September 19, House Republicans narrowly passed the End Woke Higher Education Act, despite strong opposition from House Democrats. H.R. 3724, a 37-page document, incorporates two key bills: the Accreditation for College Excellence Act and the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act.
The Accreditation for College Excellence Act, introduced by Representative Burgess Owens of Utah, aims to ensure colleges are not required to adhere to (DEI) diversity, equity, and inclusion principles to receive accreditation. The bill prohibits accreditors from enforcing standards that compel institutions to support or oppose specific political or social beliefs, assess adherence to any ideology for accreditation, or violate constitutional rights. It also protects a college’s religious mission and allows religious accreditors to maintain adherence to religious practices or codes of conduct.
Opponents voiced concerns during House debates that the legislation would codify a Trump-era rule protecting religious student organizations’ rights to set their own policies. The Biden administration has proposed rolling back the rule, citing concerns that it could allow religious groups to discriminate against vulnerable and marginalized students, including LGBTQIA+ individuals.
The second bill included in H.R. 3724, Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act, ensures that public colleges fully uphold the First Amendment as a condition for receiving Title IV funds. The act, introduced by Congressman Brandon Williams (R-NY) and Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC), mandates that students be educated on their First Amendment rights, safeguards freedoms of association and religion, and prohibits “political litmus tests” for students, faculty, or applicants. It also requires institutions to disclose their First Amendment policies annually.
According to an announcement on their website, Association of American Universities President Barbara R. Snyder sent a letter to the House leadership outlining AAU’s many concerns with the bill. In particular, she highlighted how “the legislation would severely constrain public universities’ ability to assert time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech activities on university campuses – restrictions that the Supreme Court has long recognized as valid ways for campuses to regulate speech – and would harm universities’ ability to protect students, especially vulnerable groups such as Jewish students.”
Despite the written opposition from the American Council of Education, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, and the Association of American Universities, the House voted 213 to 201 to advance the legislation. Four Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the bill. Supporters of the legislation argued on the House floor that college campuses are not “places of thoughtful debate” but rather “a breeding ground for illiberal thought.”
“Any violations of the bill could result in a college losing access to federal financial aid for a year … Individuals could also sue colleges over alleged violations such as restricting protests. Higher education associations worry that could “spawn costly litigation,” said Steven Bloom, assistant vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education, in an interview with Inside Higher Education magazine.
