The subcommittee on higher education and workforce development will come to order. I note that a quorum is present and without objections the chair is organized is is authorized to call recess at any time. College universities should strive to cultivate intellectual diversity on
campus by exposing students 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 Foundation of Individual Rights and
Expression FIRE, 59% of students self-censor around other students at least once or twice a month. Even more concerning is 71% believe it's acceptable to shout down speakers to prevent them from speaking on campus. 54% would accept blocking other students
from attempting from attending a campus speech. And 34% believe using violence to stop a speech is justified. This is creating or 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, our republic and our nation's role in the in the world. We saw this this weekend uh with yet another attempted assassination
of President Trump and 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 school 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 the freedom of assembler assembly 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 uh we'll hear about challenges students are facing regarding their first amendment rights.
We'll also discuss how well colleges and universities are upholding these protections, highlighting both success and the 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, university and congress can better support students in exercising their first amendment rights. With that, I yield to the ranking member. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our witnesses for being here
today. Let me start with a point that I think everyone on this diet 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 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
obscinity, defamation, and and fighting 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 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, and inclusion. 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 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 severe consequences including deportation for engaging in protests or controversial speech. That's not a principled defense of viewpoint 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 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, specific determinations. They're not well suited to to broad
one-sizefits-all mandates from Congress. And that brings me to my final point. Congressional oversight exists to serve the public good, not to strongarm 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 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 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to committee uh committee clerk electronically in
Microsoft Word format by 5:00 p.m. 14 days after this hearing. Without objections, the hearing records will remain open for 14 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 four distinguished witnesses. First witness is Mr. Tyson Langford. Um, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom in Washington DC. Um, second witness is Mr. Jud Horus, president and
CEO of uh, North American Interraternity Conference in Fisers, Indiana. Our third witness is Mr. Emerson Sun Sykes, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, New York. And our fourth witness is Steven
Magcguire, 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 threeminut summary of your written statement. As committee members have many questions for you, the clock will countdown from three minutes. However, pursuant to committee rule 8D, the committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you've reached
the five minute mark. I'd also like to to remind the witnesses to be aware of your responsibilities to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. Uh, I would like to first recognize Mr. Langford for your testimony. >> Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Tyson Langhoffer. I'm senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom's 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 and 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 435 victories for free speech and religious freedom on America's public K through2 and college campuses. As one recent example, we represented Maggie D.
Young 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 during discussions with other students. These orders were issued
without any due process and without even informing Maggie of the allegations against her. We also recently represented Rashio Christie, 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 Rashio 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 univil 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 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 students 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 members of this this committee for recognizing the importance of protecting college students first amendment rights and I look forward to participating in today's discussion. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. I now recognize Mr. Hores for your testimony.
>> Thank you on behalf of over 300,000 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 20 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, 132 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 firstg generation students who join fraternities. That is to say, those students benefit the most from the experience. We work with 550 campuses across the country. Approximately 150 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 2016, 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 acknowledge 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 Act in 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. And I 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, Squeezy 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 unamerican. Throughout the ensuing decades, we've seen free speech and academic freedom rights challenged on co college campuses across the country. While the details of
campus speech juristp prudence 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
campus speech is paramount. The ACLU has been vigorously advancing this principle for over a hundred years. 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 areas 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 officials
to regulate what ideas can be taught in public colleges and universities. According to Pen America, as of 2025, more than 50% 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 under severe threat from all sides. Recently, professors at 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 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 worldclass public in ed 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, universities must decide whether to act. 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's 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 legislatures. 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 protests, student groups, and on-ampus speakers. Finally, you all Congress should refrain from misusing your investig investigatory authority to intimidate universities and more importantly stop
trying to commandeer fundamental 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. I'd like to lastly recognize Mr. McGuire for your testimony. >> Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams,
distinguished members of the committee. 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 oases 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. 65% of students say they
self-censor in class at least monthly, while 71% say shouting down a speaker could be acceptable, and 34% say the same thing about using violence to stop someone from speaking. Meanwhile, nearly 64% of faculty say
they cannot voice their opinions at least occasionally, and almost 39% 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 Hooven was,
simply for saying there are two sexes. Or consider that about 50% of faculty 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? ACT campus freedom initiative has graded
over 30 institutions using our gold standard for freedom of expression. The average score so far is about an 11 out of 20. Unlike the Ivy League, ACT does not practice great inflation and 11 is an F.
Some universities are leading the way. The University of Wyoming received a score of 18. We will soon recognize the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for achieving a 20 out of 20. 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 active gold standard for freedom of expression will be well on their way to creating an institutional structure in which its campus culture of 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 and research subject to the call of the chair. We plan to reconvene promptly 10 minutes after the last vote has been called in the series. Uh the committee now stands observed. Thanks for your patience.
The committee will reconvene and come to an order following our recess. Uh under committee rule nine, we'll now question witnesses under the five-minute rule. I will recognize myself for the first five minutes. Uh Mr. Langoffer, Alliance Defending Freedom has sent
speakers to college campuses who have been shouted down by students. Why should Congress and public be concerned that young people becoming more intolerant and aggressive uh to ideas that different from their own views? >> Thank you, Chairman. Uh that's it's a great question. I think it's really
important. And in fact, um I there's a recent survey that showed that Americans with graduate degrees are twice as likely as those with high school diplomas to support political violence. So what does that show us? That shows us that that the in 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 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 that echo chambers don't produce the best re teaching research and scholarship. Yet Yale has a 36 to1
Democrat to republican ratio in their faculty. So what is that telling us is it's telling us that that our universities are an echochamber 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 sp 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
you know has a valid argument. >> Very good. Thank you Mr. Horus. Uh the first amendment guarantees individuals the right to associate with others including public uh campuses. But we know that college 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, I 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 cho the students at Duke with a very
difficult decision. We remain recognized by the school as a recognized student 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 Dr. McGuire uh based on the campus freedom initiative's gold standard which evaluates universities 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 20 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. These sort of set the table that this is an institution that respects freedom of expression and that is open to debate
and a variety of points of view. And then from there you need to look at the policies that affect students in terms of uh conduct inside and outside of the classroom um as well as the organization of student groups. Uh all of these policies should be uh content or
viewpoint neutral. Uh and they should be geared towards allowing for robust debate and a wide variety of views to be present. Thank you. Um I've always felt that when someone's is is um confident about the way they think, then they have the
ability to to be respectful for others and have that opportunity to maybe talk and try to convince them to come over one day. And that was old school. So I'm looking forward to getting back to our kids being educated to be confident to say we can discuss things we disagree with without being the word disagreeable. So appreciate that. Uh with that, I'm going to recognize
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 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. Mr. 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 uncomfortable, right? We need our
researchers not to be confined by the 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 50% 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 stopwoke act which we have challenged
say 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. >> Okay. Thank you. I I want to move on. I have a few more questions. So, uh, let me turn to private institutions. I taught at one for 40 years. Uh, but as you know, they they operate under a different legal framework than public universities. Uh, if a private
university, Mr. Sykes, chooses to adopt a broader harassment policy than what courts have outlined in Davis versus Monroe as part of its mission, can it do so without infringing on on a student's constitutional rights? And what guard rails should be in place to make sure
that those policies are not used to suppress viewpoint diversity? So as you said in general the first amendment binds uh government entities which includes public universities. 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 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 universities of course have
their own uh commitments to free speech but they are not bound by the first amendment per se. >> 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 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 Sorry, not your honor. I'm I'm a litigator, so you're 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. Universities just don't benefit from the First Amendment. They help make it real. First Amendment in turn protects the university as a place for debate and discovery. We got to be careful not to undermine it either. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back. Thank you. >> Thank you. I would like to recognize the chairman of full committee, my friend from Michigan, Mr. Wahberg. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for putting this hearing together and I thank the panel for being here. It's important issue we discuss especially since it's in America and the king
yesterday referred constantly to our freedom that come under our constitution our first amendment and it was neat to hear. I'm proud to be the sponsor of HR5505, which is the Equal Campus Access Act of
2025, which would ensure public colleges and universities don't treat religious student organizations uh differently than other student organizations due to their beliefs, their practices, their speech, their leadership standards or standards of
conduct. Mr. Mr. Langhoffer. 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've represented uh many many uh religious organizations throughout the country. 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 and as the
Supreme Court has recognized over and over again, an association, a private association can't carry out its mission unless it can ensure that its leaders actually agreed 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 Atlantic Cape Community College where it 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 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, Mr. Horus, um, some colleges and universities have restricted the ability of students to join Greek life, as you've indicated and as we've discussed 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 want to 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 want to give you an example. At the University of Virginia, there was a Rolling Stones article that alleged 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 allegation, 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. 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 Dr. Magcuire. 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 shoutdowns or violence. Um, all those sorts of things. And we
survey enough students at particular institutions that we're 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. My time has expired. I yield back. >> Thank you. Now, I'd like to recognize my friend from Oregon, Missi.
>> Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. >> I'm sorry. Part of the title of this 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 just include the free speech clause. It also includes the
establishment clause, 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 want to 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, the 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 as state investment in higher education plummets. In fact, this save
student loan repayment program is going to be eliminated this summer and many borrowers are going to see their monthly loan loan payment 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 institutes of higher education. Uh unfortunately, it feels like it's to further a political agenda. Mr. Mr. Sykes, how have the Trump administration's actions to limit uh diversity, equity,
and inclusion programs resulted in a stifling of free speech on college campuses? >> Thank you very much. Uh there are lots of ways. Uh I think what you pointed out uh is an important one. We have challenged several Trump executive
orders regarding diversity, 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 these other mechanisms that have been used. >> Really challenging. I' 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 a head of a DEI department at a university in public
university in California. So, if we want to 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, 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, LGBTQ, 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 Mr.
Chair, I would like to submit for the record a New York Times article entitled, quote, "These words are disappearing in the new Trump administration." So I sub I submit to you colleagues that um this is suppression of free speech and if you want to 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 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 exchange of ideas. This administration is making that harder. Uh and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. I'd like to recognize my friend from Missouri, Dr. Hander.
>> 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 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. And this has been going on for a long time. I remember when I was graduating from medical school, we didn't take the hypocratic oath. We took some World Health Organization oath. Uh the students are instructed to view every aspect of care through a
predetermined social justice lens. They're told that gender identity must override biological sex. Uh and that and and and that obesity is a prim 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 in 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 Dr. 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 Dr. 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, Mr. Langhoffer, can you tell us about the Alliance Defending Freedom's work in defending faculty, including Dr. Josephson, who have shared their views in their personal capacities while off campus?
>> Sure. Thank you, Representative. Uh, I think Dr. Josephson's story is is the quintessential example. As you said, he had a 40-year career in academia. He had led University of Louisville for 16 years. From 2014 to 2016, he had perfect
marks on his reviews. In 2017, he spoke about the treatment of children with gender dysphoria. And what did he say? He said simply, hey, we need to understand the underlying cause of these ch what why these children are questioning their gender gender dysphoria before we give them irreversible medical treatments. And so
uh and but yet because of that he was fired. Not and the the real concerning thing was not a single one of his faculty members watched his video to see what he said and came and debated him and said let's have a discussion. There was not a single discussion. Uh yet
within weeks he was demoted. That is a huge concern with medical schools training the next generation but also for the treatment of children. and what he said. He's been completely exonerated by the cast report which came out of the UK just this last year.
>> The cast report out of the UK, Finland, remember transing kids was supposed to prevent suicide in young in girls and young women, doubling the rate of serious mental illness in boys.
uh sexupling six times sexupling the rate of serious mental illness in kids who were subjected to chemical and surgical mutilation and of course the HHS report as well he has been exonerated and even before those reports
um Mr. Langhoffer. It's it it is it is clear that children with gender dysphoria often suffer from psychiatric comorbidities, anxiety, depression. Some are victims of abuse. Some are on the autism spectrum. To not ask the question,
why is why why gender dysphoria? No, that's just who they are. Um the getting away from asking questions is a problem in American medicine. Dr. Marty McCary wrote an excellent book called Blind Spots on this subject. But no, thank you for ADF's work in defending Dr.
Josephson and for standing for free speech. I appreciate it. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. I'd like to now recognize recognize my friend from California, Mr. Dakota. >> Uh, thank you. Uh, Mr. Emerson, as an ACLU First Amendment litigator, you have represented both conservative and
liberal clients, right? >> Yes. In fact, uh we were just exchanging that uh uh Ty I helped write an amicus brief defending the Turning Point USA's right to open a chapter at Arkansas State in a case that was litigated by Mr. >> Langoffer. So, you know, liberals or
conservatives, you know, we have we all have a stake in freedom of speech. Uh is that would you agree with that? >> Absolutely. So, but I want I want to make a contention here, a claim that no previous administration has tested the limits of the first amendment and higher
education uh like this administration. Mr. Sykes, the Secretary of Education uh Linda McMahon has stated that she believes that, and I quote, quote, "Universities should continue to be able to do research as long as they're abiding by the laws uh and in sync, I
think, with the administration." and what I think the administration is trying to accomplish." End quote. Mr. Sykes, is it legal to condition federal funding for academic institutions based on whether they are quote unquote in sync with the administration's ideology?
>> We think that's totally inappropriate. Uh, of course the government can set some conditions on its funding, but returning to the previous round of questions. What we've seen is not conditions about how it may be used or or or the or normal limitations on
federal grants. What we've seen is bans on things like gender ideology. So, you're not allowed to get funding to research an idea. Whether you agree with a particular conception of gender ideology or not, medical professionals are going to come in contact with people
who have different views, different experiences. And the idea that the federal government is now prohibiting folks from studying things that are happening in the world to provide medical advice, we think is of the gravest proportions. >> So can the government disqualify an institution for federal funds because
they disagree with them, disagree with the government? >> That should not be the case. No. Federal data shows that the administration has targeted more than 4,000 grants for termination over to over 600 universities and colleges across the country affecting institutions in every
state. That totals up to billions of dollars in funding that went to all types of institutions public, private, land grant, and community colleges. Mr. Sykes, how does the conditioning of federal grants affect students and faculty's exercise of free speech on
campus? Well, it can be direct in terms of withdrawing funding for research that is vitally important as we said to pushing the bounds of our understanding of the world around us. Uh, of course, but it can also be indirect. Uh, and so students ability to study with particular professors to explore
particular ideas can be stifled by these state laws or these executive orders that limit that limit funding uh for particular types of research and ideas. So, does this type of cutting of research that I've described, research funding, uh, protect free speech?
>> I think it does the opposite. >> Does the opposite. The administration has not only flexed its funding powers, it has also used other offices and investigatory agencies to ensure that institutions are quote unquote in sync with their priorities. Mr. Sykes, how has the Trump administration used this
investigatory power over colleges to regulate speech on campus? excessively. Uh we've seen lawsuits filed against multiple universities, threats of lawsuits, threats to funding, threats of all types of federal actions against universities strictly to try to
enforce ideological conformity. And this kind of meddling in the academy is unprecedented. At various points over the last year, the Trump administration has has attempted to force universities and colleges to agree to their demands, most notably in their quote compact for
academic excellence in higher education unquote, which was dispersed to nine universities on October 1st. This compact includes requirements relating to hiring practices, international student enrollment, definitions of gender, commitments to quote unquote
institutional uh neutrality, uh and the shuttering of departments that quote unquote punish, belittle, or spark violence against conservative ideas. End quote. Mr. Sykes, government overreach and legality questions aside, if a campus were to enter uh into a compact
like the one that the administration has already proposed, what would the immediate and long-term impacts be on research and scholarship produced by that institution? >> Well, it would be extremely detrimental. I mean thankfully the universities uh almost all rejected the compact
understanding what a grave threat it is to their independence and to academic freedom not only on those campuses but on campuses across the country. >> Well thank you. If my colleagues on the majority want to be champions of free speech then be champions of free speech. If you are unbiased defenders of the
first amendment then address the violations in your own administrations in your own administration. Um, I uh I yield back, Mr. Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. And I'd like to recognize my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Harris. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And uh thank
you to all the witnesses for uh your expertise and what you've shared with us today. I enjoyed reading your uh testimonies that you shared in advance as well as hearing you today. Uh Mr. Langhoffer. Over the past several decades, we have witnessed colleges and
universities engage in a concerted effort to restrict the free and open exchange of ideas and campuses across the country. These colleges and universities have shut down civil discourse and made it extremely difficult for religious and political student organizations to receive
recognition on campus when a student group's recognition is an entryway for access to campus resources like access to a portion of student activity fees, the option to reserve meeting space on campus at no expense, and the ability to
advertise the organization to other students. It's no surprise that colleges have weaponized the recognition and mandatory fee processes against student groups they do not like. One example of this came in light or came to light in a 2020 lawsuit against Cal State
University, San Marcos, which found that the Gender Equity and the LGBTQA Pride Center on campus received a combined $296,498 to fund their activities. while a recognized student for life group was
denied a $500 grant request. This is just one clear example of how many colleges and universities show ideological preferences and funding with no transparency for how funding decisions are approved or denied. So my question for you, Mr. Langhoffer is when
religious and political student organizations have the recognition and mandatory fee process used against them. What typical recourse or appeals process do these groups actually have with colleges and universities before they
come and turn to groups like yours at the Alliance Defending Freedom for help. >> Thank you, Representative. uh you know unfortunately uh most colleges and universities have uh these large uh funds student activity fee funds and they give the student government the uh
the ability almost free reign to allocate those funds. And what we've seen with student governments is they are very ideologically to the left. And so they that allows them to fund the groups they like and defund the ones they don't. And uh there is no appeal process many times. Sometimes there's
appeal but even that appeal just goes to an administrator and there isn't any check on their authority. So what they're forced to do is come to our organization and we have to file a lawsuit. The problem is uh college students only have four years there. It might be their second or third year there. They're not going to get through
this lawsuit, this federal lawsuit uh in time in order to be able to see the ability to have, you know, these important conversations. at San Marcos. My client just wanted to pay $500 to a a speaker to to speak on a pro-life issue on campus. As you said, the other organizations got 300 grand. There was a
hundred student organizations that got $5,000 to share com total 300,000 to two, 5,000 to 100. That's not fair and it's unconstitutional. And even yes, we were able to vindicate their rights in federal court, but it it wasn't in time for those students who saw it to be able
to actually use that. That's not fair and it's sending the wrong message to not only my clients about all to the students that their viewpoint is not welcome on campus. >> Well, it it's not fair. It's unconstitutional as you say, but it's also very telling of the realities that we face. I mentioned in the example
earlier, many universities do charge these mandatory fees for activities and clubs, but fail to distribute them fairly among student organizations. How has ADF challenged these unfair funding practices that that are impacting the religious and political student
organizations? >> So, one great example is the Cal State example. And the good thing about that was we were able to see the entire Cal State system, which is the largest university system in the nation. We estimated that there was over $50 million every year that they allocated through their 25 campuses. That is a lot
of money that students can use to bring diverse viewpoints to campus. Through that lawsuit, we were able to change the entire systems uh allocation process so that all of the pro the student fees are now allocated in a viewpoint neutral manner so that all students at Cal State campuses have access to that pursuant to
the Supreme Court president. And and we think that made a huge impact. We sued University of Florida several years ago as well, which has over $20 million that they allocate every year and it was being done in an unfair unconstitutional manner and now every student at Florida has the ability to access those funds. >> Well, thank you, sir. Uh Mr. Orus, real
quickly, I have just about 20 seconds, but you mentioned being able to see university violations of students rights falling into four broad categories. Want to give you just a moment to mention those four broad categories, what they are, and um how this is affecting the
Greek community. >> Well, I'll give you two in my short amount of time. The first is the basic access to the experience. Often fraternity and sorority members are required to wait longer periods than any other student to join any other student
organization. That limits their association rights and frankly limits their college experience in an unfair inconsistent manner. The second is oftent times the allegations of misconduct which should be investigated and should be taken through student code
of conduct for individuals and orgs with clear credible allegations. They then are applying suspensions to all of the other organizations of similar nature. At North Carolina State, if the football team was accused of hazing, that team
should be investigated. But there's no possible way that the basketball team or the women's softball team should be suspended and not have their season. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'm out of time. Yield back. >> Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my friend from California, Mr. Dier.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. um reminded of a story I heard some time ago about Jefferson explaining to somebody who came to Montichello and asked him you have those buss in the entryway um why do you have Hamilton facing you and he
said you don't agree on anything and he and two people who clearly believed in education literacy and thought higher education was important and Jefferson's response to why he had Hamilton there when they said you don't agree with him on anything he said that's Why? So in
that context, I find this frustrating because I think of higher education in the context of America and being a Californian with a district with a lot of alumni and staff from the University of California because my district is right next to it. Um is having this free
expression is shouldn't be it should be joyful just as Jefferson mentioned that Hamilton and he would fight. Um but it's become so politically um us against them without the acceptance that they might be right occasionally. I just want to make sure
my colleagues aren't saying I think they're right. Maybe occasionally. So Mr. Sykes in that context um how do we create an open environment that um in education that
people irrespective of their ideological beliefs feel that they can have an open discussion. And this is also in the context of money and politics and in higher education. >> Thank you so much. Yes. I mean there's so much that universities can do to
foster an environment of free expression and understanding. Uh making people feel welcome, making people feel comfortable is a part of that work as well. Uh but of course they cannot do that without uh they cannot do that by eliminating views
that are controversial. Uh and so we have worked with universities. I'm a professor at a university myself. Uh and there's all sorts of things that teachers can do on the classroom level, deans can do at the departmental level uh and universities can do at the institutional level to improve this
situation. The problem that we're seeing now is the political branches trying to intervene uh and determine what types of ideas can be expressed and learned about in these higher education institutions. >> And you mentioned um social media. has had a huge impact obviously as a member
from the Bay Area. Um could you go a little further on that is how that's impacting higher education and first amendment um abilities. >> Sure, your honor. >> And the fact that the social media companies are li until recently have
been very uh impervious to any kind of liability for the consequences of how people use social media. >> Yes, your honor. As we said, the the first amendment binds government uh and therefore it does not bind social media companies. They have their own first amendment rights. Uh but these are tough
questions about sort of how do schools balance their responsibility to keep campuses safe uh while also having an obligation to respect all viewpoints. I'll just say the ACLU has recently advocated for free speech rights of students and professors uh talking about
Gaza, talking about all sorts of issues within the United States. I even wrote a brief recently in a case involving a self-described white Christian nationalist law law student. Uh and so even for the most abhorrent types of views, we need to be vigilant in making sure that we create an environment where
ideas are open to being tested. >> And how does ACLU get their funding? Where do most of your funds come from? >> Mostly from small donors. >> Okay, Mr. after you get a lot of funds from very large not unsurprising donors who
support your position. Is that where most of your funds come from? >> Primarily from uh smaller individual donors. >> Do you have a percentage? >> I don't know that. >> Okay. Mr. Horses, how how do you pay your mortgage? >> Well, most of it comes from student
fees. Um and so one of the reasons why we need this bill is they shouldn't be paying for litigation against their in host institution. They should be paying for tuition and it should be applied to help them get through college. So this bill will help strengthen those
relationships of the students with their institutions by being treated by being treated fairly. Okay. Mr. Brier, you have anything to add on any of the questions I've asked social media or just how we keep this balanced and where your funding comes from?
>> Thank you. Well, our active gold standard, as I've said, has 20 policies that we recommend colleges adopt. And we think putting all of these in place would protect free expression for everybody on campus. Um, as far as our funding, it comes from a variety of large and small individual donors as
well as some uh grant funding from foundations. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. >> Thank you. Now, I'd like to recognize my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Crawford. >> I'd like to thank you uh for having this hearing. I really can't think of a class
of people who feel more muzzled as to what they can say or even more what they can write than an American college student in the in the 2020s. I think
every American, every uh Republican as they get around institutions of education or just um political organizations again and again comes across college
students who talk about the frustration of having to lie on their essays or on their tests and pretend that they're left-wing progressives in order to get a decent Great. I mean, it's sad. It's like, you know,
uh, communist China in the 60s or something. You got to you got to spout things that, you know, are not true in order to get a decent grade. And that certainly is true in any discipline that has an ideological component. Journalism, political science. I know a
guy who tells me I don't believe it, but says all the English literature professors in the University of Wisconsin system, which has to be well over a hundred, he's the only Republican one out of a hundred. Uh the law school, another offender of this. Um, do any of you know,
um, in the in the drive to diversity, are there any universities out there who are proactively saying, "We want to do something to get some conservative journalism professors or some conservative English literature professors in their universities. Can
can you give me the best examples of that today?" Because I'll tell you, if we had such racial imbalance, people would be going up the wall, which is really kind of irrelevant compared to ideological bias. Why don't we go right down start from the left? Uh, Mr.
>> Sure. Representative, I I I am aware I believe that Texas A&M University recently uh moved to start up restart up their journalism program and to do it in the old school liberal style of journalism, which is actually, you know, tell the truth in a in an unbiased way to actually communicate those things. So I I do think there is are some
universities that are recognizing it and hopefully they're going to continue to move in that way. So not only the professors but the students get a bi a balanced viewpoint and actually learn how to do journalism the way it was meant to be done. >> Okay, Mr. Hurst. >> Uh thank you for the question. I'm not
an expert on that but I will say >> have you ever heard of it? >> I have not. But there are many young men who join culturally based fraternities, historically black fraternities and sororities. And we try to provide that experience and not have universities interfere with the association going on
between those students. So we are a place on campus where young men feel safe and comfortable to have diverse viewpoint conversation. >> I don't mean they have to go someplace to be safe, right? I'm saying can you can you take an English essay or have to give an English literature essay without having to color what you're saying for
fear of revenge being reached on you from some professor some progressive professor. >> I am not I I haven't taken an essay in a long time nor I'm not aware of that. But if it is true that's very troubling. >> Well, come on. You shouldn't be a witness here if you don't know it's not
true. Every conservative college kid says they got to measure what they say. Uh, Mr. Sykes, is anything going on in college to remove the bias that you get when like 95% of your English professors uh, vote Democrat, vote progressive?
Probably uh, you know, I think the diver viewpoint diversity is is is extremely important and I think most good professors and deans understand that. I do think there's a difference between selfcensorship because of perceived cultural norms in a particular institution
>> because they're not going to get a decent grade and they all know it. So, they got to lie on their test to get a decent grade if they want to get into medical school or law school down the road. They got to lie. That's what's going on today again and again and again. >> I agree with uh Mr. Horse that if that's happening, it would be distressing. I
think that that's different from the type of actual censorship that we're seeing in places like Texas A&M where certain ideas are being banned and professors are being told they cannot teach particular books, particular topics, uh show particular films in their college graduate level uh courses.
>> Okay, Mr. Maguire. >> Yes. Uh thank you for the question. Yeah, there are surveys showing uh that students report having to misrepresent their beliefs, >> having to lie lie about their most deeply held beliefs because they're on a university campus. But go ahead.
>> And our surveys do show that students uh self-censor in the classroom and they self-censor on their assignments. Uh they tend to worry about reactions they'll get from their peers, but also from their professors. Uh unfortunately there's not as much being done right now in higher education to address the
problem of intellectual diversity as we need especially among the faculty. There are however some signs of improvement. Uh for instance I will point to the civic centers that are being created on campuses around the country. Arizona State University, University of North
Carolina, Tennessee, in Ohio, five have recently been created and they're trying to create atmospheres in which students can find intellectual diversity among their faculty so that they will be able to >> that's not the classes that's not the people determine their grades. Okay,
thank you very much. We love this subcommittee. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Um uh from my my friend from Arizona, Miss Kah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for not taking the bait from my Republican colleagues outrageous
statements. I appreciate that. Um, as a representative of Arizona's 7th Congressional District, I'm deeply concerned by the escalating efforts to politicize our higher education institutions and the limits these actions have on our students and faculty. This issue hits close to home.
The University of Arizona is one of only nine universities nationwide specifically targeted by this administration's compact for academic excellence. A move that sought to pressure schools into adopting specific governance and speech standards in exchange for federal grants. My
constituents deserve to know and my daughter who attends the University of Arizona deserve to know that their public universities remain spaces for genuine inquiry, free expression protected from both federal overreach and state censorship. In light of these pressures on Arizona's institutions and
schools across the country, Mr. Sykes, I'd like to direct my questions to you. State action promoting conservative speech. Recently, some states have established centers at public institutions focused on issues like civic leadership or classical liberal
education that have largely been recognized as attempts to increase conservative viewpoints on campus. How should courts deal with these centers which are often established as nonpartisan or non-political but uphold viewpoint specific ideas?
>> Thank you. In general, universities are free to establish centers as they see fit, and it doesn't pose a first amendment problem for a university to create such a center. >> Okay. Free. Um, reports indicate that the current administration has threatened to deport students for
holding political views that differ from its own. Data from institutions like Yale suggests that this is not these are not theoretical concerns. International students now report hesitating to speak out even regarding their own research for fear of government retaliation. This
creates a tiered system of speech on campuses where some free um are free to speak and others must remain silent to remain in the country. Does the constitution suggest that there are different free free speech rights for citizen students versus non-citizen
students? >> Uh no. No. Then the recent decision in AAPv Rubio makes that crystal clear that these efforts to silence uh lawful permanent residents uh is unconstitutional. >> It's still happening on a regular basis
though in practice. How has the Trump administration treated the free speech rights of non-citizen students? Well, people have been abducted in the night uh and secreted around the country and attempted to be deported simply for
their ideas. So, we have seen people's life literally in danger uh under these circumstances from this administration. >> Yeah, I know that there are a lot of international students that are here studying um you know doing their PhD that are saying like there's ICE at my
door because I made this statement or I attended this rally and my information got out there. It's a very scary time and we should not be um as as I hear, you know, during this hearing that we want free speech. We want people to be able to express themselves in whatever
things they want to talk about. I truly believe that. Um even if it's an opinion that I don't agree with, I think you have the right to say it. And so we have to push back on any censorship when it comes to that. But we can't tolerate hate speech. So there is a balance there that I think is important and and our
community has a role in that. Thank you very much. I yield back. >> Thank you. I would like to recognize my my friend from uh Florida, Mr. Fine. >> Well, thank thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman. For those who who don't believe this
sort of thing happens, I I would tell you the story of a of a student um who as a junior in college wrote a paper um talking about liberal bias in the media and failed the class because of it. When
the student went and said, "What was wrong with my paper? Was it not well written?" No, no, no. It was fine written. Was it not properly sourced? No, the sources were fine. Well, why why' he fail? Or more accurately, why did I fail? The answer was, well,
because you had the wrong political view. That happened to me in the mid '9s at Harvard. So, the notion that this doesn't happen is nonsense. It does. And that was 30 years ago. So, I want to talk about a story again about me. It's about today. And I'm actually going to ask Mr. Sykes if he thinks this is okay.
I was invited to speak at Georgetown University. Oh, no, no, not Georgetown. I apologize. I don't I'm thinking about that. I was invited to speak at Catholic University just a few months ago by a student group who wanted me to come and speak about anti-semitism.
Um, and I guess my office said fine. The student group put it in and the university said, "No, you can only have him come speak on anti-semitism if you're willing to invite someone who will share the opposite perspective."
Okay. Seemed a little weird. Um I guess the we like anti-semitism crowd. Um it wasn't just me that this happened to. They in this group invited someone else who was going to talk about I guess um what had gone on on October 7th. they'd invited a military person who had the
perspective that what happened on October 7th was bad. Um, and then again the university said, "No, no, you can only have this person speak if you're willing to present both sides." But somehow when it came to liberal causes,
the both sides argument went away. So, Mr. Sykes, would you say that if a university wants to bring in a speaker to talk about anti-semitism that saying no, no, you can't do that if they don't if you don't present both sides. Is that honoring the first amendment or is it
managing narratives? >> Thanks for the question. Uh, Catholic University is not bound by the first amendment, so they can create policies as as they wish. In general, >> do they take money from the federal government for their students to be able to go there? >> I don't know, but I would say it's a bad
idea. I think you I think that how you were treated was not a great idea. >> It was how I was treated. I've got plenty of people who want to hear me talk, some who don't who get to hear me anyway. But but um it's the students who missed out on the opportunity of of hearing me of hearing me speak. Is it
fair to the students, not about me? >> As I said, I don't think it's a constitutional issue, but it certainly is a free speech issue. And I think you're right that that's something. >> So, do you think the federal government should fund institutions? We have a choice, right? By the way, the notion that private institutions exist in this
country is false. There's very few institutions in this country that could survive without money that comes from this building. They want to be private. They can do it on their own. So, do you believe that the federal government should give grants, whether it's to fund universities or provide student loan funding to students who wish to go to
universities that engage in this sort of behavior? Is that something that we ought to be doing here? >> I think viewpoint diversity is important. I'm not going to comment on Catholic universities federal funding. >> All right. So, m Mr. Mr. Langover, I I'd ask you, you know, in many instance in
cases, institutions and democrats have argued that under the first amendment, nothing can be done when Jewish students face anti-semitism that comes in the form of protected speech. Is that an accurate understanding of how institutions can and must balance civil
rights laws with the First Amendment? Representative, this this committee is right to be concerned about the arising anti-semitism on campus and and colleges can and must protect Jewish students from threats, fighting words, severe and pervasive harassment, the types of
activities that we saw go on at a lot of country at a lot of institutions across the country. They have the policies in place in order to be able to make this not happen. They're they have the ability to do it. And we saw actually Dartmouth did it. Dartmouth did not allow the uh encampments to stay on. They were they were taken down within uh
>> neither did Florida >> and and exactly and so they have the policies to do it and they should enforce those policies. They should absolutely not allow any student group regardless of who they are to be harassed, to be threatened, to be made feel unsafe simply because they're
Jewish. So I 100% agree that that universities should not allow that to happen and they need to enforce unlaw uh you know and uh make sure the students are punished for unlawful conduct. >> This is happening. It's a big deal. Unfortunately, I just filed 8476, which will solve this problem as it
relates to anti-semitism on our universities. I know it will solve it because I filed it in Florida. We passed it seven years ago and we solved the problem there. Look forward to getting that bill marked up in this committee soon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. >> Thank you. And I would like to recognize a ranking member for the full committee, Mr. Scott.
>> Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Sykes, we've heard a lot about uh politics of freedom of speech. Uh is there any democratic le state uh that has anywhere passing laws that
tell colleges and universities what topics they should be avoiding in classes? >> I'm not aware of any. >> Any um Democratic le states telling colleges and universities which classes they can or can't teach?
>> I'm not aware of any. Telling university administrators what deans they can or can't have on campus? >> No. Mr. Scott, >> telling students who they can or can't invite on campus? >> No. >> Uh are laws being passed in other
states? Yes, we've challenged multiple laws uh including I was just going to comment to our friend from Florida uh that in a challenge to the stop woke act, we address this just this issue of both sidesism. Uh and the way Florida has chosen to approach it under their
classroom censorship law is not to require both sidesism, but to prevent it. And therefore, you cannot hold a debate about affirmative action in Florida classrooms if not for our lawsuit under that law, which blocked we we blocked the law. Uh but the Florida
Council in federal court said under this law, you cannot hold a debate about affirmative action because the person uh advocating for affirmative action would be violating the law. >> So that all of those um restrictions only occur in Republican states. Is that
fair to say? And this current wave of classroom censorship laws, yes, we've seen them mostly uh from Republican administrations. Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't note that the ACLU has also sued a lot of Democratic presidents and governors and legislators as well over other issues.
>> On other issues, thank you, Mr. um Lang Offer, you mentioned Yale has a disproportionate number of Democrats as professors. >> That's correct. Um, should Yale be required to hire as
professors people who deny science? I >> I don't think Yale should be forced to hire uh professors, you know, period. I think Yale is a as a private institution. Yale has the ability to do it. But what Yale acknowledged in that own survey, that was their own survey. They acknowledged there's a problem and
they acknowledged that we cannot do research and teaching and and do science well if we don't have diversity of opinion. and they are acknowledging that there isn't a diversity of opinion and that they need to address that. >> You just mentioned the partisan divide. If people deny science, they're unlikely
to get a job as a professor at a leading university. Isn't that right? >> Well, you know, obviously different people have different opinions on what denying science is, but the the fact is we know that there is a lack of viewpoint diversity on campus and Yale. How >> about how about how about climate
change? U what's the question? >> Well, if you deny climate change, >> if you deny >> I'm not aware of anybody that denies climate change, there might be a debate over who try to get a Republican elected official try to get a Republican elected
official to make a declarative statement that climate change is real. Um Mr. Sykes is um um there are challenges in free speech. What are the challenges we have to be looking at in terms of weaponizing
immigration? Do um immigrants have free speech rights under the First Amendment? >> Yes, they do. Mr. Scott, >> non-citizens, the free speech first amendment applies to non-citizens. >> It is unquestioned that those who are lawfully here have full protections of
the first amendment. And >> so what is how does weaponizing immigration become an issue? Well, as we've seen, uh, you know, the immigration sweeps nationwide have led to human rights abuses, deaths, uh, and the ACLU has been among the groups that
have been pushing back against that. So, the immigration campaigns are much broader than universities. But just focusing on the university students who've been caught up in these issues because of the speech because of their ideas. Uh it is as I said among the gravest uh threats to academic freedom
that we have seen uh and of the chilling effect on campuses has been uh dramatic. >> And one of the challenges to free speech with federal funding. We've seen multiple attempts by the by the administration to withhold funding, to threaten to withhold funding, uh to
sue universities, all in an attempt to get them into ideological line. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Thank you. I'd like to recognize my friend from Guam, Miss Milan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Lang
Langur. Uh, in your testimony, you called for robust first amendment protection and called upon Congress to pass legislation banning censorship. In Brandenburgg versus Ohio, the Supreme Court held that freedoms of speech and press do not permit a state uh to forbid
advocacy of the use of force or of law violations except where such advoc advocacy is directed toward inciting or producing imminent lawless actions and is likely to incite or produce such
actions. So as you know m pointed out school officials sometimes limit free speech in the name of public safety and order. So sir in your opinion how can congress support free speech protection while also ensuring that co colleges and universities have the resources
necessary to address real threats. Thank you representative that this uh is a real issue. We see uh time and again uh conservative and religious student groups trying to ha bring speakers to campus to have important conversations and yet the universities fail to provide
security even if they allow the event to happen which sometimes they don't but even if they allow it to happen what we see is mobs shutting down these important debates with violence and the university officials standing by and letting it happen. In fact, we're getting ready to have a trial in July against the University uh uh
Bingmpington University uh when they tried to bring the college Republicans tried to bring Dr. Laugher to campus in 2019 to speak on tariffs, a really important topic, tariffs. But yet, the the local college progressives and the local Antifa group showed up and
disrupted and within a minute of Dr. Laugher taking the stage, uh the university escorted him off stage rather than shutting down the violent protesters. So, we know they had plenty of of university police on hand to stop this. They knew it was going to happen. Uh the students said it was going to
happen, but they refused to do it. And so, these students were not allowed to hear this imminent economist talk about a really important topic that touches every one of us. So, this isn't just on controversial topics like we've already talked about. It's even on economic issues like tariffs and that and so
universities uh you know have a duty to protect students that are trying to bring important conversations to campus. >> Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Um, Mr. Hores, I've heard about some reports that some colleges and universities are restricting first amendment rights when
it comes to affiliations with social organizations. Students should not feel disadvantaged or face institutional retaliation simply for exercising their freedom of association. This is a bipartisan issue that we need to work together on to resolve. So can you
describe the impacts beyond the campus that results from the restrictions on a student constitutional right to freedom of association and what does this mean for surrounding communities? >> I want to give you an example. When we
do these mass suspensions, not only is it interfering with their speech and association rights, it's actually discouraging students from reporting other bad behavior. Because if I turn myself in or others and the entire community is shut down, that peer
pressure is actually counter to safety and health of our students. So again, young men have the opportunity to choose who they want to belong to and they also have to learn if the group accepts them. That is a part of intimate association.
We believe it's fundamental to the growth and development of young men. As I spoke to earlier, society should be aware of the challenges of young men in higher education with lower graduation rates and higher suicide rates. The fraternity experience has been proven
time and again to help on those two critical issues for young men. That's why we should not be getting in the way of the fraternity experience. We should be making it more accessible to all. >> I appreciate that. Thank Thank you. Uh and quickly last last question there,
Dr. Mcgiri uh the foundation for individual rights and express expression reported that the number of students who self censor is increasingly increasing and along with the number of students who believe using violence to prevent speech is acceptable. So does this align
in what you see when you conduct campus surveys through the campus freedom initiative? >> Uh yes it does. We've conducted surveys in Ohio, uh, in Virginia, in Arizona, a few other institutions, and we consistently see high rates of
self-censorship reported, uh, from students. They report self-censoring themselves in the classroom, in their assignments, uh, in the dining halls. As I said earlier, uh, they are worried about how their peers will react if they find out that they hold certain views.
Um, they're, you know, this is a a bipartisan issue. Uh but we do find uh as I also said earlier that conservative students generally are much more prone to self-censorship. Uh and as far as the intolerance goes, yes, we continue to see uh you know, willingness to report
professors for saying something offensive in the classroom is extremely high. Willingness to shout down speakers remains high. Uh the uh students who say that they think that violence is sometimes or even always acceptable usually comes in at over 10%. So, one in
10 students uh are willing to say that they think violence could be >> Thank you, sir. >> I appreciate we're out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Like to um recognize my friend from California, Mr. Kylie. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh you know, having been involved uh for a number of
years now in in these issues of freedom of speech on college campuses. Uh I've always thought this is incredibly important issue for our country for a couple reasons. Number one is that what happens on college campuses uh often spreads to the rest of society. Uh number two, when freedom of speech
itself becomes subject to partisan dispute, uh that has I think grave consequences for for democracy. I mean uh the first amendment is supposed to be the vehicle through which we hash out our differences. It's not supposed to be
uh itself uh you know something that we uh have partisan disputes over. It's supposed to be a foundation uh for uh for our other disagreements. So when you start to kind of shake that foundation, I think that it really uh in inhibits our ability to have the sort of
discourse uh and debate on which uh a healthy democracy depends. Um so I do think there's a place for the report cards that you see some organizations issue uh for legal action where there's clearly a cognizable uh harm to a
student's rights uh and even policym at the state and federal level to assure uh compliance with uh the first amendment and other free speech requirements uh and uh as well as accountability. I think that maybe the most effective thing that we can do though is to
rebuild the culture of free speech uh that uh has sort of run uh you know uh has has sort of dissipated as some of these statistics uh very clearly illustrate. I actually uh Mr. Magcguire I noticed that your organization here
has this sheet talking about uh basically that idea how to rebuild a culture of of free expression. Well, I think it's pretty good. First point here references the Chicago statement. Uh when I was in the state legislature, we actually got the legislature to unanimously endorse the Chicago statement if you can believe that. Uh in
California, uh I've worked on legislation here which we incorporated into our broader bill uh that would in that would incorporate uh teaching the first amendment, its history, its purpose as part of orientation on college campuses. So, uh, I wanted to give you a chance just to expound a
little bit more on why you've chosen this angle of promoting a culture of free expression and if there's a way we could actually start that earlier at the K12 level to incorporate that more into civics and other teachings there so that students arrive on campuses with an
understanding of why free speech is an important principle. >> Thank you for the question. Yes, I entirely agree that the ultimate goal should be to build a culture of freedom of expression on campus and then as you said, you know, into our broader society because what happens on campus doesn't stay on campus. Uh we have a number of
things in our gold standard that not only set policies but help to start building that culture on campus. Uh we recommend that schools regularly hold either lecture series where different points of view are expressed or debates. Ensure that there are centers on campus, student groups that promote debate. We
also think that students should begin learning about free expression in new student orientation. And we think that that should continue to occur both within the curriculum and beyond the curriculum throughout their college careers. What we find is that most often uh university administrations will
respond to pressures to adopt certain policies uh but they don't really fully invest themselves in committing to those policies. And so we want to see leaders at these universities modeling respect for free expression and open to in openness to intellectual diversity. And
what we're ultimately looking for with our campus freedom initiative is for universities that are truly going to embrace free expression and become models for the nation uh on these issues. I would also point to things uh like the civic centers that are being created. Uh these uh create environments
where in some cases like at the University of North Carolina, students actually live together in a dorm. They go to classes together. They focus on things like civil dialogue. They learn how to disagree with one another. Right? There's no ideological line that they're being required to follow in these
programs. It's about learning the skills of debate, the skills of citizenship that we need more and more people in this country to have. And I 100% agree that this needs to begin in K to2 as well. Active focuses on higher education. We don't really work in K to2, but I'm a father myself. I have
children in grade school. I have a daughter in high school and I've seen myself already self-censorship taking place uh in in the high schools and we of course see students arriving on campus as freshmen already having adopted intolerant attitudes on various
uh political uh issues. Um and so that's work that colleges and universities need to do to correct the failings that we're seeing in the K to2 system. >> Yeah, thank you. I think that's that's great work you're doing. uh would love to support these efforts however I can and I think it's an issue that we can explore on our K12 subcommittee as well
uh is how we can uh you know uh encourage the teaching of civics in a way that really gives students an understanding of why the first amendment is so central uh and uh and and why uh it's important to uh embrace freedom of speech as a principle even when you might not agree with the ideas being
expressed. Thanks everyone for your testimony. I yield back. >> Thank you. Uh we'll now move toward closing remarks. I'd like to recognize Dr. Adams for her closing remarks. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and and again, thank you to the witnesses for testifying today. I'll close with one
word, nuanced. Today's conversation makes clear that the issues before us are not simple and they should not be treated as such. Safeguarding the First Amendment while also upholding our obligations under civil rights law requires careful
judgment, not political shortcuts. It requires consistency, not selective outrage. If we are serious about protecting free expression, then we must defend it even when it's uncomfortable, even when it challenges our own views.
And if we are equally serious about protecting students civil rights, then we must ensure that no one is denied the opportunity to learn in an environment free from unlawful discrimination. Those responsibilities are not mutually exclus
ex exclusive, but they do demand restraint from us as lawmakers. The federal government, both Congress and the White House alike, should not be in the business of using its authority to to pressure institutions into adopting
or rejecting particular viewpoints. Nor should we insert ourselves into complex factsp specific decisions better handled by educators, administrators, and the courts. Our role is to uphold the constitution and ensure the law is
followed, not to tilt the scales of debate. At the end of the day, a strong academic environment depends on both free inquiry and and equal access to opportunity. Undermining either one
weakens the entire system. And so, as we move forward, I would urge my colleagues across the aisle to approach these issues with the seriousness they deserve, grounded in principle, guided by evidence, and applied consistently.
And Mr. Chairman, uh before I close, I I do want to uh to to um just uh remember or at least reiterate and remind folks that one of the witnesses in response to a question mentioned Texas A&M University and its attempts to open a
journalism school dedicated to classic journalism. And I'd like to enter into the record an article from NBC News highlighting the $1 million settlement that the school came to with the original dean the school had selected,
Kathleen McElroy, a veteran journalist and academ and academic when the school reduced their offer of tenure to her after conservative backlash. And I'd enter this into the record. Okay, chairman. Thank you very much. And uh I yield back. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much. This is a very very important conversation to have the least. And I I'll always think about how our constitution started and that was the word three words most powerful three words I think in history is history mankind we the people because what our country is all about is having conversations very hard sometimes
difficult conversations but having the confidence in ourselves that we can do that with respect. Uh I remember seventh grade uh at the time I grew up in the segregated south. I decided I was going to go uh and join a a demonstration in front of the Florida
State Theater with uh FAMU students. My dad was a professor for 40 years of FAMU. And I went home to uh let him know I like to do this, thinking that he would be excited, proud. But he asked me a question, had me thinking, and that was why. And for the first time, I had to sit down and really think through and
explain to my dad why I wanted to do this. Um and that was the way he approached basically my entire life. We didn't agree on everything, but he was more proud of me having a ability to think and to to give a a a a good firm answer to things that he wanted or
wanted to hear from me. Uh that's what college was. And I I'll be honest with you, that was my community back in the early part of this this century. Uh it was all about gaining respect, uh overcoming the soft bigotry of of low expectations by not having the intellect. And so they would go out and
debate. the the one of the biggest celebrations we had as a nation as a as a community was back in 1930 when our debate team from black college beat UCLA in debate. That is what makes our country strong. And what we have today are kids coming out of college and getting higher degrees being more
intolerant and more hateful because they cannot think and instead of having that debate they pick up a stick and want to hit you with it. uh that's not America. And so this is a very important conversation and once we get our colleges and our educational systems back to what we are all about helping us
to have tough decision decision uh the discussions and still respecting each other when it's all said and done is really what what we have to come down to. So um I think we're we're leaving a dark a dark chapter one in which we went through co and we saw the very worst uh when people put on mask for everything
and now we have people coming to colleges intimidating beating up people with masks on still that has to come to an end and it comes from us having this conversation like we're having today um in which we're we're not going to be tolerant of intolerance. we're going to start teaching our kids how to think
again, how to have these conversations and to be different, but yet have that thing in common that keeps us as good Americans. So, I look forward to that. I'm thankful for this conversation. Uh I think for everybody everything that everybody's doing here and and uh and what we're all bringing to the plate to change our trajectory. Uh I would like
to thank the witnesses again for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee today. And without objections and there being no further business, the subcommittee is now obser objourned.