Speech or Silence? The Future of the First Amendment in Higher Education

The subcommittee on higher education and workforce development will come to order. I note that a quorum is present and without objections the chairs is organized is is authorized to call recess at any time. College universities should strive to cultivate intellectual diversity on campus by to new and sometimes controversial ideas that they might not agree with. This mission is becoming a matter of urgency as students report increased intolerance to views that differ from their own. According to the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, FIRE, fifty-nine percent of students self-censor around other students at least once or twice a month. Even more concerning is seventy-one percent believe it's acceptable to shout down s- speakers to prevent them from speaking on campus. Fifty-four percent would accept blocking other students from attempting uh from attending a campus speech, and thirty-four percent believe using violence to stop a speech is justified. This is creating a, we are creating a culture that accepts fear, bullying, and cowardice as a culture versus a bold confidence and debate of ideas. This trend toward intolerance has serious implications for higher education as well as our well-being as a republic, and our We saw this this weekend uh with yet another attempted assassination of President Trump in his cabinet. Sadly in my state of Utah, we saw this with Charlie Kirk's murder. College students have a clear rights have clear rights on campuses, public sc- uh public universities should uphold the first amendment and private universities should abide by their own stated free speech policies. In addition, public universities must protect students' other first amendment freedoms. including freedom of assembler, assembling, the freedom from religious persecution. Yet these protections are not always upheld. Students in certain religions, religious, political, and single-sex organizations are under attack, sometimes unfortunately, by the same institutions whose mandate is to protect them. Today we'll hear from challenges of uh we'll hear about the challenges students are facing regarding their first amendment rights. We'll also discuss how well colleges and universities are upholding these pr- protections, highlighting both success and its shortcomings, and explore how we can strengthen their policies moving forward. Protecting free expression is essential, not only for the educational mission of our schools, but also for continued strength of our nation. I look forward to exploring ways colleges, universities, and Congress can better support students in exercising their First Amendment rights. Uh with that, I yield to the ranking member.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. Uh let me start with a point that I think I think everyone on this dais should agree on. Every student is entitled to the full protection of their first amendment and title six rights. Even deeply offensive speech could be propped, uh, depending on the context. But we should also be honest about what the first amendment does and and does not do. It protects speech from government interference, but it is not absolute. Courts have made clear that certain narrow categories of speech, like obscenity, the defamation, and and words can can be restricted. And institutions of of higher education also have the legal obligations under civil rights laws including title six to ensure that's that students are not subjected to unlawful discrimination or a hostile learning environment. So this is not a simple issue. It requires balance, judgment, and respect for both free expression and free opportunity. Unfortunately, what we often see, especially in hearings like this, is not a good faith effort to strike that balance, but a selective narrative. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle frequently claim that there's a free speech crisis on college campuses, arguing that universities lack viewpoint diversity and silence certain perspectives. But the data does not support that claim. Across thousands of institutions, only a small number of incidents each year involve efforts to disinvite speakers or disrupt events. This is not a systemic problem warranting congressional intervention. What's more troubling is the inconsistency. So if the concern is truly about viewpoint diversity, then we should protect all viewpoints, not just those that align with a particular political agenda. Yet, yet many of the same voices raising these concerns have supported efforts to restrict what can be taught and discussed on campus, particularly regarding diversity, equity, We've seen attempts to ban courses, limit classroom discussions about race and inequality, and penalize institutions for engaging in work that reflects the diversity of their students. We have seen students harassed by targeted for expre- or targeted by expressing viewpoints that differ from a preferred political ideology. And we have even heard calls that suggest international students could could face consequences, including deportation for engaging in protests or controversial speech. That's not a principled defense of viewpoint uh uh uh diversity or of the First Amendment. That's using free speech as a political weapon. At the same time, colleges and universities are navigating real challenges. Public institutions must uphold the First Amendment while also complying with Title Six and ensuring that all students have access to an education education free from unlawful discrimination, courts have been clear that speech on matters of public concern, even when it is offensive or deeply unpopular, remains protected. But when conduct crosses the line into targeted harassment that creates a hostile environment, institutions have a responsibility to act. These are complex facts, sp- specific determinations, they're not well suited to to broad one size fits all mandates from Congress. And that brings me to my final point. Congressional oversight exists to serve the public good, not to strong-arm universities and to policing students' political opinions. Legislating uh which ideas can be expressed on a college campus is a direct assault on academic freedom and the First Amendment. And we should be very cautious about inserting Congress into decisions about campus speech, academic curricula, or diversity initiatives. The First Amendment is a constraint on government power, not a license for government to dictate what can be said, taught, or debated on college campuses. As long as institutions uphold students' civil rights and comply with the law, it is not Congress's role to micromanage how they foster dialogue, inclusion, and academic freedom. If. If we're serious about defending free speech, then we must do so consistently, not just when it is politically convenient and not just for viewpoints that we agree with. Our responsibility is to protect both the First Amendment and the civil rights of all students. Those goals are not in conflict, but they do require honesty, consistency, and restraint. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. Pursuant to committee rules eight C, all members of the who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to community uh community clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by five p m fourteen days after this hearing without objections the hearing records will remain open for fourteen days to allow such statements and other materials noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I would now like to turn uh to introduce introduction of the four uh four distinguished witnesses the first witness is Mister Tyson Langerford um

Thank you.

new counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom in Washington, D. C. Um second witness is Mr. Jud Horace, President and CEO of uh North American Inter- Interfraternity Conference in Fishers, Indiana. Our third witness is Mr. Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney at the American S- Civil Liberties Union in New York, New York. And our fourth witness is Stephen McGuire, the Paul and Karen Levy uh fellow in Campus Freedom. at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We thank the witnesses for being here today and and look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I would ask you to each limit your oral presentations to a three-minute summary of your written statement. As committee members have many questions for you, the clock will count down from three minutes. However, pursuant to r- committee rule eight D, the committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you've reached the five-minute mark. I'd also like to remind

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, and members of the subcommittee.

Good morning.

My name's Tyson Langhofer. I'm Senior Counsel with Alliance Defending Freedoms, Center for Free Speech. Alliance Defending Freedom is the world's largest legal organization committed to protecting free speech, religious freedom, parental rights, and the sanctity of life in the family. Among other things, My team works to protect the constitutional rights of students and faculty at America's public schools and universities. We've secured more than four hundred and thirty-five victories for free speech and religious freedom on America's public K through twelve and college campuses. As one recent example, we represented Maggie DeJong in a lawsuit against officials at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. School officials issued three no contact orders against Maggie, simply for sharing her conservative political views and religious beliefs on social media and d- during discussions with other. These orders were issued without any due process and without even informing Maggie of the allegations against her. We also recently represented Ratio Christi, a Christian apologetic organization organization, in a lawsuit against officials at the University of Houston, Clear Lake. The university denied the group official recognition because Ratio Christi requires its leaders to agree with its values and missions. Other campus organizations have leadership requirements, but are still granted recognition. Now these violations didn't occur because the law is unclear. The Supreme Court has made clear time and again that the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. The court explained that this is true because the core principles of the First Amendment acquire a special significance in the university setting where the free and unfettered interplay of competing views is essential to the institution's educational mission. Now unfortunately, most public universities are actively violating these freedoms in at least two different ways. First, they adopt policies that unconstitutionally censor student speech. Some common examples are policies that restrict student speech in the outdoor areas of campus to very small speech zones, or policies that censor or punish speech that the school or other students subjectively say is demeaning or uncivil, or policies that allocate student activity fees in a viewpoint discriminatory manner, by denying requests from certain certain student groups to access these funds to host events. Finally, they're, they use policies that deny official recognition to religious student groups because they require their leaders to agree to the group's statement of faith. Now these policies are most commonly enforced against conservative and religious students to shut down speech that others disagree with. Another common way that universities violate student speech rights is by refusing to enforce university policies, and instead allowing other students and faculty to violently disrupt or shout down student events. We've also seen a rise in universities issuing no contact orders against for simply expressing Orthodox, conservative, or religious views. The widespread nature of these policies demonstrates that today's colleges have failed to educate their students about the rights afforded by the First Amendment and about their duties as citizens of this great country. Instead, they've enacted policies to punish speech they deem contrary to the majoritarian view on campus. That's the essence of fear, the opposite of freedom, and contrary to the purpose of the university and the First Amendment. I commend the

Thank you. Thank you so much. I now recognize Mister Horace for your testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you on behalf of over three hundred thousand college men for the opportunity to be here today. You can imagine I often get the question, are fraternities still relevant in society? I always start my answer with these two facts. In the past twenty years, the suicide rate for college age men has grown four times faster than the suicide rate for college women. Today, for every hundred men that graduate with a college degree, a hundred and thirty-two women are graduating with college degrees. These issues are addressed through fraternity experience. The research has proven time and again that students that join fraternities have lower anxiety depression, and feelings of loneliness than students who do not join fraternities. Fraternities, if you join in your first semester of college, you are more likely to persist to graduation than if you do not join a fraternity as a college man. What's most important for everyone to hear is these results are most pronounced in first generation students who join fraternities. That is to say, those students benefit the most from the experience. We work with five hundred and fifty campuses across the country. Approximately a hundred and fifty have specific restrictions only applying to single-sex organizations that do not apply to other organizations on their campus. The most egregious example is Harvard University. In twenty sixteen, Harvard enacted a policy that punished their own students simply for belonging to a single-sex organization. Their dean justified it by saying, " This action is targeting the behavior and conduct of a few students in a few organizations." And acknowledged that other students who have done nothing wrong but join a single-sex organization, the negative impact of losing that experience, well that is just collateral damage for our overall goal. Collateral damage. The freedom of association Education Act and higher education has passed this committee twice in the last seven years, when controlled by Democrats and Republicans. For that, thank you. I want to close with this thought that's more personal. I have a daughter at Iowa State University. I have witnessed in the last two years her growth in maturity and confidence and resiliency. And it is directly responsible because she has benefited from her sorority experience. So this bill is about kids as parents, it's about a million young men and women who belong in single sex organizations. And by passing this gin out of committee, you are making two powerful statements. One, the freedom of association on college campuses is something we should protect and preserve. And two, more importantly, no student is collateral damage. Their growth and development, wherever they come from, is something that our country believes in and will always support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Uh and I'd like now like to recognize Mr. Sykes for your testimony.

Good morning, Chair Wahlberg, Ranking Member Scott, Subcommittee Chair Burgess, Subcommittee Ranking Member Adams, and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the ACLU, thank you for the privilege of testifying today on this critically important topic. A generation ago, our highest court recognized that quote "the essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study, and to evaluate. To gain new maturity and understanding, otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die. That case, Sweezy versus the State of New Hampshire, was about a state law requiring public university professors to profess loyalty oaths and renounce communism. The Supreme Court said the law was misguided and un-American. Throughout the ensuing decades, we've seen free speech and academic freedom rights challenged on cop- college campuses across the country. While the details of campus speech jurisprudence can get murky, one thing is clear. The government cannot censor students, instru- instructors, or even visitors just because the government doesn't like the ideas they express. The principle of viewpoint neutrality when regulating s- campus speech is paramount. The ACLU has been vigorously advancing this principle for over a hundred. It's worth noting that academic freedom and campus speech rights can operate somewhat differently on public and private universities, because public universities are themselves governmental entities subject to the limitations of the First Amendment. Public colleges and universities occupy a special place in our society, as government-funded institutions, responsible for pushing the bounds of our understanding of the world around us. Censorship in the academy is therefore especially dangerous. In my written testimony I highlighted six where First Amendment rights are being restricted on campuses. Campus speech, censorship of non-citizen scholars and students through weaponized immigration authority, limitations on student groups, curriculum censorship, punishment for online speech by students and professors, and retaliatory investigations and funding restrictions on universities for ideological conformity. Today, I'll focus on just two. First, curriculum censorship. In recent years, we've seen unprecedented efforts by state and federal to regulate what ideas can be taught in public colleges and universities. According to Penn America, as of twenty twenty five, more than fifty percent of college students go to school in a state that has enacted at least one curricular censorship law or policy. Traditionally, academic freedom has served to protect inter- individual professors from censorship as well as to protect the university from interference by courts and the political branches of government. This traditional understanding of academic freedom is Recently, professors at Ca- California community colleges has have successfully challenged mandatory DEI statements that infringe on academic freedom. At the same time, perfectly legitimate DEI programs that encourage participation and belonging are being targeted by the Trump administration. In one ACLU case, we're challenging Florida's Stop Woke Act, which prohibits, quote, " espousing eight concepts related to race and sex." In federal court, Florida has One, campus has argued that there is no such thing as academic freedom in public universities, that they are entirely subject to the whims of the party in power. This cannot be how our world-class public ins- educational institutions are meant to be run, nor is it consistent with the First Amendment. Second, campus speech controversies are as old as campuses, but the pervasiveness of social media has added a new layer. When students or professors share controversial or offensive views online, The ACLU has always stood for the principle that we need clear and fair First Amendment rules that apply to all regardless of viewpoint as we've seen recent examples of students being punished for all kinds of views online. I humbly submit that there is a great deal we can all do to help safeguard academic freedom in the First Amendment in higher education. First, we the people must remain vigilant against censorship from local school boards and state legislature. Together, we can ensure quality public education for all. Second, university leadership should remain focused on their academic and community missions. Advanced communication about expectations of community members is always a best practice, as are clear and viewpoint neutral rules about protest, student groups, and on-campus speakers. Finally, you all, Congress, should refrain from misusing your investigor- investigatory authority to intimidate universities and more importantly stop trying to commandeer fundamental community curricular and research decisions of universities by imposing ideological restrictions by legislation including funding cut-offs. The courts are not the only branch of government charged with protecting constitutional rights. Congress has an equal obligation to protect the Constitution, including by protecting academic freedom and the First Amendment in higher education. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today.

Thank you. Uh, I'd like to lastly recognize Mr. McGuire for your testimony.

Chairman Owens, Thank you, Mr. President, Thank you, Mr. President, Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, for the opportunity to testify today. As the Paul and Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni I direct our Campus Freedom initiative, which encourages colleges and universities to adopt policies that will help them to build cultures of free expression and openness to intellectual diversity. Institutions of higher education should be oasis for free inquiry and genuine debate. But as members of this committee know all too well, many schools have become bastions of intolerance, dominated by ideological monocultures, instilling fear that anyone who dares to stray from accepted dogmas will be punished and ostracized. Survey data reveal a troubling pattern of self-censorship coupled with intolerance. Sixty-five percent of students say they self-censor in class at least monthly, while seventy-one percent say shouting down a speaker could be acceptable, and thirty-four percent say the same thing about using violence to stop someone from speaking. Meanwhile, nearly sixty-four percent of faculty say they cannot voice their opinions at least occasionally, and almost thirty-nine percent say they are at least somewhat likely to self-censor in the selection of research projects. These statistics are not surprising, when one could be cancelled, as former Harvard professor, Carol Hoeven was, simply for saying there are two sexes. Or consider that about fifty percent endorse requiring job candidates to submit diversity statements, which many others view as inappropriate ideological litmus tests. Surveys of psychologists and sociologists have revealed that around a third of them would discriminate against conservatives or republicans in hiring decisions. So what should universities do to improve themselves? Actus Campus Freedom Initiative has graded over thirty institutions using our gold standard for freedom of expression. The average score so far is about an eleven out of twenty. Unlike the Ivy League, ACTA does not practice great inflation, and eleven is an F. Some universities are leading the way. The University of Wyoming received a score of eighteen. We will soon recognize the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for achieving a twenty out of twenty. Others are trying to improve their scores. Our initiative, still in its early stages, is creating a race to the top. Universities doing less well should begin by ensuring they have a strong policy protecting freedom of expression on campus. They should include free speech and academic freedom in their mission statements and among their core values. They should adopt policies of institutional neutrality. It is critical that students are taught their free expression rights and responsibilities during new student orientation. Administrative staff should also receive free expression training. Rules governing student organizations must be transparent and viewpoint neutral. Institutions should promote intellectual diversity and ensure that faculty hiring and promotion are free of ideological barriers. Schools that adopt these and other recommendations listed in our Acta Gold standard for freedom of expression will be well on their way to creating an institutional structure in which its campus culture or in which a campus culture of freedom can thrive. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. A vote has been called in the House. Pursuant on the previous order, the chair declares the committee in research, subject to the call of the chair, will plan to reconvene promptly ten minutes after the last vote has been called in a series. Uh, the committee now stands adjourned. Thanks for your patience.

Yes, we did.

hmm The committee will reconvene and come to an order following our recess. Uh, under committee rule nine, who now question witnesses under the five minute rule, I will recognize myself for the first five minutes. Uh, Mister Langhofer, Alliance Defending Freedom has sent speakers to college campuses who have been shouted down by students. Why should Congress in public be concerned that young people are becoming more intolerant and aggressive uh in to ideas that differ from their own views?

Uh, thank you, Chairman. Uh, that's a, it's a great question. I think it's really important. And, uh, in fact, um, I, uh, w- there's a, a recent survey that showed that Americans with graduate degrees are twice as likely as those with high school diplomas do. to support political violence.

Mm.

So what does that show us? That shows us that that that inds- individuals that are the most educated are the least likely to actually use reason and logic to uh to engage in political discourse. Rather they are willing to engage in violence. And that that is a real problem. And and when you pair that with the fact of the the lack of intellectual diversity, Yale just issued a a study this month um where it was a large survey that their faculty conducted and it and it showed they they came out and they said,

Hmm.

So, what is that telling us is it's telling us that that our universities are an echo chamber and what we know is that uniformity of thought breeds intolerance of disagreement so when you when you pair this uniformity of thought and then we don't have the environment where individuals can go and hear a spaker speaker they disagree with that creates a real problem. because individuals who have never heard the other side don't get to hear that side, and then they they they lose the opportunity to uh be persuaded and to understand that the other side has an uh you know has a valid argument.

Very good, thank you. Mister Horace, uh the First Amendment guarantees individuals the right to associate with others, including public uh campuses, but we know that colleges and universities don't always enforce their standards equally. What are some of the examples of Greek life uh being treated differently than other student organizations on campus?

Yeah, For in my remarks uh talked about Harvard, but another school that's out there is Duke University. They, on their own, with no research cited, decided that you could not join a single-sex organization until your sophomore year. They don't have that requirement for any other student organization. And when asked why the rationale, it's this is what we want to do. That left the choi- the students at Duke with a very difficult decision. We remain recognized by the school as a recognized organization or we have to operate independent off campus without their support. Both the men and women in that instance chose to operate independent off campus, which is not an ideal situation. The Freedom of Association Act in higher education actually will strengthen the relationships between single sex orgs and higher education, because it will treat, it will force everyone to be treated equal as all other student organizations. So we won't have to leave campus. in order to continue to have our rights of association.

Very good, thank you. Uh, Doctor McGuire, uh, based on the Campus Freedom Initiative, the Gold Standard, which evaluates university's First Amendment policies, how should in- how should institutions of higher education craft their policies around freedom of expression and its limits?

Thank you for the question. Yes, our Gold Standard covers twenty different policies and practices that we think colleges and universities should adopt to protect and promote freedom of expression on campus. Ultimately, The goal of course is to create a culture of freedom of expression and openness to intellectual diversity on campus uh but the first and critical step is to set a structure, put a structure in place uh that will allow for that kind of um activity to flourish. So as far as the kinds of uh policies that we recommend, at the top level we think it's critical to adopt something like the Chicago principles or a similar statement, a policy of institutional neutrality. You sort of set the table. That this is an institution that

Thank you. Um, I've always felt that when someone's uh is is confident about the way they think, and they have the ability to to be respectful for others and have that opportunity maybe talk and try to convince them come over one day. And that was old school, so I'm looking forward to getting back to our kids, being educated, be confident, to say we can discuss things we disagree with without being the word disagreeable, so appreciate that. Uh with that I'm gonna recognize my ranking member um for her purpose of question of witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, you don't look old school. You don't look old school. Let me start. where I always do on this issue. Free speech and and academic freedom both matter, and students deserve both. But this conversation can't be one-sided. Uh, what we're seeing isn't just debate on campus. It's growing pressure on what can be taught, who can speak, and how institutions operate. We hear talk of a free speech crisis, but the data show relatively few incidents each year. At the same time, there are real efforts to limit speech through curriculum restrictions, funding pressure and policies that may chill faculty voices. The First Amendment protects all viewpoints, even uncomfortable ones, but it isn't without limits. Institutions still have a duty under civil rights law to protect students from unlawful discrimination. So this is about balance, and we cannot overcorrect in ways that chill speech or ignore when speech crosses onto con conduct that that harms learning. And when students and faculty say they are self-censoring, that should concern all of us. A campus where people are afraid to speak is not a place of learning, it's a place of silence. Mister Sykes, let let me start here. Should faculty face repercussions for things they say in the classroom? Where does academic freedom begin and end in your view? And how do we draw a clear line between teaching controversial ideas and engaging in conduct that falls outside the bounds of a learning environment?

Thank you very much uh Representative Adams. It's true, academic freedom uh is of paramount importance, uh but the exact bounds of it are not always necessarily very clear. And so, while we do think that it's very important uh that especially in the in the areas of scholarship and research we empower our professors to explore things that are if uncomfortable, right? We need our researchers not to be confined by current understanding of any particular issue, never mind the current administration. Uh, so we've seen state legislatures, uh, boards of regents pass a variety of curriculum censorship laws throughout the country, more than, as I mentioned earlier, more than fifty percent of college students go to school in a state that currently has one of those policies. And so where those are in place, uh, they vary, but the most extreme examples, like the Stop Woke Act, which we have challenged, that you're not allowed to teach certain ideas. You're not allowed to mention certain ideas in class. And of course viewpoint diversity is extremely important, and the ACLU supports that idea, but what we're seeing is something quite different, which is responding to some perceived crisis with actual government authority to prohibit speech. Sorry.

OK, thank you. I wanna move on. I have a few more questions. Uh, uh, let me turn to private institutions. I taught at one for forty years. Uh, but as you know, they they operate under a different legal framework than public Uh, if a private university, Mr. Sykes, chooses to adopt a broader harassment policy, then what courts have outlined in Davis versus Monroe is part of its mission. Can it do so without infringing o- on a student's constitutional rights? And what guardrails should be in place to make sure that those policies are not used to suppress viewpoint diversity?

So, i- as you said, in general, the First Amendment binds uh government entities, which includes public Private universities are not bound by the First Amendment, so they have a lot more leeway to craft their own policies. So they because they are they do not have the same restrictions under the First Amendment except in California where there's a thing called Leonard Law, which essentially imports those restrictions. Private university of course have their own uh commitments to free speech, but they are not bound by the First Amendment per se.

Okay, let me let me ask you something more recent. Uh we've seen cases where universities, and I'll call out University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, are expanding oversight into the classroom itself, including policies that allow administrators to monitor or record instruction. That raises a serious question. At at what point does institutional oversight begin to chill academic freedom and the open exchange of ideas? At what point does the kind of oversight begin to chill faculty's speech and academic freedom, and what message does that send to students about where, whether it's safe to engage in open discussion?

Your Honor, I think it's totally uh sorry not your honor, I'm a I'm a litigator so you'll excuse me. Uh Representative Adams, uh it's absolutely true that within the confines of a university, they might make decisions about which uh courses to offer, which professors are being successful, and there might be all sorts of judgments about what's going on on campus, but that's very different and categorically different from prohibiting ideas and targeting certain thoughts and ideas that that the administration would like to eliminate.

Thank you very much, university.

Thank you. Now I'd like to r- recognize the Chairman of the full committee, my friend from Michigan, Mister Walbur.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thanks for putting this uh hearing together and the thanks to the panel for being here. It's important issue we discussed, especially since it's in America and the King yesterday referred constantly to our freedom, that comes under our constitution, our first amendment. And it was neat to hear. Uh, I'm proud to be the sponsor of, uh, H R fifty five O five, which is the equal campus access act of twenty twenty five, which would insure public colleges and universities don't treat religious student organizations, uh, differently than other student organizations due to their beliefs, their practices, uh, their speech, their leadership standards, or standards of conduct. Mister Langhofer, um, how has the the Alliance Defending Freedom supported religious organizations that have been denied official recognition by their university for enforcing their leadership requirements.

Thank you, Chair. We- we've represented uh many, many uh religious organizations throughout the country. It- it's not limited to any state, uh who are being denied on a regular basis recognition because simply because they require their leaders to adhere to a statement of faith. And a- and as the Supreme Court has recognized over and over again an association, uh, a private association can't carry out its mission unless it can ensure that its leaders actually agree to that mission. That makes sense for everybody. It makes sense for religious organizations. It makes sense for secular organizations. And unfortunately what we see all too often is public universities treating private universities differently. And in fact, we just uh had an issue with uh uh Atlantic Cape Community College, where it was denying, it specifically said religious organizations are the only organization that cannot access student funds that every other student pays into and it said religious organizations uh and and so it's singling them out and it's putting it uh uh putting the foot on the scale and stopping religious uh students from being able to fully participate in college life and I think that harms the religious students but it also harms all students because they're not they're not exposed to the full range of of beliefs at their campus.

Whether intentional or out of ignorance, that type of thing being done and having had it done probably many, many times over the years that we didn't catch and now we're waking up to it. I appreciate your work.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, Mister Horace, um, some colleges and universities have restricted the ability of students to join Greek life as you've indicated and as we've discussed bef- before. How is this an infringement on the freedom of association rights of students?

At the core, our organizations are about young men deciding what they wanna belong to. and being invited into that. That is an intimate connection between the student and the organization, and it's one that we should not get in the way of. We agree with higher education that the conduct of the students should be regulated in that there's a student code of conduct, but it should be equally applied to the students who belong to fraternities and sororities and students that belong to co-ed organizations or just general students. Specifically, I wanna give you an example. At the University of Virginia, there was a Rolling Stones article very, very troubling allegations of sexual misconduct from one fraternity. Now, aside from those allegations were proven to be not true and Rolling Stones was sued, justifiably so, the other part of the story is the entire fraternity and sorority community, based on that report, was shut down for months at a time and unable to operate. Students that were appalled with the allegations, students that didn't do anything wrong, students that are in on committees to fight sexual assault on on college campus, they were still suspended in their fraternity and sorority. There is no other place, athletes do are not treated this way,

Right.

other organizations are not treated this way, but for some reason, some institutions believe fraternities and sororities do not have the entitlement of due process as organizations or individuals.

Yeah. And the freedom of association is is hindered as well at that point, so.

That's right.

Um. Thank you. Doctor McGuire of the Campus Freedom Initiative conducts student surveys on free expression. Uh, what questions are included and do you see a difference in response within any subgroup of college students?

Thank you for the question. Yes, we ask questions about self-censorship. We ask questions about the political climate on campus. We ask questions about willingness to engage in intolerant behaviors, like shout-downs uh or violence, um all those sorts of things. And we survey enough students, in particular, institutions that were able to look at subgroups within the student population, and we notice routinely that uh conservative students are more likely to report that they self-censor compared to liberal students on campus and conversely, we find that conservative students are much less likely to endorse intolerant behaviors like willingness to shout down speakers compared to their liberal peers.

Interesting facts. Thank you so much. Uh my time has expired, I yield back.

Thank you. I would like to r- recognize my friend from Oregon, Miss P- Mongevichy.

Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'm sorry.

Uh, part of the title of this uh hearing is the future of the First Amendment in higher education, and I I I need to remind everybody that the the First Amendment doesn't in- just include the free speech clause, it also includes the establishment clause, uh, which is an important part of the First Amendment as well. There was widespread agreement, uh, that there would be no nationally established church. I just wanna get that out there, uh, because it's an important part of the First Amendment. As well. So, the Republican majority has repeatedly denounced diversity equity and inclusion initiatives, DEI. Just yesterday we had an entire hearing in the early childhood, elementary and secondary education subcommittee during which the majority tried to argue that DEI uh undermines excellence and harms students. They did that pretty unpersuasively in my opinion. And today the majority wants to talk about how we need more viewpoint diversity on college campuses. So clearly, diversity seems to be acceptable when used to advance educational opportunity for people with certain points of views, particularly on the far right, according to my colleagues, but other populations don't seem to deserve the same opportunities. And this hypocrisy is especially frustrating when we consider the very real issues students are facing across the country. They're navigating, students are navigating more than coursework, uh, gun violence on their campuses and their communities, cuts to essential programs like SNAP, threats of immigration enforcement that are creating fear and instability, rising barriers to access to health care, they're trying to build their futures during all of this, and importantly tuition costs are higher than ever, estate investment in higher education plummets. In fact, the save student loan repayment program is gonna be eliminated this summer, and many borrowers are gonna see their monthly loan loan payments skyrocket often by hundreds of dollars so a lot of challenges happening. That's what we should be having a hearing about, how to make college affordable. That would be really helpful, but instead my colleagues are continuing to villainize institutions.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Uh, there are lots of ways. Uh, there are lots of ways. Uh, Uh, I think what you pointed out, I think what you pointed out, uh, um, is an important one. is an important one. We have challenged several Trump executive orders That we have challenged several Trump executive orders regarding diversity, regarding diversity, equity and inclusion. equity, and inclusion. with regard to higher ed funding, with regard to research funding, and we've found these to be we've been mostly successful in the courts. Uh, the courts have not been, uh, willing to accept these types of infringements on academic freedom, but it has been staggering, the number of types of attempts, whether it's through deportation of students or all

That's been really

of these other mechanisms that have been used.

really challenging. I'd I'd be interested to hear from any of my Republican colleagues if they spoke to the vice president about this because his his mother-in-law is the head of a DEI department at a university. public university in in California. So if we wanna talk about limiting speech on campus, let's discuss some of the words that faculty and administrators are now instructed by this administration that they may not say. Uh, diversity, equity, and inclusion are obviously on that list, but some of the other words that the Trump administration has flagged to limit or avoid across federal agencies, for example, uh black with a capital B, words like female and women, to list a few more, immigrants, disabilities, Native American, mental health, multicultural, socioeconomic equal opportunity, both the terms gender and sex, and even the word historically. So according to government memos and agency guidance, the Trump administration has ordered all of these words to be removed from public-facing websites and eliminated in school curricula. So, Mister Chair, I would like to submit for the Record and New York Times article entitled, quote, " These words are disappearing in the new Trump administration." So I sum I submit colleagues that um this is suppression of free speech and if you wanna have a hearing about free speech whether it be on college campuses or anywhere in our country uh you need to speak up uh I suggest we use our s first amendment right to speak out while we still can about these issues and about how this administration is actually uh harming our free speech rights uh it's not college campuses yes we should have a diversity of opinions on college campuses absolutely of all places that's where we should have the free

Thank you. And I'd like to recognize my friend from Missouri, uh, Doctor Onder.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this important hearing and thank you for the witnesses for being here today. As a physician, I am tr- deeply troubled with the erosion of free speech in medical education. Across the country, medical schools have adopted sweeping DEI policies that function as ideological gatekeeping governing governing admissions, coursework, clinical training, uh, as uh, and, and even faculty advancement. These policies operate as mandatory belief systems that silence inquiry and undermine evidence-based medicine. This has been going on for a long time. I remember when I was graduating from medical school, we didn't take the Hippocratic oath, we took some World Health Organization oath. Uh, the students are instructed to view every aspect of care through a predetermined social job. They're told that gender identity must override biological sex, uh, and that, and, and, and, and that obesity is a primar- primarily a co- a product of oppression, and that questioning these claims could have professional consequences. Mandatory statements, oaths, orientations, and seminars enforce conformity while promotions and academic advancement come only to those who apply. And doctors who dare to question what is best for their patients are paying the price. Consider Doctor Alan Josephson, a nationally respected child psychiatrist who was invited by the Heritage Foundation to speak in his personal capacity about legitimate concerns about how to treat youth experiencing gender dysphoria. He spoke against subjecting children to harmful drugs and surgery in radical misguided attempts to treat the distress a child may be experiencing. After leading an otherwise exemplary career, he was swiftly demoted and then dismissed from his position at the University of Louisville. The courts upheld that he had engaged in First Amendment protected speech and had been unfairly retaliated against. Still, physicians like Doctor Josephson, who speak up, are rarely able to put the pieces of their career back together. I personally know of too many doctors, one a chair of endocrinology at a major medical school, who have similar stories. Doctors, nurses, and medical students, have to be able to ask questions and challenge assumptions to deliver appropriate health care. Free speech is the foundation of evidence-based medicine. Um, Mister Langhofer, can you tell us about the Alliance Defending Freedom's work in defending faculty, including Doctor Josephson, who have shared their views in their personal capacities while off campus?