Bill · H.R. 927· House(119-HR-927)
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of higher education from requiring ideological oaths or similar statements, and for other purposes.
- Introduced
- 2/4/2025
- Last activity
- 2/4/2025 — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Sponsored by
- Dan Crenshaw
- Cosponsors
- None
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill seeks to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965. It aims to prohibit institutions of higher education from requiring certain ideological statements or oaths. Specifically, it stops institutions from compelling students, employees, or contractors to endorse ideologies regarding differential treatment based on race, color, or ethnicity. It also limits requirements for providing information on views regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion or other immutable characteristics. Finally, it prohibits preferential consideration based on unsolicited statements supporting those specific ideologies.
Yes· 3 of 4
Does this protect the individual right to speak freely?+6
The bill protects individual expression by prohibiting institutions from compelling students or employees to endorse specific ideologies.
Would students be better off under this?+4
The bill protects students from being compelled to endorse specific ideological views or provide personal statements on diversity.
Would white Americans be better off under this?+3
The bill prevents institutions from requiring endorsements of ideologies focused on differential treatment based on race or ethnicity.
The opposite· 3 of 6
Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated?-3
The bill restricts institutions from considering or requiring statements regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts aimed at addressing racial disparities.
Would Black Americans be better off under this?-2
The bill may limit the ability of institutions to track or consider demographic information and social justice contributions.
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?-2
The bill limits requirements for providing information regarding ethnicity and experiences with social justice efforts.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Individual Expression: The bill prevents institutions from compelling or inducing students, employees, or contractors to endorse specific ideologies related to race, color, or ethnicity (Section 1, Clause (A)(i)(I)).
-
Reduction of Required Disclosures: Individuals would not be required to provide statements regarding their views on diversity, equity, inclusion, social justice, or other immutable characteristics (Section 1, Clause (A)(i)(II)(bb) and (cc)).
-
Minimization of Demographic Information: The bill limits the requirement for individuals to provide race, color, ethnicity, or national origin to only the minimum extent needed to record necessary demographic information (Section 1, Clause (A)(i)(II)(aa)).
-
Prevention of Unsolicited Preference: It stops institutions from giving preferential treatment to people who provide unsolicited statements in support of certain ideologies (Section 1, Clause (A)(i)(ii)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly listed in the text: The bill provides several exceptions to ensure that academic research, coursework, and the disclosure of research or artistic creations are not restricted (Section 1, Clause (B)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Freedom Of Speech+6
- Social Issues And Justice
- Improves Racial Equity-3
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Students+4Good For White Americans+3Good For People With Disabilities+2Good For African Americans-2Good For Asian Americans-2Good For Hispanic Americans-2Good For L G B T Q Community-2Good For Native Americans-2
- 2/4/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Introduced in House