Accreditation for College Excellence Act of 2023

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 3724, what my Republican colleagues call the End Woke Higher Education Act.

H.R. 3724 seeks to circumvent the First Amendment to establish a whole new scheme to regulate speech and association rights on campus outside of established precedents and practices.

The First Amendment protects some of our most deeply cherished rights as Americans. Any student currently who believes their First Amendment rights are being violated can bring a Federal case against their public college or university. In doing so, they have over 200 years of precedent and case law that carefully define and determine what those rights are under the First Amendment.

This includes precedents that specifically address the unique nature of colleges and universities as public entities that both must uphold constitutional rights and must provide students with safe learning environments.

With today's bill, the majority would have us throw out all of the centuries of case law and replace it with a hastily drafted substitute that claims to remove barriers that limit constitutional rights.

What the bill actually does is make public colleges and universities, who could be acting in good faith attempting to protect the safety and security of everyone present on their campus, subject to monetary judgments and possible loss of title IV student aid, counter to Supreme Court precedent.

In so doing, my colleagues, who purport to favor limited government, are micromanaging how colleges and universities must handle their internal governance processes.

Another one of the harmful, misguided policies contained in the bill creates a license for religious student organizations at public institutions to discriminate against LGBTQ+ and other students by allowing these organizations to avoid nondiscrimination requirements that apply to all other student clubs funded by student activity fees.

Student groups are an essential part of the college experience, but if this bill becomes law, minority students would be forced to subsidize student groups that discriminate against them.

In addition to micromanaging how college campuses dispute the First Amendment cases, this bill would undermine the legitimacy of the college accreditation process. For decades, federally recognized accreditors have served as one-third of the oversight triad of the U.S. higher education system, along with States and the Federal Government.

Accreditation is meant to be the gold standard for college quality and performance. After all, accreditation is the gateway to billions of dollars of Federal student aid each year. I recognize that the accreditation systems need improvement, but, unfortunately, H.R. 3724 does not make constructive reforms. Rather, it is a baseless attempt to inject culture wars into an ever-important accreditation process.

For example, the ``prohibition on litmus tests'' invites additional Federal oversight into the accreditation process. Under this bill, accreditors may not assess a school's ``commitment to any ideology, belief, or viewpoint.''

The majority complains that this will prevent a school from losing accreditation if they do not have a diversity, equity, and inclusion office. The reality is that there is no evidence that that is happening.

There are, conversely, several examples of State officials pressuring schools not to teach certain classes or hold subjects that they believe cross the line between academic pursuit and ideological beliefs. That is why the bill is so dangerous.

For example, under this bill, the Department of Education could potentially revoke an accreditor's recognition if that accreditor required science programs to teach evolution. If the accreditor said, no, if it is science, you have got to teach evolution, the Department could potentially revoke the accreditation, suggesting that such standards were an attempt to force a university to commit to a specific partisan, political, or ideological viewpoint or belief.

Well, I think if you are going to teach a science course, that the accreditors ought to have the option of requiring the fundamental basis be science.

H.R. 3724 represents a solution in search of a problem, fundamentally seeks to undermine students' First Amendment rights and their right to be able to join a student organization free of discrimination, and it undermines our accreditation system.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to discuss the next installment of Republican hypocrisy in the 118th Congress. This one relates to anti-Semitism.

My Republican colleagues have spent months haranguing university presidents for failing to protect Jewish students on college campuses, and on this, I agree. Many university presidents have failed to show appropriate moral clarity and leadership, but let me ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Does the removal of a university president actually change the facts on the ground? Does it make Jewish students safer? The answer is unequivocally no, and certainly not in the near term.

I have spoken to Jewish students all around the country, and they remain scared and afraid as anti-Semitic encampments and protests have grown more threatening and even violent.

Despite all of their lipservice about combating anti-Semitism, this Republican bill makes it significantly more difficult for universities to keep Jewish students safe.

Under the guise of ending wokeness on college campuses, this bill would strip universities of their ability to enforce reasonable restrictions on campus protests. It limits time, place, and manner restrictions and allows for no-notice spontaneous protests, including anywhere on campus, such as Hillels.

That is right. The bill makes it easier for agitators and others to come onto college campuses and engage in anti-Semitic protests or encampments. Once again, all talk, no action from my Republican colleagues.

The most effective way for the Federal Government to combat anti- Semitism on campus is through the enforcement of the title VI antidiscrimination law by the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education, which requires universities to remedy any violations that make Jewish students or any other students unable to safely and securely get the education that they deserve.

Since October 7, OCR has opened more than 150 investigations into campus anti-Semitism, but they don't have anywhere near the resources to fully pursue those investigations--never mind that Donald Trump's Project 2025 wants to eliminate the Department of Education altogether, including the Office for Civil Rights.

If Republicans truly cared about Jewish students, as they say, they would support my Showing Up for Students Act, which would increase funding for OCR so that we can actually combat anti-Semitism on the ground at universities around the country. Yet, not a single Republican has cosponsored this bill--not one.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, instead, in the last budget, Republicans insisted on cutting funding for OCR, further hampering OCR's ability to fight anti-Semitism.

I, once again, ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop using anti-Semitism as a political weapon and join us to actually solve the problem. If you care about anti-Semitism on college campuses, you must oppose H.R. 3724 and instead join my Showing Up for Students Act so Congress can be part of the solution, not the problem.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, we have received a letter from the American Council on Education, which says, in part, rather than respecting the First Amendment and what has been done to apply its principles across a wide range of higher education institutions, the provisions of title II of H.R. 3724 would undermine campus efforts to foster free speech and ensure student safety.

We are particularly concerned with the impact this legislation would have on campuses' ability to prevent discrimination and hateful incidents at a time of widespread national attention.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the American Council on Education. American Council on Education, September 17, 2024. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On behalf of the undersigned higher education associations, we write regarding H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, which will be considered by the U.S. House of Representatives this week. Title II of H.R. 3724 incorporates the provisions of H.R. 7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act. We opposed the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act during its consideration by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We now ask you to remove Title II from H.R. 3724 as it would undermine efforts to protect free speech on campus and provide safe learning environments free from discrimination. If Title II is not removed from the underlying bill, we would urge you and your members to oppose the bill if it is considered on the floor.

Colleges and universities are strongly committed to fostering open, intellectually engaging debate enriched by a diverse set of voices and perspectives. Freedom of speech, free inquiry, and academic freedom are fundamental to the quest for knowledge and to the educational mission of higher education institutions. Institutions take seriously their obligations to uphold the laws protecting these freedoms, which, for public institutions, include the First Amendment. Consistent with these obligations, institutions must also provide safe learning environments that are free from discrimination and harassment and in compliance with applicable federal and state laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any proposed federal legislation in this area must reflect these twin institutional obligations.

Despite Title II's purported aims of ensuring that public institutions uphold First Amendment protections and provide clarity regarding campus speech policies, Title II would instead create new counterproductive federal mandates, undermining the goals it seeks to advance. Title II would impose a rigid, highly prescriptive, and costly regulatory and enforcement framework on nearly 1,900 public colleges and universities. Already subject to the protections afforded by the First Amendment, public institutions would have to implement a new campus-wide compliance scheme on top of existing policies and practices. As an example of the difficult and costly mandates that the legislation would impose, it would require institutions to develop ``objective, content- and view-point neutral and exhaustive standards'' in allocating funds to student organizations, which are extraordinarily varied. This could create a regulatory quagmire.

Under Title II's enforcement provisions, failure to comply with even minor reporting or disclosure requirements could result in loss of Title IV funding for an entire award year and often significantly longer. Penalizing students with a loss of financial aid does nothing to further the goals of this legislation and is disproportional to the underlying violation. While the bill exempts private institutions from some of its most onerous requirements, the legislation would nonetheless create a dangerous precedent that encourages further governmental intrusions into matters of academic freedom and institutional autonomy, which would undoubtedly have a chilling effect on private institutions as well.

In addition to the needlessly harsh penalty of loss of Title IV aid, the legislation would also spawn costly and time-consuming litigation by creating a new federal cause of action allowing individuals to sue a public institution for damages for any violation of Title II's requirements. Adding this new cause of action on top of existing legal remedies is unnecessary, duplicative, and would harmfully drain institutional resources away from efforts to protect students and campus free speech. Further, the bill would take the unprecedented and troubling step of waiving a public institution's sovereign immunity rights under the 11th Amendment based on its receipt of Title IV funding.

Given the recent focus of the Education and the Workforce Committee and other House Committees on incidents of antisemitism and the need for campuses to provide safe, discrimination-free environments for all students, we are mystified by Title II's inclusion of provisions that would tie the hands of campus administrators to address these issues, likely making campuses less safe. For example, the bill would mandate that any publicly accessible area of the campus be designated as a ``public forum,'' open to anyone-- even if they are not a student, staff, or faculty member-- making it more difficult for institutions to secure their campuses against outside agitators like the kind seen in some recent protests over the Israel-Hamas war. Further, Title II would prohibit institutions from factoring in potential student and public reactions when determining security fees for events, limiting their ability to safely manage controversial speakers and events which necessarily entail far greater security costs.

Rather than respecting the First Amendment and what has been done to apply its principles across a wide range of higher education institutions, the provisions in Title II of H.R. 3724 would undermine campus efforts to foster free speech and ensure student safety. We are particularly concerned with the impact this legislation would have on campuses' ability to prevent discrimination and hateful incidents at a time of widespread national tension. We urge the House to remove Title II from H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, or vote against the broader bill if it reaches the floor with Title II included. Sincerely, Ted Mitchell, President.

On behalf of:

American Association of Community Colleges,

American Association of State Colleges and Universities,

American Council on Education,

Association of American Universities,

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities,

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we received a letter from the Association of Public & Land Grant Universities, which says, in part, the bill's ``purported solutions would radically undermine First Amendment jurisprudence, threatening the ability of public universities to ensure State property can be used for its intended educational purposes, and represents an astonishing level of Federal intrusion in matters traditionally respected as the purview of States and State entities.''

We received another letter from the ACLU, which says, in part, ``H.R. 3724 purportedly prohibits: partisan, political, ideological, social, cultural, or political viewpoints and beliefs; the disparate treatment of any individual or group of individuals on the basis of any protected class under Federal civil rights law; and violation of any right protected by the U.S. Constitution. In reality, H.R. 3724 would encourage these unlawful actions by permitting postsecondary institutions to eliminate curricula that covers historical contributions and lived experiences of some racial and ethnic groups while continuing such curriculum of other groups.''

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities and the American Civil Liberties Union. Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities, Washington, DC, September 16, 2024. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: As president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), a membership association of more than 230 public research universities and systems, I write to express APLU's strong opposition to Title II of H.R. 3724, the ``End Woke Higher Education Act,'' which is expected to be considered on the House Floor this week. Title II contains the text of the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act, provisions of which are predominantly aimed at state entities given the application of the First Amendment to public institutions.

While APLU appreciates goals of the legislation to ensure public colleges and universities are upholding their obligations under the First Amendment and fostering learning environments in which students are exposed to a variety of perspectives, its purported solutions would radically undermine First Amendment jurisprudence, threatening the ability of public universities to ensure state property can be used for its intended educational purposes, and represents an astonishing level of federal intrusion in matters traditionally respected as the purview of states and state entities.

Further, the timing of the legislation is particularly perplexing given the enormous challenges public universities faced in the spring and continue to face as targets from outside organizations seeking to sow campus unrest to generate global attention. The legislation would be a major boon to such organizations by making it substantially more difficult for public universities to preserve its property for intended educational uses while protecting the rights of the vast majority of campus communities simply seeking to receive an education, further scientific advancement, and fully enjoy the enriching experiences afforded on public university campuses. The legislation would also raise the need for institutions to direct substantial resources to administration rather than in support of students, including exposing state institutions to new threats from unscrupulous lawyers seeking paydays from state coffers through the legislation's waiver of state sovereign immunity and creation of new private rights of action.

The First Amendment combined with case law provides deep protections for free speech and association on campuses of public universities, while enabling institutions to put in place reasonable, viewpoint neutral restrictions to protect public safety and speakers while enabling their higher education mission. While some aspects of the legislation related to designated public forums reinforce precedent within some circuits, not all circuit courts have adopted such standards. As such, the bill would treat all public university outdoor property as if it was traditional public fora like a town square or the quintessential public university ``quad.'' However, public institutions own and maintain an incredible diversity of property including hospitals, bus stations, agricultural field stations, athletics fields, sewage plants, parking lots, residence halls, forests, nature preserves, museums, etc. We find it highly unusual that Congress would insert itself into the designation of state property in ways it would likely never consider for other non-federal public lands.

APLU is also concerned with the manner in which the legislation will drive up legal expenses of institutions, diverting resources that could otherwise be devoted in furtherance of public universities' education, research, and community engagement missions. For example, creating new private rights of action and conditioning participation in Title IV federal student aid programs on waiving state sovereign immunity are deeply concerning. Additionally, the legislation contains incredibly harsh penalties of loss of Title IV eligibility for what could be unintentional infractions due to ambiguities with the bill's extremely prescriptive standards. APLU questions the need for such penalties, waivers of sovereign immunity, and creation of private rights of action as the First Amendment provides adequate protections for free speech on campus and judicial remedies for institutional noncompliance.

As public institutions, campuses have obligations to ensure students and campus communities more broadly have exposure to an array of speakers and events that further an educational mission, including the arts and sciences. Public universities receive countless requests for use of their facilities, including from outside organizations, speakers, and candidates for public office. As part of allowing public university campus property to be used by outside organizations, institutions must assess fees to recover costs, including security fees. The legislation would preclude an institution from taking into consideration ``an anticipated reaction by students or the public'' as part of determining a security fee. This provision is particularly dangerous. Public universities can reasonably anticipate a greater security need in hosting a controversial public figure or provocative fringe organization than say a mundane scientific conference of physicians. With this provision and especially combined with provisions creating new legal exposures, public universities would be faced with an impossible choice of providing inadequate security creating threats to public safety or having events bankrupt public university budgets. As like other provisions of the legislation, this would make public university campuses even greater targets of outside provocateurs who under the bill can pass along the financial costs of their events to state taxpayers.

Lastly, APLU is concerned by numerous provisions of the legislation that micromanage state university policies at the federal level, needlessly overriding the judgments of states and institutional leaders. For example, prescriptive standards in the legislation regarding governance of student organization policies override the discretion of campus administrators who are best positioned to know the needs of their communities.

APLU urges members of Congress to oppose the legislation and instead work with the public university community on legislation that better addresses policymaker concerns without such deeply troublesome unintended consequences. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mark Becker, President, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. ____ Re Vote ``NO'' on H.R. 3724, the Accreditation for College Excellence Act of 2023; Vote ``NO'' on H.R. 7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act; Vote ``NO'' on H.R. 4790, the Guiding Uniform and Responsible Disclosure Requirements and Information Limits Act of 2023; Vote ``NO'' on H.R. 5339, the Roll back ESG to Increase Retirement Earnings Act ACLU, National Political Advocacy Department, Washington, DC, September 18 2024.

Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 3724, the Accreditation for College Excellence Act of 2023; H.R. 7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act; H.R. 4790, the Guiding Uniform and Responsible Disclosure Requirements and Information Limits Act of 2023; and H.R. 5339, the Roll back ESG to Increase Retirement Earnings Act. These bills collectively and individually aim to undermine and dismantle policies and programs that both ensure compliance with non- discrimination laws and create welcoming and inclusive environments for students or employees. The ACLU will score these votes.

H.R. 3724, Accreditation for College Excellence Act of 2023

H.R. 3724 would prohibit accrediting agencies from requiring or encouraging public higher education institutions to consider inclusion and diversity efforts when assessing curricula and campus climates for students, faculty, and staff. Current accreditation standards concerning inclusion and diversity further non-discrimination and equal opportunity policies; foster diversity within curricula, the student body, and faculty; create a welcoming climate of respect and inclusiveness; encourage civic engagement; and measure achievement gaps between students. These programs and policies adopted by colleges and universities impact a vast population of students and staff, including women of all races and ethnicities, racial and religious minorities, veterans, people with disabilities, persons from low socioeconomic backgrounds, those who live in rural or urban geographic locations, and immigrants.

The bill would also permit educational institutions that are controlled by religious organizations to require applicants, students, employees, and independent contractors to provide or adhere to a statement of faith; adhere to a code of conduct consistent with one religious mission or certain religious tenets; and swear to a loyalty oath to vaguely ``uphold the U.S. Constitution.''

H.R. 3724 purportedly prohibits: (1) partisan, political, ideological, social, cultural, or political viewpoints and beliefs; (2) the disparate treatment of any individual or group of individuals on the basis of any protected class under Federal civil rights law; and (3) violation of any right protected by the U.S. Constitution. But, in reality, H.R. 3724 would encourage these unlawful actions by permitting post-secondary institutions to eliminate curricula that covers the historical contributions and lived experiences of some racial and ethnic groups, while continuing such curricula for other groups. In addition, H.R. 3724 would permit institutions to dismantle programs and policies that ensure compliance with non-discrimination protections for students, faculty, and staff; exclude students who practice certain religions from federally funded institutions; and mandate unconstitutionally vague loyalty oaths. The ACLU strongly urges you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 3724.

H.R. 7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act

H.R. 7683 would wrongly prohibit consideration of lawful statements used to assess prospective applicants and faculty on their experiences, actions, and planned contributions. These prohibitions would undermine universities' efforts to consider the lived experiences of applicants and develop a well-rounded study body and faculty. For example, H.R. 7683 would preclude a public higher education institution from requiring, requesting, or considering a statement from a student applicant explaining how a social construct, such as race, ethnicity, gender roles or identity, socioeconomic status, religion, or nationality, has impacted their life or their ability to contribute to the institution.

However, this very type of statement was explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court noted that higher education institutions may consider ``an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute'' to the institution.

In addition, this bill prohibits public higher education institutions from requiring, requesting, or considering a statement from a prospective or current faculty member explaining how their teaching, research or service has or would promote diversity, equity, and inclusion within the institution. Yet, such statements are clearly relevant to a faculty member's professional experiences and scholarship, and therefore it is understandable and appropriate to ask about them. Ultimately, the ``political litmus tests'' defined in this legislation will serve only to reduce diversity amongst students and faculty and would not protect speech. The ACLU strongly urges you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 7683. H.R. 4790, Guiding Uniform and Responsible Disclosure Requirements and Information Limits Act of 2023 and H.R. 5339, Roll back ESG to Increase Retirement Earnings Act

H.R. 4790 and H.R. 5339 aim to prohibit investors, including financial services companies investing pension and other retirement funds, from making investment decisions based on a company's commitment to environmental protections, public health and labor safety standards for the community at large, the social impact of diversity and inclusivity, and the general governance of organizations including shareholder rights. Not only do these bills disregard the desires and concerns of workers and investors across the country for nondiscriminatory and supportive workplaces, but they would have the perverse effect of disallowing the consideration of workplace diversity and environmental factors that contribute to the financial success of a business. Furthermore, a series of amendments offered by minority members of the Financial Services Committee that would have protected the will and economic interests of investors in investing in businesses that succeed by valuing and protecting their employees were all rejected. The ACLU strongly urges you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 4790 and H.R. 5339.

The ACLU greatly appreciates your attention to this request, as we ask you to protect nondiscriminatory, inclusive and supportive workplaces and classrooms by voting ``NO'' on final passage of H.R. 3724, H.R. 7683, H.R. 4790, and H.R. 5339. Sincerely, Christopher Anders,

Director, Democracy & Technology. Kimberly Conway,

Senior Policy Counsel.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we received another letter from the Association of American Universities which says, in part, ``On behalf of America's leading research universities, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act. Title II (`Respecting the First Amendment on Campus') of this misguided legislation would dangerously undermine public universities' ability to implement crucial time, place, and manner policies for campus expression, jeopardizing their ability to protect student safety--particularly for vulnerable groups such as Jewish students--and disrupting the educational environment.''

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Association of American Universities. Association of American Universities, Washington, DC, September 16, 2024. Hon. Mike Johnson Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, House Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On behalf of America's leading research universities, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3724, the ``End Woke Higher Education Act.'' Title II (``Respecting the First Amendment on Campus'') of this misguided legislation would dangerously undermine public universities' ability to implement crucial time, place, and manner policies for campus expression, jeopardizing their ability to protect student safety--particularly for vulnerable groups such as Jewish students--and disrupting the educational environment.

It is puzzling that, at a time when the House has been focused on what colleges and universities are doing to protect students from hateful, intimidating, or harassing actions which impede an atmosphere conducive to effective learning, this legislation would actually remove critical tools that campuses use to protect students and reduce the likelihood of such outcomes.

Time, place, and manner policies are not abstract concepts; they are vital tools that have been repeatedly upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court for use by federal, state, and local governments, as well as university campuses. These content- neutral regulations govern when, where, and how speech activities occur on campus, balancing free expression with safety and educational needs. For example:

Time restrictions limit noisy demonstrations during class hours

Place restrictions designate appropriate areas for large gatherings

Manner restrictions regulate sound amplification use or require advance notice for major events

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently recognized the constitutionality of these policies, holding that such restrictions are valid if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication.

This Act seeks to broaden the requirements of that legal standard by simultaneously 1) reclassifying all generally accessible areas of campus at public institutions as traditional public forums and 2) weakening public universities' ability to regulate the time, place, and manner of campus protests by requiring them to allow a right of no- notice spontaneous assembly to any member of the public who wants to protest. The Act would also allow demonstrators a right to physically approach students on campus to distribute literature.

These added requirements will jeopardize this established legal framework within which universities consider a variety of factors, including free expression, campus safety, disruption of educational mission, and protection of students from the type of discrimination and harassment that creates an environment that impedes their ability to participate in their education.

By changing the requirements these policies, the Act would:

Endanger Jewish students and other vulnerable groups: Without the ability to manage the location and timing of demonstrations, colleges would struggle to prevent hostile groups from gathering near religious or cultural centers, potentially subjecting students to harassment or intimidation.

Disrupt the learning environment: Unrestricted protests could interfere with classes, exams, or even important events like Holocaust remembrance ceremonies, impeding the core educational mission of universities.

Create logistical nightmares: Colleges would be unable to effectively allocate resources for security or manage competing demands for limited campus spaces, potentially leading to chaos and increased safety risks.

Conflict with other legal obligations: The Act could make it nearly impossible for colleges to meet their responsibilities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect students from discrimination while still allowing free expression.

Instead of this deeply flawed legislation, AAU strongly urges Congress to:

Protect colleges' ability to implement reasonable, content- neutral time, place, and manner restrictions as already established by judicial precedent.

Support initiatives that balance free expression with campus safety.

Encourage collaborative policy-making involving administrators, students, and faculty to address each campus's unique needs.

While the provisions relating to campus speech are our primary focus, AAU has additional concerns with other provisions in the Act relating to security fees and single- sex associations, some of which affect both public and private universities.

Despite its ``Respecting the First Amendment'' name, Title II of this legislation would not enhance free speech. Instead, it would create a potentially dangerous environment that could silence vulnerable voices and undermine the very purpose of higher education. I implore you to stand against this misguided legislation and protect the delicate balance of rights and responsibilities that our universities currently navigate. Sincerely, Barbara R. Snyder, President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I received another letter from the American Federation of Teachers which says, in part, ``Academic freedom and the right to peacefully protest on our college campuses are hallmarks of a functioning democracy and a thriving economy. Unfortunately, the bill before you today does not respect the vital and dynamic role that higher education plays in promoting knowledge, pluralism, and democracy. The bill would limit the ability of campuses to stand up against hate and bigotry, which runs counter to the very core of higher education's fundamental purpose.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, could you advise how much time remains on this side?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, we also received a letter from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Interfaith Alliance that says, in part, that ``we oppose the provision on `political litmus tests' in accreditation, because it is unnecessary and unwise.

``The provision seems aimed, in part, to allow religious colleges to ignore accreditation standards and still maintain accreditation. Current law and regulations, though, already require accreditors to give significant deference to religious schools.''

``This bill seeks to go further, though, by requiring accrediting agencies to permit religious schools to discriminate against all students and employees. The bill would allow religious schools to require adherence to a statement of faith or religious code of conduct, which could be written so broadly as to allow religious schools to discriminate against people because of sex, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Every single student, employee, and contractor, including janitors, IT administrators, nurses, and more, could face discrimination--and for students, perhaps even on the basis of their parents' relationship or frequency of church attendance.

``Moreover, this goes beyond what title VII allows religious colleges to do in employment. Religious employers may favor religion--and only religion--in their employment practices. Title VII `does not confer upon religious organizations a license to make those [employment] decisions' on the basis of race, national origin, or sex. Decades of case law makes clear that religious employers do not get a license to discriminate on other grounds, even when such discrimination is motivated by religion or carried out under a `code of conduct.' ''

Mr. Chairman, what we have heard today from the other side are attempts to micromanage and insert themselves into the colleges and universities under the thin guise of protecting students.

In reality, this bill is one of many culture war bills that would strip America's educational institutions of their freedoms to explore the subjects that make up a comprehensive and rigorous academic experience.

For a coalition that claims to support limited government, they are using valuable title IV funds as a weapon to beat colleges and universities into submission. This stops us from having the necessary discussions on difficult issues about race, gender, and inequity that would help us improve our higher education system.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, we must reject the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York seeks to add religion to the definition of political tests, which already includes COVID categories of race, color, or national origin.

I fear this may cause confusion. As drafted, the language in the underlying bill's definition conforms with classes protected under title VI of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin in educational programs receiving Federal financial assistance.

There were a lot of debates when the law was written as to whether or not to include religion, and just like as it is now, it was not covered in the underlying bill. I think we are going to confuse the matter by trying to stick it in now.

Further, while religion is included in title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which covers employment discrimination, title VII protects discrimination also on the basis of sex. Notably, ``sex'' is not included in either definition of the political tests in the bill or by the amendment, which suggests supporters of the bill do not feel that the political tests that discriminate on the basis of sex need to be outlawed.

Mr. Chair, I just think that the inclusion of religion here would just confuse the matter of title VI or title VII. You would have another provision here with a cause of action where religion is in some, not in others, and for no apparent good reason other than a last- minute thought.

Mr. Chair, I would hope we would not accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his amendment, which restates what most of us think is present law, that violence is not protected by the First Amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I think any implication that the right to protest is an act of violence in and of itself would fly in the face of hundreds of years of First Amendment precedent. Those protests which, in fact, are violent are not protected. I am not sure that the amendment is necessary, but I am obviously not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, we received a letter, that I read from previously, from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Interfaith Alliance, which says, in part, relevant to this provision: ``We oppose the `Equal Campus Access' provision of the bill because it would sanction discrimination by religious student groups at public colleges and universities.''

I would say that the amendment doesn't really cure the problem of the provision in the underlying bill, as I am speaking both against the underlying bill as well as the amendment.

``To ensure that all students can participate, colleges and universities often have nondiscrimination policies, frequently called `accept-all-comers' policies, that require officially recognized student groups to allow any student to join, participate in, and seek leadership in those groups. These policies are important because they prevent student groups from discriminating. And because funding for student groups often comes from mandatory student-activity fees, accept-all-comers' policies also ensure that universities don't subsidize discrimination and guarantee that all students aren't forced to fund a group that would reject them as members.

``The Equal Campus Access provision, however, would prohibit public colleges and universities from enforcing accept-all-comers' policies.''

``Critically, this provision is not required by the First Amendment. Any student club can become a recognized group and access funds if it adheres to its school's nondiscrimination policy. And if a club decides it wants to impose requirements for membership and leadership that conflict with the school policy, it will not be silenced or driven off campus; instead, it, like any other club, simply will not be eligible for official recognition.''

I would hope that, Mr. Chair, that we would reject the amendment and the underlying bill on this provision because it would allow discrimination in violation of the policies, the accept-all-comers' policies, that many colleges elect to have.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source