Overview

Title

An Act To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit recognized accrediting agencies and associations from requiring, encouraging, or coercing institutions of higher education to meet any political litmus test or violate any right protected by the Constitution as a condition of accreditation.

ELI5 AI

The bill is like a rule that says schools can't force students or teachers to pick a side in politics or break the law just to stay open, and it makes sure everyone can speak freely and play fair on school grounds. If someone breaks these rules, people can tell on them or take them to court.

Summary AI

H. R. 3724 is a bill titled the "End Woke Higher Education Act" that aims to modify the Higher Education Act of 1965. The bill prohibits accrediting agencies from imposing political litmus tests or violating constitutional rights as a condition for accreditation of higher education institutions. It also protects free speech and association rights on college campuses, including ensuring that recognized student organizations have fair access to resources and support. Furthermore, the bill allows individuals or organizations harmed by violations of these new rules to take legal action, and mandates disclosure of free speech policies to ensure transparency and accountability in higher education.

Published

2024-09-23
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: SENATE
Status: Referred in Senate
Date: 2024-09-23
Package ID: BILLS-118hr3724rfs

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
16
Words:
7,127
Pages:
38
Sentences:
115

Language

Nouns: 1,919
Verbs: 559
Adjectives: 503
Adverbs: 54
Numbers: 189
Entities: 192

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.32
Average Sentence Length:
61.97
Token Entropy:
5.41
Readability (ARI):
33.32

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

The proposed legislation, known as the "End Woke Higher Education Act," aims to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965. It seeks to prevent accrediting agencies from influencing colleges and universities with specific political or ideological requirements. The bill addresses topics related to free speech and expression, aiming to reinforce First Amendment rights on college campuses. Additionally, it introduces specific rules and guidelines about policies on speech, association, and handling acts of violence on campuses.

Significant Issues

One critical issue is the vagueness of the term "political litmus test" used in the bill. Without clear definitions, institutions might struggle to understand which practices are forbidden, potentially causing inconsistent enforcement and misunderstandings. Another notable concern is the politically charged title, "End Woke Higher Education Act," which may affect public perception and lead to interpretations of bias and partisanship. This could undermine the objective evaluation of the bill.

Furthermore, the bill focuses on public institutions regarding the prohibition of political tests, potentially creating inconsistency since private institutions are excluded. Provisions concerning single-sex social organizations might conflict with institutional diversity and inclusion policies, leading to potential legal dilemmas involving discrimination laws. Additionally, the requirement for institutions to waive sovereign immunity could face legal challenges, posing difficulties for states or institutions unwilling to relinquish this protection.

Potential Impact on the Public

Broadly, the bill aims to protect free speech and prevent political influence in higher education, which might be beneficial in maintaining a neutral educational environment. However, the vagueness in wording and undefined terms may lead to legal disagreements and confusion among educational institutions. The requirement for policy disclosures might impose an administrative burden on institutions, possibly diverting resources from educational priorities.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Students and Faculty: The bill’s focus on protecting free speech might empower students and faculty by reinforcing their rights against institutions imposing political tests. However, the complexity and breadth of the bill might complicate straightforward exercise of these rights. Students in single-sex organizations could face challenges regarding campus diversity policies.

Educational Institutions: Public universities might benefit from clearer guidance on maintaining neutrality in politically sensitive times. However, complying with extensive procedural obligations, as prescribed in the bill, might overwhelm institutions administratively and financially. Additionally, public institutions being subject to federal lawsuits without sovereign immunity could encounter legal and operational challenges.

Accrediting Agencies: These bodies might face additional scrutiny concerning how they enforce accreditation standards without apparent political influence. This added pressure might necessitate revisiting and clarifying their standards and processes to align with the proposed legal framework.

In conclusion, while the bill is framed with the intent to ensure fairness and uphold constitutional rights in higher education, it faces potential setbacks due to vague language, ambiguous terms, and potential conflicts with existing institutional policies. Careful consideration and possibly further clarification of certain elements could enhance its effectiveness and acceptance.

Issues

  • The term 'political litmus test' in SEC. 102 is vague and may lead to differing interpretations, thus potentially causing inconsistency in enforcement and misunderstanding about what practices are prohibited. This also affects SEC. 103 and SEC. 202, which reference 'political litmus tests' without providing clear definitions.

  • The phrase 'End Woke Higher Education Act' in SEC. 1 could be perceived as politically charged, affecting public perception and potentially leading to interpretations of bias or partisanship, which might undermine the objective evaluation and discourse about the bill.

  • The provisions in SEC. 204 regarding single-sex social organizations could conflict with institutional policies on diversity and inclusion, leading to legal and ethical dilemmas for institutions around discrimination law and enforcement.

  • SEC. 205's prohibition on political tests is limited to public institutions and excludes private ones, potentially leading to inconsistency in the application of free speech policies across higher education institutions and raising concerns about equal treatment of all students.

  • The requirement for covered public institutions to waive sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment in SEC. 206 could be seen as legally contentious, potentially leading to challenges from states or institutions unwilling to relinquish this protection.

  • SEC. 203's requirement for the disclosure of free speech policies and the extensive procedural obligations it imposes may create an administrative burden on institutions, possibly diverting resources from other educational functions without clear justification of necessity.

  • SEC. 207's declaration that acts of violence on campus are not protected under the First Amendment lacks detail on enforcement or implications for individuals, leading to potential gaps in addressing campus violence.

  • The language used across the bill, particularly in SEC. 102 and SEC. 112C, is complex and may lead to difficulties in comprehension and interpretation, potentially resulting in misinterpretations that could hinder effective implementation.

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; table of contents Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

This section introduces the End Woke Higher Education Act, which aims to ensure fairness in college accreditation without political bias and upholds the First Amendment on campus, covering topics like free speech and association rights, and includes measures for enforcement and responses to campus violence.

101. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section of the bill introduces the “Accreditation for College Excellence Act of 2024” as its official title.

102. Prohibition on political litmus tests in accreditation of institutions of higher education Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section amends the Higher Education Act to ensure that accreditation agencies for colleges and universities do not require institutions to adhere to specific political or ideological beliefs, except in cases involving religious missions or where legally mandated. It also limits the Secretary of Education's power to set accreditation criteria and confirms that institutions following their accrediting agency's standards can participate in federal programs, regardless of additional unrelated standards.

103. Rule of construction Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section clarifies that nothing in the title stops religious accreditation organizations from applying and maintaining their religious standards on the educational institutions they choose to accredit.

201. Short title Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section titled "SEC. 201" establishes that this part of the bill will be known as the "Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act."

202. Sense of Congress Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section discusses Congress's support for free speech in higher education by encouraging colleges to adopt principles like the Chicago Principles, which promote open dialogue on campuses. It also condemns and discourages the use of political litmus tests in admissions or faculty decisions, as these practices conflict with free speech rights.

112A. Sense of Congress; construction; definition Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Congress emphasizes the importance of free speech and open discussion in higher education by recommending adoption of the Chicago Principles, criticizes colleges for requiring political pledges for admissions or hiring, and clarifies that this section should not affect civil rights protections. It also defines "covered public institution" as state universities involved in federal education programs.

203. Disclosure of free speech policies Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Institutions of higher education must disclose their policies on free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion to students and faculty each year to be eligible for federal financial aid programs. These disclosures also recognize students and faculty as the intended beneficiaries and, for public institutions, inform them about the right to take legal action under certain conditions.

112B. Disclosure of policies related to freedom of speech, association, and religion Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

Institutions of higher education must report their policies on free speech, association, and religion to be eligible for federal financial aid programs. They must also inform students and faculty that these policies are designed for their benefit, and public institutions must disclose the right to legal action if policies are violated.

204. Freedom of association and religion Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines guidelines for public colleges to ensure that students' freedom of association and religion is protected. It requires fair treatment for student organizations, mandates transparent distribution of funds, and offers appeal processes for denied recognition or funds; it also ensures equal treatment for religious groups and protection of single-sex social organizations, while allowing for disciplinary actions against those that support terrorism.

112C. Freedom of association and religion Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines the rights and protections for student organizations at public institutions, focusing on ensuring freedom of association and equal access to benefits, including financial allocations, for both secular and religious student groups. It also discusses the ability for students to form and join single-sex social organizations without facing retaliation from their educational institution, unless the organization's actions incite lawlessness or conflict with the institution's religious mission.

205. Free speech on campus Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The proposed section ensures that public colleges and universities uphold free speech by requiring them to educate students about their First Amendment rights and post this information online. It also prohibits the use of political tests for admissions, hiring, or promotions, ensuring decisions are not based on personal political beliefs, while making exceptions for institutions with military purposes and clarifying that anti-discrimination laws still apply.

112D. Free speech on campus Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines policies for public colleges to enhance free speech, including providing materials on First Amendment rights during student orientations, ensuring the right to engage in noncommercial expressive activities, and prohibiting the use of political tests for admissions or employment. It also clarifies certain exemptions and conditions under which these rules apply, such as upholding anti-discrimination laws and the policies of military academies.

206. Enforcement Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section outlines how institutions must comply with section 112B to participate in federal education programs and details the consequences of non-compliance, allowing individuals or organizations to take legal action if a public institution violates certain sections. It specifies the process for losing and regaining eligibility for federal funding, the requirement for institutions to report violations, and includes conditions under which state entities waive sovereign immunity when receiving federal funding.

112E. Enforcement Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

This section outlines the process for enforcing requirements related to covered public institutions. It allows individuals or organizations to sue in federal court if harmed by a policy that violates these requirements, provides guidelines for notifying and reporting to the Secretary following a court's final judgment, details consequences for institutions that fail to comply, and underscores conditions regarding sovereign immunity if federal funding is received.

207. Sense of Congress relating to acts of violence on campus Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section emphasizes that Congress believes acts of violence occurring on college campuses are not protected free speech under the First Amendment.