The U.S. House’s education committee took up a familiar higher-ed topic on Wednesday: the state of campus free speech.
There have been at least four congressional hearings on the issue since 2017, all convened when Republicans controlled the chamber hosting it. Republicans have most often raised concerns about the state of campus free speech, specifically that colleges are silencing conservative voices and promoting liberal causes.
The latest rendition isn’t likely to inspire new laws in a divided Congress. Still, Wednesday’s discussion highlighted key debates that are likely to persist on campuses in the coming months, amid a fresh wave of student demands to disinvite speakers who hold views that some consider offensive.
The four witnesses who testified in front of lawmakers included one student and three representatives of free-speech advocacy organizations across the political spectrum: the Manhattan Institute, PEN America, and Speech First.
Here are some highlights from the hearing.
Lawmakers and witnesses sparred over whether campus free speech is truly in crisis.
Witnesses and conservative lawmakers said they’d heard about students who fear expressing their political opinions in class assignments because they worry that their professor would give them a lower grade. They added that some conservative students can’t organize clubs because they have been unable to find a faculty sponsor.
Rep. Burgess Owens, Republican of Utah and chair of the House’s Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development, urged his colleagues not to look away as college students are silenced by a “vocal minority” of “bullies.”
Democratic lawmakers characterized the hearing as hypocritical, given recent legislative efforts by conservative politicians in Florida and other Republican-led states to restrict campus diversity programs, faculty tenure, and teaching about certain concepts related to race and gender, among other things. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, Democrat of Oregon, said she was “deeply concerned” by what she described as recent examples of academic censorship.
“This is actual censorship — silencing voices you don’t agree with,” Bonamici said.
Rep. Robert Scott, Democrat of Virginia, characterized the hearing as an effort by conservative lawmakers to weaponize the First Amendment for “political theater” — which he said undermined campus support for students from underrepresented backgrounds.
“Today’s hearing is an example of MAGA Republicans hijacking our shared values of free speech and waging a one-sided campaign to protect conservative speech,” Scott said.
Recent surveys suggest that some students are hesitant to express their views on campus, but they’re most worried about pushback from other students, not from professors.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements came under scrutiny, with some saying that DEI efforts contribute to an unhealthy speech environment.
Owens said he believes diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements are acting as “political litmus tests” on college campuses.
While Owens acknowledged that colleges are free to choose to concentrate resources toward diversity, equity, and inclusion, he said that “the line is crossed” when faculty or students are obligated to sign on and endorse those beliefs.
Some colleges require faculty members to submit diversity statements explaining their commitment to supporting equity as part of the hiring and promotion process; nine state legislatures have proposed bills that would ban public colleges from using such statements, according to The Chronicle’s DEI Legislation Tracker.
“Let me remind everyone listening — we live in the free land of America,” Owens said.
Some witnesses argued that such requirements are contributing to an unhealthy environment on campus. Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said diversity, equity, and inclusion offices enforce an “orthodoxy” that stifles intellectual diversity on college campuses and excludes dissenting voices. Shapiro helped author a model bill that suggests banning diversity offices and staff from public colleges.
“It’s quite Orwellian,” Shapiro said. “We may have passed the point of no return in terms of the illiberal takeover of higher education.”
Administrators should play a key role in protecting speech on campuses, witnesses said, but experts were split on how the government should intervene.
Cherise Trump, executive director of Speech First, said college administrators represent an ever-growing “threat” to free expression — by using broad definitions of harassment and discrimination, as well as bias reporting systems to “chill and silence speech” on campuses. Students worry about being punished if they speak openly, she said.
To remedy this, it’s necessary that colleges and universities hire administrators who are committed to upholding free speech, the experts said.
“Strong policies aren’t enough if university leaders aren’t willing to stand up to those who demand censorship,” Shapiro said.
How should federal and state governments intervene? A divide emerged.
Shapiro called for external controls from state legislators and attorneys general as well as congressional oversight tied to federal funding. But Suzanne Nossel, executive director of PEN America, said endorsing legislation that adjudicates what can and cannot be said on college campuses could become a slippery slope.
“I think that’s a very dangerous route to go down,” Nossel said.