Accreditation for College Excellence Act of 2023

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, my amendment adds a sense of Congress that acts of violence committed on the campus of an institution of higher education are not protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

We cherish free speech in America. It is the foundation of our democracy, a beacon of liberty, and an essential right for every citizen.

We must remember that the First Amendment draws a clear line. It protects peaceful expression, not violent acts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his comments.

What we have seen is an alarming rise in incidents where protests on college campuses turn violent against Jewish students.

This is not free speech. It is an assault on free speech, and it has no place in America, let alone in the institutions tasked with shaping the minds of the next generation.

Since the horrific October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, we have seen an explosion of anti-Semitism on college campuses. Across the country, Jewish students have been harassed, assaulted, intimidated, and subjected to the hostile and sometimes violent environments of their campuses.

Every Jewish student deserves the right to learn, to speak, and to participate in campus life without fear of being targeted.

In the wake of anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses across our country, violence against Jews has even gotten worse. Since October 7, fewer than half of Jewish students feel physically safe on campus.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, again, I thank my colleague for his comments.

I think in light of the October 7 attack, in light of the violence we have seen on college campuses, and the very fact that Jewish students say they don't feel safe, it is important to restate what is law. It is important to restate that they have a right to be free, to be safe, and to learn.

Sometimes it is important that we state the obvious. Sometimes it is important that we stand and say what needs to be said, that anti- Semitism can't be tolerated. It can't be tolerated. It can't be tolerated.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, this amendment simply inserts or adds a clarifying clause.

While religious student groups are free to select people who aren't members of their religion to lead them, most people agree that it is reasonable for a Muslim student group to want its leaders to be, well, Muslim or a Catholic student group to want its leaders to be practicing Catholics.

Unfortunately, administrators of some of our universities keep showing that they disagree. Many believe that if a religious group requires that its leaders are of their religion that it is somehow unfair discrimination.

It is only common sense that a religious group should be able to require its leaders to agree with its religious message and mission. Because student leaders may lead the group's Scripture, prayer, or worship, they should have a familiarity and agree with the group's religious beliefs.

In 2018, the University of Iowa threatened to derecognize almost every religious group on campus: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. It was a deliberate effort to force religious student groups to abandon their religious leadership requirements.

In 2021, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the university administrators were personally liable for violating the religious groups' First Amendment rights, but that required 3 years of litigation.

In 2022, at the State University of New York at Cortland, a student organization was told that its selection process in which it asked potential leaders about their religious beliefs, as well as its requirements that its leaders demonstrate knowledge of and uphold the organization's religious teachings, was unacceptable.

Whether you understand the beliefs of an organization could obviously be relevant to your ability to lead it. The university changed course only after legal counsel sent a letter explaining the law.

In 2006, the University of Wisconsin-Madison derecognized a Catholic student organization because of its religious leadership and member requirements. The university eventually lost its case before the Seventh Circuit Court but not until 2011, long enough for an entire class of students to enroll and graduate without access to a recognized Catholic campus ministry.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I will go back to the Eighth Circuit where it determined at the University of Iowa, that the student groups, the religious groups, had the right to choose their leadership. You can go back to the University of Wisconsin-Madison where the same type of ruling came down.

That being said, in 2022, the law school at Madison decided to reject the initial application of a Christian Legal Society chapter because the group requires that its leader is Christian, which administrators claim was different than requiring believing Christian beliefs. They only relented after being challenged on the legality of their actions.

The underlying bill already establishes that public universities cannot discriminate against religious groups for their leadership standards, but we all know that sometimes, like my previous amendment, you need to state the obvious.

When we find an issue that public universities will persist in fighting, even after losing in court, it is important to spell things out clearly. My amendment does just that. It inserts the statement: `` . . . regarding religious identity, belief, or practice.'' It clarifies their right to choose their leadership based off of their beliefs.

I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source