H.Res. 947

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 947 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 947

Expressing that compelled political litmus tests used by public 
institutions to require individuals to identify with specific 
ideological views are directly at odds with the principles of academic 
freedom and free speech and in violation of the First Amendment of the 
Constitution.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

December 11, 2025

Mr. Murphy submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Education and Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

RESOLUTION

Expressing that compelled political litmus tests used by public 
institutions to require individuals to identify with specific 
ideological views are directly at odds with the principles of academic 
freedom and free speech and in violation of the First Amendment of the 
Constitution.

Whereas in Sweezy v. New Hampshire in 1957, the Supreme Court wrote that, ``The 
essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is 
almost self-evident . . . To impose any strait jacket upon the 
intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the 
future of our Nation . . . 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.'';
Whereas 10 years later in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, the Supreme Court 
further elaborated on Sweezy and declared that academic freedom ``is a 
special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws 
that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.'';
Whereas in Healy v. James, the Supreme Court held that ``[T]he precedents of 
this Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged 
need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force 
on college campuses than in the community at large. Quite to the 
contrary, `the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere 
more vital than in the community of American schools.''';
Whereas in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court 
held that the First Amendment prohibits the Government from compelling 
an individual to engage in speech, writing that, ``if there is any fixed 
star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high 
or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, 
religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by 
word or act their faith therein.'';
Whereas many colleges and universities require or invite current or prospective 
faculty to demonstrate their commitment to diversity, equity, and 
inclusion (DEI), often through a written statement that factors into 
hiring, reappointment, evaluation, promotion, or tenure decisions;
Whereas ideologically motivated and required DEI statement policies can too 
easily function as litmus tests for adherence to prevailing ideological 
views on DEI, penalize faculty or applicants for holding dissenting 
opinions on matters of public concern, and ``cast a pall of orthodoxy'' 
over the campus that the Supreme Court warned against in Keyishian;
Whereas a survey by the American Association of University Professors of 
hundreds of colleges and universities found that more than one-fifth of 
higher education institutions include DEI criteria in tenure standards, 
and of the institutions that do not include such DEI criteria, nearly 
half indicated they are considering adding such criteria in the future;
Whereas a survey by the American Enterprise Institute of academic job postings 
found that nearly 20 percent required DEI statements;
Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public universities 
from compelling faculty to assent to specific ideological views or to 
embed those views in academic activities;
Whereas in order to push favored views, colleges and universities are increasing 
the number of faculty dedicated to programs and initiatives to support 
these ideological views;
Whereas the Heritage Foundation found that large public universities averaged 45 
DEI personnel, while other departments in universities are understaffed 
by comparison, and this proliferation of DEI administrators and 
prioritization of DEI adherence in personnel decisions places importance 
on adherence to a social movement rather than on education and serving 
students;
Whereas medical schools are also probing student applicants on their views on, 
or experience in, DEI efforts, and this overt test on identity politics 
for medical school admissions has been found in 36 of the top 50 medical 
schools;
Whereas demanding that students endorse specific beliefs or face roadblocks in 
their education is an appalling action from professional schools and far 
from the meaning of academic freedom; and
Whereas colleges and universities are also prioritizing ideological programming 
for students over programming to support viewpoint diversity, and 
according to a report from Speech First, in the 2021-2022 school year, 
90 percent of college freshman orientation programs focused on DEI as a 
topic, while only around 30 percent of orientation programs reviewed 
free speech or viewpoint diversity: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) condemns public institutions of higher education for 
conditioning admission to any student applicant, or the hiring, 
reappointment, or promotion of any faculty member, on the 
applicant or faculty member pledging allegiance to or making a 
statement of personal support for or opposition to any 
political ideology or movement, including a pledge or statement 
regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, or related topics; 
and
(2) discourages any institution from requesting or 
requiring any such pledge or statement from an applicant or 
faculty member, as such actions are antithetical to the freedom 
of speech protected by the First Amendment.
<all>