Overview
Title
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for certain funds under that Act.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants colleges to promise every year that they aren’t avoiding business with Israel so they can keep getting special money from the government. If they don’t promise, they might get put on a list that says they can’t get this money.
Summary AI
H. R. 10257, titled the "Protect Economic Freedom Act," aims to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 by making certain institutions of higher education ineligible for specific funds if they engage in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel. This means that schools must certify annually that they are not limiting business with Israel to continue receiving federal funds. If an institution fails to make this certification, the Department of Education will publicly list the school as ineligible. The bill excludes certain actions from the definition of a boycott as outlined in other federal regulations.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 10257, titled the "Protect Economic Freedom Act," seeks to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to restrict certain federal funds from going to institutions of higher education that participate in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel. In practical terms, this means colleges and universities must certify annually that they do not engage in or plan to engage in commercial activities that boycott Israel to continue receiving specific federal financial support. The bill also mandates the Department of Education to publicly list and notify institutions that fail to provide this certification.
Summary of Significant Issues
The proposed legislation introduces several notable concerns. First, the definition of a "nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel" is ambiguous. This lack of clarity could lead to varied interpretations and legal challenges as institutions attempt to navigate what constitutes a boycott. Second, the annual certification requirement may place an administrative burden on educational institutions, diverting attention and resources away from core educational missions. Additionally, the absence of a clear process for rectifying inclusion on the non-compliance list could result in reputational damage to institutions without a straightforward means of resolution. The seven-day timeline for the Department of Education to publish the compliance list is also seen as potentially too stringent, risking errors or inefficiencies. Furthermore, the bill refers to another legislative piece, the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018, without elaborating on its exceptions, adding complexity to the bill.
Impact on the Public
For the wider public, the bill might appear to support a specific international policy position related to Israel. By tying educational funding eligibility to international commercial activities, the bill could be seen as intertwining foreign policy with domestic educational funding. This approach could prompt debate about the role of educational institutions in political and economic matters beyond academia, potentially leading to increased public discourse on the relationship between higher education and international politics.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Educational institutions are the primary stakeholders directly impacted by this legislation. Universities and colleges may find themselves needing to allocate additional resources to ensure compliance with the new certification requirements, potentially straining administrative capacities. Institutions known for advocating boycotts, divestments, or sanctions might feel particularly targeted, potentially impacting their funding.
Furthermore, the bill could significantly impact students and faculty involved in international programs, research collaborations, or recruitment that involves Israeli entities or interests. On the other hand, stakeholders who are supportive of enhanced commercial relations with Israel might see this legislation as a positive reinforcement of their values and positions. However, the lack of clear guidance and definitions could generate uncertainty and apprehension among institutional decision-makers and the constituents they serve.
Issues
The definition of 'nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel' in Section 124 is vague and open to interpretation, potentially resulting in different understandings of what constitutes a boycott, creating ambiguity and legal challenges for institutions (Sections 2 and 124).
The bill demands annual certification from institutions not engaging in boycotts, which may impose an unnecessary administrative burden on educational institutions, potentially diverting resources from educational priorities (Sections 2 and 124).
There is an insufficiently defined process for institutions to appeal or correct their inclusion on the public list of those failing to submit certifications, potentially leading to reputational damage without recourse (Section 124).
The requirement to make a public list of non-complying institutions within a short timeline (7 business days after July 31) could strain administrative processes, resulting in delays or errors (Section 124).
The amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965 may disproportionately impact certain institutions if they are unable to meet the certification deadlines or requirements, without a clear justification for the necessity of such strict compliance (Section 124).
Lack of clarity regarding the consequences for institutions failing to submit certifications or comply with requirements, aside from public listing, which may lead to inconsistent enforcement or over-punishment (Section 124).
The bill's reference to exceptions in section 1773(a)(2) of the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018 may require additional cross-referencing, adding complexity and potentially deterring straightforward understanding (Section 124).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The opening section of the Act provides its official name as the "Protect Economic Freedom Act."
2. Ineligibility of institutions of higher education participating in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that colleges and universities that do not certify by July 31 each year that they will avoid nonexpressive commercial boycotts of Israel will be ineligible for certain federal education programs. It also requires the Department of Education to make a public list of institutions that fail to provide this certification and notify them of their inclusion on the list.
124. Ineligibility of institutions participating in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, colleges and universities must certify each year that they are not participating in a nonexpressive commercial boycott against Israel to remain eligible for certain federal programs. If they fail to do so, the Department of Education will publicly list these institutions and notify them of their non-compliance.