member pledging allegiance to or making a state- 6 ment of personal support for or opposition to any 7 political ideology or movement, including a pledge or 8 statement regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, 9 or related topics; and 10 (2) discourages any institution from requesting 11 or requiring any such pledge or statement from an 12 VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:59 Apr 06, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR282.IH HR282 pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB 5 •HRES 282 IH applicant or faculty member, as such actions are 1 antithetical to the freedom of speech protected by 2 the First Amendment. 3 Æ VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:59 Apr 06, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\HR282.IH HR282 pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB