WASHINGTON – A Republican measure that would prohibit accrediting organizations from requiring colleges and universities to adopt diversity, equity and inclusion policies as a condition of accreditation passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, but its prospects for success are bleak.
The Law to end dazzling higher education — what succeeded 213-201 — marks one of the several so-called anti-woke initiatives and he points out that bills from Republican lawmakers are expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives this week.
The higher education measure, which drew fierce opposition from the Biden administration and major college and university associations, came amid a looming deadline for government shutdown and in the middle of the 2024 election campaign.
Four Democrats in the House voted for the Republican measure, including Representatives Don Davis of North Carolina, Jared Golden of Maine, Mary Peltola of Alaska and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.
Included in the legislation are two bills introduced by Republican members of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce: the Accreditation for College Excellence Act and the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act.
Representative Burgess Owens of Utah, chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development, introduced the Law on Accreditation for University Excellence in May 2023, while New York Representative Brandon Williams Compliance with the First Amendment on Campus Act in March.
In a statement to States Newsroom, Owens said, “House Republicans passed the End Woke Higher Education Act to stand up for academic freedom, defend students’ constitutional rights, and ensure that colleges and universities are not forced to bow to accreditation activists who push political agendas as a condition of receiving federal funding.”
The Utah Republican said the “Biden-Harris administration has injected its radical left ideology – diversity, equity and inclusion, and critical race theory – into every part of American life, including our higher education system.”
Owens’ bill states that accreditation standards cannot require, encourage, or compel institutions to support or reject “a particular partisan, political, or ideological viewpoint or belief” or “a set of views or beliefs on social, cultural, or political issues,” nor can they support “unequal treatment of individuals or groups of individuals.”
Meanwhile, Williams’ Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act forces schools to disclose their free speech policies to students and faculty in order to receive Title IV funding.
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 includes Federal programs to provide financial assistance to students.
Strong opposition
However, it is highly unlikely that the bill will pass in the Democratic-dominated Senate.
The Biden administration also strongly opposed the measure and stated in a opinion this week that the legislation would “detail manage both public and private institutions and undermine their ability to recognize and promote diversity.”
The legislation “would go beyond Congress’s traditional role in higher education and include a wide range of confusing and unprecedented new mandates,” the administration added.
Representative Bobby Scott, ranking member of the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee, called the measure a “baseless attempt to bring a culture war into a critically important accreditation process” during Thursday’s floor debate.
The Virginia Democrat said the law “attempts to circumvent the First Amendment to establish an entirely new system for regulating speech and association rights on campus, outside of established precedents and practices.”
The Republican measure also drew the ire of leading college and university associations, which individually and collectively opposed the law.
In a joint letter this week to House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, six major associations led by the American Council on Education attacked Williams’ part of the bill, saying it “would undermine efforts to protect free speech on campus and create a safe learning environment free from discrimination.”
