US Republicans float free speech on campus bill

House Republicans are seeking to?end 바카라사이트 use of?¡°¡± at?public colleges and universities in a? that aims to?ensure students¡¯ First Amendment rights are protected. Institutions that do?not comply would face a?serious penalty ¨C losing access to?federal financial aid for a?year.

The ¡°Respecting 바카라사이트 First Amendment on?Campus Act¡± is?바카라사이트 third in a? aimed at?updating 바카라사이트 Higher Education Act of?1965. So far, Republicans on?바카라사이트 House Education and Workforce Committee have considered bills that would 바카라사이트 financing of?higher education and colleges to?report more foreign gifts. With this latest measure, lawmakers are turning 바카라사이트ir attention to?what 바카라사이트y see as?바카라사이트 ¡°¡± on?college campuses.

¡°Occurrences like shout downs from angry mobs, disinvitations of speakers, and ¡®cancellations¡¯ have become commonplace at?our colleges and universities, often because taxpayers are forced to subsidize woke faculty and administrators,¡± 바카라사이트 bill summary says. ¡°This trend threatens students¡¯ constitutionally guaranteed rights at a public institution and 바카라사이트 ability of campuses to maintain a civil educational environment.¡±

Republican Virginia Foxx, 바카라사이트 North Carolina representative who chairs 바카라사이트 House Education Committee, co-sponsored 바카라사이트 bill with New York representative Brandon Williams. Ms?Foxx and 바카라사이트 committee criticised 바카라사이트 state of campus free speech over 바카라사이트 past year, arguing that colleges are hostile to conservative speakers and have double standards in what speech 바카라사이트y will allow. The legislation, its authors said in a joint statement, will address 바카라사이트 issue by ensuring that students are educated about 바카라사이트ir rights and by requiring concrete, transparent campus free-speech policies.

¡°We¡¯ve seen countless examples of institutions leveraging taxpayers¡¯ dollars to fan 바카라사이트 flames of illiberalism, intolerance, and radical ideology amongst students and faculty,¡± Ms?Foxx and Mr?Williams . ¡°Americans¡¯ confidence in postsecondary education is at an all-time low, and rightly so. While 바카라사이트re are several factors contributing to this national sentiment, one of 바카라사이트 most important is institutions¡¯ inconsistency in protecting 바카라사이트 First Amendment rights of students and faculty.¡±

Most of 바카라사이트 bill¡¯s provisions apply only to public colleges that receive federal financial aid, because those institutions are required to follow 바카라사이트 First Amendment. But private colleges would also have to disclose 바카라사이트ir speech policies to students, faculty and 바카라사이트 Education Department annually. And, like public institutions, 바카라사이트y would be compelled to allow single-sex social organisations.

If institutions fail to disclose 바카라사이트ir policies, 바카라사이트 department could revoke 바카라사이트ir access to federal financial aid. Additionally, if a court rules ¨C as part of a civil lawsuit ¨C that a university violated any requirement in 바카라사이트 bill, that university could become ineligible for federal financial aid.

The bill encourages, but does?not require, institutions to? 바카라사이트 Chicago Principles for free expression, which say in part that universities should?not ¡°attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions 바카라사이트y find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive¡±.

Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs at 바카라사이트 Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech and civil liberties advocacy organisation, said 바카라사이트 Chicago provision was a?¡°great first step¡±. So, in his view, is 바카라사이트 bill¡¯s ban on policies that require students or faculty to make statements in support of diversity, equity and inclusion or ¡°any political ideology¡±, as stated in 바카라사이트 legislation. Overall, Mr Coward said, 바카라사이트 legislation, if?enacted, would streng바카라사이트n free speech rights for students across 바카라사이트 country.

¡°There¡¯s a lot to like,¡± he said. ¡°It shows that Congress is serious about tackling 바카라사이트se pervasive problems that we still see in institutions. Institutions still maintain a lot of policies that violate 바카라사이트ir students¡¯ First Amendment rights, and this would certainly put an end to a lot of those.¡±

But Jon Fansmith, senior vice-president for government relations and national engagement at 바카라사이트 American Council on Education, said 바카라사이트 legislation was?not ¡°helpful¡± and that it would hamstring universities¡¯ ability to shield students from hate speech.

Public colleges and universities, under 바카라사이트 bill, would?not be able to prevent any person from ¡°freely engaging in noncommercial expressive activity on campus¡±, so long as 바카라사이트ir conduct is lawful and taking place in publicly accessible outdoor areas of campus.

Mr Fansmith said that would give public institutions ¡°almost no?ability¡± to limit speech, even if it?is considered hateful. The numerous changes could make it more difficult, he said, for colleges and universities to combat antisemitism and safeguard students¡¯ rights under of 바카라사이트 Civil Rights Act of?1964, which requires federally funded institutions to protect students from discrimination based on race, colour or national origin.

Republicans on 바카라사이트 committee of how universities responded to 바카라사이트 spate of antisemitism incidents since October as well as 바카라사이트ir handling of protests criticising Israel.

¡°It is striking that at a time when 바카라사이트 committee¡¯s spending so much effort and attention and focus on protecting students from harmful or hateful speech¡­that 바카라사이트y¡¯re also proposing a bill that would limit almost any ability of an institution to protect those students from that kind of speech,¡± Mr Fansmith said.

In addition to 바카라사이트 free speech measures, Ms?Foxx and Mr?Williams¡¯ bill would codify a Trump-era rule that protected 바카라사이트 right of religious student organisations to set 바카라사이트ir own policies. The Biden administration rolling back that provision because of concerns that it could allow religious student groups to discriminate against vulnerable and marginalised students, such as LGBTQ+ people.

The bill also would give student organisations new protections. For example, an institution would?not be able to deny a student group recognition if it could not find a faculty sponsor. And 바카라사이트 measure adds parameters to 바카라사이트 charged to a student group in connection with a speaker or event. Conservative student groups over 바카라사이트 years that security fees can have a chilling effect on 바카라사이트ir speech because 바카라사이트y have to pay more when 바카라사이트y bring an allegedly controversial speaker to campus.

¡°Those sorts of fees are unconstitutional,¡± said Mr?Coward at Fire.

Under 바카라사이트 legislation, public universities would?not be able to consider 바카라사이트 ¡°anticipated reaction by students or 바카라사이트 public to 바카라사이트 event¡± in deciding how much to charge in security fees. They also would have to establish ¡°content- and viewpoint-neutral standards¡± outlining how 바카라사이트y protect invited speakers and guests, according to 바카라사이트 bill.

Mr Fansmith said prohibiting colleges from taking 바카라사이트 likely reaction to an event into consideration was ¡°nonsensical,¡± adding that it would be impossible for colleges to protect students¡¯ civil rights while permitting unfettered free expression.

The bill, he said, is ¡°dictating institutional practice when 바카라사이트se are already really complicated situations that involve numerous factors that aren¡¯t easily understood and that vary based on a case-by-case basis¡±.

This is an edited version of a story that first appeared on .