[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                    DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT: PROTECTING
                    FREE SPEECH ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               Before The

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION   
                       AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE  
                               WORKFORCE 
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________



             HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 29, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-4

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce






[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 





 
        Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov 
        
                               ______ 
                               
                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

51-659 PDF            WASHINGTON : 2014 























                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania             Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
JIM BANKS, Indiana                     Northern Mariana Islands
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  MARK TAKANO, California
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan               MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARY MILLER, Illinois                DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MICHELLE STEEL, California           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
RON ESTES, Kansas                    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
KEVIN KILEY, California              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
AARON BEAN, Florida                  ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York           JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana

                       Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
              Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE 
                              DEVELOPMENT

                     BURGESS, OWENS, UTAH, Chairman 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania         FREDERICA WILSON, Florida,
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin              Ranking Member
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana                   PRAMILA,JAYAPAL, Washington
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, 
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York               Northern Mariana Islands
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina        SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
                                     ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina 
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                                                          
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on March 29, 2023...................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Owens, Hon. Burgess, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher 
      Education and the Workforce Development....................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on 
      Education and the Workforce................................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     6

                               WITNESSES

    Trump, Cherise, Executive Director, Speech First, Washington, 
      DC.........................................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
    Joner, Josiah, Executive Editor, The Stanford Review, 
      Stanford, California.......................................    17
        Prepared statement of....................................    19
    Nossel, Suzanne, Chief Executive Officer, Pen America........    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    30
    Shapiro, Ilya, Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan 
      Institute, New York, New York..............................    40
        Prepared statement of....................................    42

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Banks, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Indiana:
        Report dated December 8, 2021 from The Heritage 
          Foundation.............................................    73
    Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon:
        Statement for the record dated February 7, 2023, from the 
          American Psychological Association.....................    70
    Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California:
        Memo dated March 22, 2023, from Jenny S. Martinez........    58
    Walberg, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Michigan:
        Support letter for the record dated March 13, 2023.......    95


 
                    DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT: PROTECTING  
                     FREE SPEECH ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES 

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, March 29, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 
                                       Development,
                  Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m., in 
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Burgess Owens 
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Foxx, Thompson, Walberg, Grothman, 
Banks, Owens, Good, Kiley, Chavez-DeRemer, Houchin, Scott, 
Bonamici, Takano, and Manning.
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley, 
Deputy Communications Director; Jackson Berryman, Speechwriter; 
Hans Bjontegard, Legislative Assistant; Solomon Chen, 
Professional Staff Member; Christina Delmont-Small, Oversight 
Investigator; Tyler Dufrene, Research Assistant; Cate Dillon, 
Director of Operations; Daniel Fuenzalida, Staff Assistant; 
Sheila Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Amy Raaf 
Jones, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Alex 
Knorr, Staff Assistant; Andrew Kuzy, Press Assistant; John 
Martin, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy/Counsel; Hannah 
Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; Audra McGeorge, Communications 
Director; Eli Mitchell, Legislative Assistant; Gabriella 
Pistone, Legislative Assistant Oversight; Ian Prince, 
Professional Staff Member; Mary Christina Riley, Professional 
Staff Member; Chance Russell, Professional Staff Member; Kent 
Talbert, Investigative Counsel; Brad Thomas, Senior Education 
Policy Advisor; Rashage Green, Minority Director of Education 
Policy; Christian Haines, Minority General Counsel; Amaris 
Benavidez, Professional Staff Member; Emanual Kimble, Minority 
Education and the Workforce CBCF Fellow; Stephanie Lalle, 
Minority Communications Director; Kota Mizutani, Minority 
Deputy Communication Director; Karina Bravo, Minority Intern; 
Sam Varie, Minority Press Secretary.
    Chairman Owens. The Subcommittee on Higher Education and 
Workforce Development will come to order. I note that a quorum 
is present. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to call 
a recess at any time. The subcommittee is meeting today to hear 
testimony on Free Speech on College Campuses.
    Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's hearing. The 
hearing is titled Diversity of Thought: Protecting Free Speech 
on College Campuses. What our young men and women practice and 
learn in colleges and universities will impact our Nation for 
generations to come, far beyond their careers.
    How today's students are taught, or not taught, to listen 
to ideas and debate with those they disagree with will 
ultimately carry into their interactions and practice in 
Fortune 500 companies, in academia, the FBI, the arts, 
families, and even in the halls of Congress.
    Freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected God given 
right ensconced in our founding documents. Far too many higher 
ed institutions claim to uphold this right, accept funding from 
American taxpayers, and then quickly turn their backs and 
betray us. Witnesses today will have extensive personal 
experience defending the rights for all viewpoints to be heard.
    The experiences of our witnesses and growing mountains of 
evidence regularly appearing in the news paint a dark picture 
of the State of free expression in postsecondary education. The 
American people watched in shock at video after video emerge of 
mobs of radicalized students attacking anyone with an opinion 
not in line with theirs.
    These students are trained in college classrooms that 
bullying of others is totally acceptable. That attacking others 
while hiding anonymously in the midst of a group, or behind a 
mask, is virtuous. This is not virtue, but instead the height 
of cowardice. These cowardly attacks extend to their fellow 
colleagues who feel they also have the right to express and 
debate their own beliefs.
    To think to voice their own ideas beyond the confines of 
critical race theory, and most recently, and shockingly, the 
heckling of a Federal appellate judge who was invited to speak 
at a law school. Those who do not conform to the mob's thoughts 
and words are quickly taught you are not welcome here.
    The ability to speak freely, to build one's knowledge is 
the cornerstone of the American system, and postsecondary 
education. When our universities do nothing to safeguard free 
speech from radicalized students, our future as a nation is at 
stake. I will leave the many appalling details of recent 
attacks on speech to our witnesses, but I would like to make 
one point.
    Movements to threaten speech have occurred before. If those 
with certain views are allowed to shut down competing views, 
the battle to sustain freedom, upon which our country is 
founded, free speech, free thought, and free expression will be 
lost. In today's era, universities have latched on to an 
advancement of diversity, inequity and inclusion, DEI, as an 
ideal for campuses, which is plainly stamped on college 
websites, it is spelled out in college codes. While colleges 
and universities may choose to focus on DEI, I will caution 
them that the line is crossed when they obligate or demand 
faculty and students to sign on to these beliefs.
    In fact, many universities require signed diversity 
statements, which often are a determining factor in student 
admission, faculty hiring, and tenure promotion. These 
statements act as political litmus tests. They insist on 
commitment to certain views, and imply the prospective 
applicant will not be considered if they do not sufficiently 
advocate for the same beliefs.
    Let me remind everyone listening that we live in the free 
land of America, not Communist China, Cuba, North Korea or 
Russia. While all the pressures to conform, or avoid saying the 
wrong thing, it is also no wonder over half the students now 
self-censor. Universities are increasingly minimizing the 
viewpoints of those beliefs deemed acceptable.
    The entire generation of young academics must tailor their 
work to a prescribed agenda or face professional purgatory. 
Even professors with tenure are no longer safe in these elite 
leftist running universities as they continue to fire and 
threatened long-standing scholars over wrong thinking.
    American postsecondary education thrives when people from 
different backgrounds are encouraged to express themselves to 
foster a healthy environment of intellectual diversity. The 
American university system needs to focus on the purpose of 
education. The purpose and pursuit of truth. This committee 
should explore legislative avenues to create the right 
incentives to remind universities of trust that we give them as 
we fund them through our taxpayer tax dollars.
    This trust is not to be an adversary to our sacred free 
rights of speech, but to protect it. My colleagues and I have a 
delicate job of considering how to ensure compliance through 
enforcement mechanisms that our law currently lacks.
    The role of American government has always been to defend 
the freedom of the students. This committee will not, and our 
fellow Americans should not look the other way as millions of 
students and great minds are silenced and disinvited, or forced 
to adopt beliefs antithetical to the Constitution because of a 
vocal minority of bullies.
    With work, we can return to the days when students were 
taught to say with confidence let us respectfully agree to 
disagree, and let us continue this debate another day. With 
that, I look forward to the hearing today, and I yield to the 
Ranking Member, Mr. Scott.
    [The statement of Chairman Owens follows:]

 Statement of Hon. Burgess Owens, Chairman, Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

    What our young men and women practice and learn at colleges and 
universities will impact our nations for generations to come, far 
beyond their own careers. How today's students are taught or not taught 
to listen to new ideas and debate with those who they disagree with, 
will ultimately carry into their interactions and practices in Fortune 
500 companies, academia, the arts, their families, and even into the 
halls of Congress. Freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected 
God-given Right ensconced in our founding documents. Far too many 
higher education institutions claim to uphold this right, accept 
funding from the American taxpayer, and then purposefully turn their 
backs and betray us.
    Our witnesses today have extensive personal experience defending 
the right for all viewpoints to be heard.
    The experiences of our witnesses and growing mountains of evidence 
regularly appearing in the news, paint a dire picture of the state of 
free expression in postsecondary education. The American people watch 
with shock as video after video emerge of mobs of radicalized students 
attacking anyone with an ``opinion'' not aligned with theirs. These 
students are trained in college classrooms that bullying of others is 
totally acceptable. That attacking others while hiding anonymously in 
the midst of a group or behind a mask is virtuous. This is not virtue, 
but instead the height of cowardice.
    These cowardly attacks extend to their fellow colleagues who feel 
they have a right to express and debate their earnest beliefs, to 
faculty attempting to voice their own ideas beyond the confines of 
critical race theory, and most recently and shockingly, the heckling of 
a federal appellate judge who was invited to speak at a law school.
    Those who do not conform to the mob's thoughts and words are 
quickly taught: ``you are not welcome here.''
    The ability to speak freely to build one's knowledge is a 
cornerstone of the American system of postsecondary education. When our 
universities do nothing to safeguard free speech from classroom 
radicalized students, our future as a free Nation is at stake.
    I will leave the many appalling details of recent attacks on speech 
to our witnesses, but I would like to make one more point.
    Movements to threaten speech have occurred before. If those with 
certain views are allowed to shut down competing views, the battle to 
sustain freedoms upon which our county was founded--free speech, free 
thought, and free expression--will be lost.
    In today's era, universities have latched onto the advancement of 
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) as an ideal for campuses, which 
is plainly stamped on college websites and spelled out in university 
codes.
    While colleges and universities may choose to focus on DEI, I would 
caution that the line is crossed when they obligate and demand faculty 
and students to sign on to their belief in these principles.
    In fact, many universities require signed ``Diversity Statements,'' 
which are often a determining factor in student admissions, faculty 
hiring, and tenure promotion.
    These statements act as a political litmus test. They insist on a 
commitment to certain views and imply that prospective applicants will 
not be considered if they do not sufficiently advocate for the same 
beliefs. Let me remind everyone listening. We live in the Free Land of 
America, not Communist China, Cuba, North Korea or Russia.
    With all the pressure to conform or avoid saying the wrong thing, 
it is also no wonder that over half of students self-censor. 
Universities are increasingly minimizing the viewpoints of those with 
beliefs deemed unacceptable.
    An entire generation of young academics must tailor their work to a 
prescribed agenda or face professional purgatory. Even professors with 
tenure are no longer safe as elite Leftist-run universities continue to 
fire and threaten long standing scholars over ``wrong-think.''
    American postsecondary education thrives when people from different 
backgrounds and perspectives are encouraged to express themselves. To 
foster a healthy environment for intellectual diversity, the American 
university system needs to focus on the purpose of education: The 
pursuit of truth.
    This committee should explore possible legislative avenues to 
create the right incentives to remind universities of the trust we give 
them when we fund them through our tax dollars. That trust is to not be 
an adversary to our sacred free speech rights but to protect it. My 
colleagues and I have the delicate job of considering how to ensure 
compliance through enforcement mechanisms that our law currently lacks.
    The role of the American government has always been to defend the 
freedom of its citizens. This committee will not and our fellow 
Americans should not look the other way as millions of students and 
great minds are silenced, disinvited, or forced to adopt beliefs 
antithetical to the Constitution because of a vocal minority of 
bullies. We are working to return to the good ole days when our 
students were taught to say with confidence ``Let's Respectfully Agree 
to Disagree'' and continue to debate another day.
    With that, I look forward to the hearing today and yield to the 
Ranking Member.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Chairman Owens. Good morning. We can 
all agree that free speech is a constitutional right, and the 
bedrock of our democracy. For decades, colleges and 
universities have been on the front lines of protecting and 
advancing that right.
    The majority is not apparently interested in protecting all 
speech. Instead, today's hearing is an example of MAGA 
republicans hijacking our shared values of free speech, and 
waging a one-sided campaign to protect conservative speech. 
MAGA republicans and the far right news media are peddling 
empty catch phrases like cancel culture, and woke, to fuel mass 
hysteria around an alleged conspiracy by institutions to 
degrade conservative free speech.
    This deliberately hides the real current threat to free 
speech on college campuses today, and that is republican 
politician's censorship of curriculum. For example, new laws in 
Mississippi, South Dakota, and Florida censor how public 
colleges can teach about racial justice. A new law in Tennessee 
bans public colleges from including ideas about race and sex in 
any seminar, training or workshop.
    A new law in Florida proposed a ban on majors and minors 
related to race and gender, and intersectionality studies at 
public colleges. It also bans any initiative, such as bringing 
a speaker to a campus related to diversity, equity, and 
inclusion. It is particularly rich that today the committee 
republicans say they are concerned about diversity of thought 
and free speech, when just last week, House republicans passed 
legislation to ban books and sensor curriculum in K through 12 
schools, actions that are contrary to our core democratic 
principles.
    I will say it again, the real threat to the First Amendment 
is MAGA republicans extreme education agenda. Regrettably, as 
republican leaders in red states increasingly sensor your free 
speech and learning, the incidents of harassment toward 
marginalized student groups have also increased. In 2019, the 
Anti-Defamation League recorded 630 incidents of white 
supremist activities on college campuses.
    In other words, republican politicians are weaponizing the 
First Amendment to turn the clock back when our higher 
education system defends only conservative speech, and 
undermine support for students most in need.
    When marginalized students, those who are reasonably 
fearful about their safety and security, when these 
marginalized students petition their college administrators for 
help, they are often met with inaction. The First Amendment is 
not an excuse for inaction. Our schools have duties under Title 
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin 
in any ``program or activity receiving Federal financial 
assistance.''
    In fact, the Department of Education has illustrated how a 
college or university can live up to both its requirements 
under the First Amendment and under Title VI, saying and I 
quote, ``The fact that discriminatory harassment involves 
speech, however, does not relieve the school of its obligation 
to respond if speech contributes to a hostile environment.
    Schools can protect students from such harassment without 
running afoul of students and staff First Amendment rights. 
Simply put, we can uphold the Constitution while also 
protecting the safety of our students. While republican 
politicians waste valuable time in political theater and 
culture wars, democrats are continuing to build on the 
victories we have achieved alongside the Biden Harris 
administration to meaningfully support students and families.
    For example, last Congress democrats passed, without a 
single republican vote, House or Senate, the American Rescue 
Plan Act, which provided institutions of higher education with 
dedicated funding to help students avoid hunger and 
homelessness and other hardships during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    This Congress, the committee democrats have reintroduced 
the Lowering Obstacles to Achievement Now, the LOAN Act, which 
would help address gaps in our student loan system to reduce 
the need for students to take out crushing student loans, and 
support current and future borrowers.
    I hope my colleagues will join democrats in addressing the 
real challenges facing students and families, and reject the 
republicans dangerous crusade against academic freedom. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.[The statement of Ranking 
Member Scott follows:]

Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member, Subcommittee  
            on Higher Education and Workforce Development

    Thank you, Chairman Owens, and good morning.
    We can all agree that free speech is a constitutional right and 
bedrock of our democracy. For decades, colleges and universities have 
been on the front lines of protecting and advancing that right.
    The Majority is not interested in protecting all speech. Instead, 
today's hearing is an example of MAGA Republicans hijacking our shared 
value of free speech and waging a one-sided campaign to protect 
conservative speech.
    MAGA Republicans and the far-right news media are peddling empty 
catchphrases like ``cancel culture'' and ``woke'' to fuel mass hysteria 
around an alleged conspiracy by institutions to degrade conservative 
free speech.
    This deliberately hides the real, current threat to free speech on 
campuses today-that is Republican politicians' censorship of college 
curriculum.
    For example, new laws in Mississippi, South Dakota, and Florida 
censor how public colleges can teach about racial injustice.
    A new law in Tennessee bans public colleges from including ideas 
about race and sex in any seminar, training, or workshop.
    A new Florida proposal would ban majors and minors related to race, 
gender, and intersectionality studies at public colleges. It also bans 
any initiatives-such as brining a speaker to campus-related to 
diversity, equity, or inclusion.
    It is particularly rich that, today, Committee Republicans say they 
are concerned about ``diversity of thought'' and ``free speech'' when, 
just last week, House Republicans passed legislation to ban books and 
censor curriculum in K-12 schools-actions that are contrary to our core 
democratic principles.
    I will say it again: the real threat to the First Amendment is MAGA 
Republicans' extreme education agenda.
    Regrettably, as Republican leaders in red states increasingly 
censor speech and learning, incidents of harassment towards 
marginalized student groups have also increased. In 2019, the Anti-
Defamation League recorded 630 incidents of white supremacist activity 
on college campuses.
    In other words, Republican politicians are weaponizing the First 
Amendment to turn back the clock on our higher education system, defend 
only conservative speech, and undermine support for the students who 
are most in need.
    When these marginalized students--who are rightfully fearful about 
their safety and security--petition their college administrators for 
help, they are often met with inaction. The First Amendment is not an 
excuse for inaction.
    Our schools have duties under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or 
national origin in ``any program or activity receiving Federal 
financial assistance.''
    In fact, the Department of Education has illustrated how a college 
or university can live up to both its requirements under the First 
Amendment and under Title VI, saying-and I quote: ``The fact that 
discriminatory harassment involves speech, however, does not relieve 
the school of its obligation to respond if the speech contributes to a 
hostile environment. Schools can protect students from such harassment 
without running afoul of students' and staff First Amendment right.''
    Simply put, we can uphold the Constitution while also protecting 
the safety of our students.
    While Republican politicians waste valuable time on political 
theatre and culture wars, Democrats are continuing to build on the 
victories we have achieved alongside the Biden-Harris administration to 
meaningfully support students and families.
    For example, last Congress, Democrats passed--without a single 
Republican vote in the House or Senate--the American Rescue Plan Act, 
which provided institutions of higher education with dedicated funding 
to help students avoid hunger and homelessness, and other hardships 
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    This Congress, Committee Democrats reintroduced the Lowering 
Obstacles to Achievement Now (LOAN) Act, which would help address the 
gaps in our flawed student loan system to reduce the need for students 
to take out crushing student loans and support current and future 
borrowers.
    I hope my colleagues will join Democrats in addressing the real 
challenges facing students and families and rejecting Republicans' 
dangerous crusade against academic freedom.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Owens. Thank you so much for that. Pursuant to 
Committee Rule 8(c), all members who wish to insert written 
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the 
committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 
p.m. 14 days after the date of this hearing, which is April 12, 
2023.
    Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 
14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material 
referenced during the hearing to be submitted with the official 
record. I ask unanimous consent that the committee members who 
are not assigned to this subcommittee be permitted to 
participate in this hearing consistent with the committee rules 
and practice.
    I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished 
witnesses. Ms. Cherise Trump is Executive Director to Speech 
First, and is in the role as the host of Speech First podcast, 
Well Said. She brings extensive experience working directly 
with college students thanks to Speech First.
    Mr. Josiah Joner is a sophomore studying economics at 
Stanford University. He is Executive Editor for the Stanford 
Review and has written on the various issues, including free 
speech on college campus.
    Suzanne Nossel has been the Chief Executive Officer of PEN 
America since 2013, and is the author of Dare to Speak: 
Defending Free Speech for All.
    Ilya Shapiro is currently servicing as Director of 
Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. He has 
served in previous roles of Vice President of Cato Institute, 
Director of Cato's Robert A. Levy Center for the Constitution 
Studies, and publisher of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
    Thank you again for your time for coming to meet before us. 
We thank all the witnesses for being here, and look forward to 
your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I would ask that 
you each limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary of 
your written statement. I would also like to remind the 
witnesses to be aware of their responsibilities to provide 
accurate information to the subcommittee. I wouldd like first 
to recognize Cherise Trump.

       STATEMENT OF CHERISE TRUMP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,   
               SPEECH FIRST, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

    Ms. Trump. Thank you, Chairman Owens and Ranking Member 
Scott, and thank you members of the subcommittee for the 
opportunity to testify today. My name is Cherise Trump. I am 
the Executive Director of Speech First, a free speech advocacy 
organization that has successfully sued colleges over their 
anti-speech policies and won.
    Over the past year alone, I have visited dozens of campuses 
and spoken with thousands of students. Those students face an 
ever-growing, ever-present threat on campuses. That is 
administrators working to chill and silence their speech.
    Our universities are failing miserably at the one thing 
they are being paid exorbitant amounts to do. They are failing 
to educate students. Last week, I was on one of North 
Carolina's university campuses, and there was a room of about 
50 students, and I asked them to raise their hand if they read 
the Constitution, and only five raised their hands.
    This is something that is evident, that the universities 
are failing our students. I will quickly mention two policies 
that are being used to target and squash unpopular speech on 
campuses. First are harassment policies. We all know that Title 
9 regulates discrimination on the basis of sex and education, 
but you may not realize that there is no limit to how many 
harassment policies and discrimination policies can actually 
exist on campus.
    Often times universities have multiple. They take it upon 
themselves to adopt even broader definitions of harassment and 
discrimination. These policies completely disregard the Federal 
guidelines that are meant to strike a balance between 
protecting student's First Amendment rights, while also 
protecting students.
    For example, we have seen universities define in harassment 
offensive speech, something that threatens someone's mental 
health. Statements that might be humiliating or micro 
aggressions.
    These are all Constitutionally protected forms of speech. I 
ask you, can you define what threatens someone's mental health? 
Can you provide an objective standard for evaluating whether a 
statement is humiliating? Can you actually define a micro 
aggression? Students can not either. How can one expect to 
enforce a policy that uses such subjective and overbroad terms?
    Second, and perhaps even more nefarious are biased 
reporting systems. Bias reporting systems are anonymous 
reporting systems that solicit reports from students on one 
another for incidents of bias. Bias can be defined as anything 
the university wants. Often times they define a bias incident 
as statements that are unfair or prejudicial.
    Jokes, stereotyping, micro aggressions, not using gender 
inclusive language. In some cases, even offending someone's 
political affiliation is a reportable offense. Once a student 
is reported, they often do not get to face their accuser. They 
are asked to meet with a member of the administration, which 
can often lead to writing a letter of apology and sensitivity 
training.
    Government agencies soliciting anonymous reports from 
citizens that lead to re-education. What does this sound like? 
In 2022, Speech First surveyed 821 public and private 
universities, and it found that 56 percent had biased reporting 
systems in place. This is a 200 percent increase over the last 
5 years.
    Our lawsuits at Speech First challenge the university 
policies that target and discipline students for their 
constitutionally protected speech. The First Amendment should 
be the guide that universities use when deciding whether and 
how to regulate student speech.
    It is not. Universities, instead try to find ways to target 
and suppress uncomfortable speech. Their stated goals are 
diversity and inclusion, safety, and other euphemisms for 
discrimination. It seems the term diversity applies to 
everything except for diversity of thought.
    Currently, diversity, equity and inclusion permeates every 
aspect of a college experience. In 2022, Speech First obtained 
freshman orientation materials from almost every major State 
university. Only one-third of the universities even mentioned 
free speech or viewpoint diversity in their orientation 
materials. This emphasis on DEI and freshman orientations is 
not an oversight. It is intentional, and it is clearly designed 
to create insecurities where there were none before.
    Take for example, the definition of racism that 
administrators at UNLV gave the students. Racism, they say, is, 
``A socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white 
people.'' This is something that is very clear to what the 
universities are prioritizing. In short, students are operating 
in a surveillance-like state. They are actively censoring 
themselves, out of fear of espousing the ``wrong'' opinions.
    They do not know what could be reported for, so they choose 
to stay silent. Thankfully the law is on our side. Speech First 
has one in the Fifth, Sixth and 11th Circuits on issue of 
biased reporting systems, and in the Fifth and 11th Circuits on 
harassment policies. All of the policies I have mentioned today 
are designed to create an environment of control, not safety.
    I can give you plenty of examples of students who currently 
feel unsafe on college campuses because of these anti-speech 
and discriminatory environments that are encouraged by the 
policies that I outlined today. Keep in mind these are the same 
students who will be future leaders, litigators, judges, 
national security advisers, and tech CEOs and bankers.
    What outlooks and habits are they developing on college 
campuses that they will bring with them in the professional 
world. Will we end up with leaders who are either 
disconcertingly compliant, and avoid confrontation, or leaders 
who have totalitarian penchants, encouraged by all those who 
agree with them?
    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Cherise Trump follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    Chairman Owens. Thank you so much, Ms. Trump. I would like 
to next recognize Josiah Joner.

       STATEMENT OF MR. JOSIAH JONER, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE  
              STANFORD REVIEW, STANFORD, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Joner. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Scott, and 
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here 
today to share my perspective as a college student on free 
speech in our universities.
    My name is Josiah Joner. I am a sophomore at Stanford 
University, and I am an editor at the Stanford Review. There 
are countless examples from college campuses across the country 
where students and administrators have suppressed free speech 
on campuses. Recently, protestors and a high-ranking 
administrator at Stanford Law School prevented Judge Kyle 
Duncan from speaking.
    I covered this incident with my colleagues in the Stanford 
Review. These are the institutions currently educating the next 
generation of world leaders, and without a basic respect for 
free speech on college campuses, the integrity of both these 
institutions and the future leaders will slowly degrade.
    Unfortunately, these incidents that suppress free speech 
have become an all too common occurrence on college campuses. 
On Thursday, March 9, Judge Kyle Duncan of the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals was invited to speak at Stanford Law School by 
the Stanford Federalist Society. Days before the event, 
however, the protesting students asked the Federalist Society 
to cancel the event, or move it to an online format because of 
their concerns with Judge Duncan's previous statements and 
actions.
    These students posted fliers that condemned Judge Duncan 
and called out the individual members of the Federalist 
Society's Board, saying that they should be ashamed. Then, on 
the day of Judge Duncan's Stanford speech, close to 100 
students protested Judge Duncan, proceeding to enter the event 
and shout at him during his remarks.
    The student protestors heckled Judge Duncan profusely, 
preventing the judge from speaking in what was one of the 
latest examples of the heckler's veto, used to suppress free 
speech on our campus. They held obscene signs, and shouted 
obscene remarks, and Judge Duncan was not able to deliver his 
lecture.
    While the protests were led by dozens of students, at the 
center of the incident was a university administrator. Stanford 
Law School's Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and 
Inclusion. Frustrated with the disruptive students, Judge 
Duncan asked for an administrator to hopefully restore normalcy 
to the room and allow him to speak.
    After his request for an administrator, Dean Tirien 
Steinbach stepped up to the podium and pulled out her prepared 
remarks. In a 6-minute speech, Dean Steinbach spoke freely, 
without students heckling her speech. Dean Steinbach began by 
condemning Judge Duncan's harmful viewpoints. Calling him out 
for his stances that she disagrees with.
    In her speech, the Dean affirmed her supposed commitment to 
free speech, but she then continued to contradict her own 
words, looking out to the crowd of protestors, those who were 
holding obscene signs and heckling the judge. Dean Steinbach 
said, ``I look out and I do not ask what is going on here. I 
look out and I say I am glad this is going on here.''
    Dean Steinbach condoned and encouraged the protests that 
silenced Judge Duncan, and her speech was met with applause 
from the protestors at the end. Federal Marshals had to step in 
and escort Judge Duncan from the event, and he was effectively 
prevented from exercising his freedom of speech under both the 
First Amendment and Stanford's own policies.
    The incident at Stanford Law School is a very concerning 
example of students destroying a speaker's right to share their 
beliefs on campus. However, most concerning from this incident 
was the active role of a university administrator in violating 
Judge Duncan's free speech. The incident demonstrates a 
concerning trend in colleges, the hiring of administrators who 
are not committed to the principles of free speech, or even the 
university's own policies regarding free speech.
    Many of these university administrators, like Dean 
Steinbach, a diversity, equity and inclusion administrator, 
have taken a role in universities that places a greater 
emphasis on restricting what is and what is not acceptable, 
rather than promoting diversity of thought and free speech, 
which spurs a functioning society, and rigorous intellectual 
debate.
    It is because of incidents like this, and administrators 
like Dean Steinbach, that students, both conservative and 
liberal at Stanford and college campuses around the country, 
are too scared to speak up in the classroom and share their 
viewpoints. It has instilled angst into each student for fear 
of sharing their opinions.
    Anything they say might also be viciously condemned by 
these same university administrators. The best option is to 
merely stay silent and keep one's opinions to themselves. While 
these administrators claim to create more open and inclusive 
environments, they are in fact contributing to just the 
opposite. A culture which signals conformity and destroys 
academic debate because of fear of sharing one's opinions.
    Debate has been expelled from the classroom and forced to 
die altogether, or take refuge in a few remaining groups that 
still offer forums for open and free discussion. We at the 
Stanford Review are one of those few groups on campus still 
dedicated to the principle of free speech, and rigorous 
intellectual debate. We are concerned over the precedent this 
sets for Stanford and other colleges across the country.
    This environment has exiled free expression and debate 
outside of the classroom. The very spot where it is most needed 
and essential. It is my hope that future students, that our 
colleges do not continue to experience the degradation of free 
speech, and face the threats that may come with sharing their 
opinions. This is not a conservative issue, and this is not a 
liberal issue.
    This issue of free speech is at the core of what defines 
our society in the United States, and without it,,these 
institutions will fail. Congress now has an opportunity to 
ensure our institutions preserve First Amendment rights and 
protect free speech on college campuses. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Joner follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    Chairman Owens. Thank you so much for that. I would like to 
now recognize Suzanne Nossel.

         STATEMENT OF SUZANNE NOSSEL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE  
                    OFFICER, PEN AMERICA

    Ms. Nossel. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Scott, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today. I am the daughter of immigrants, 
a mother of a college freshman and high school sophomore, an 
attorney by training, and a proud American who served in two 
Presidential administrations.
    PEN America, which I have led for a decade, stands at the 
intersection of literature and human rights to protect free 
expression worldwide. We are a non-profit, non-partisan 
organization with an unwavering commitment to free speech, a 
principle that underpins democracy, at a cause above politics.
    We at PEN America worked on issues related to campus speech 
since 2016. University campus is the incubator of democratic 
citizenship, and the breeding ground for leaders in every 
sector of society. If we do not get free speech and open 
discourse right on campus, we will not get it right in the 
media, the courts, or out on the streets.
    Our work in this area grew from concerns that a rising 
generation was turning its back on the principles of free 
speech. We learned of lectures canceled, or shouted down, 
faculty targeted by threats and harassments for things they 
said, and receiving tepid support, and sometimes none at all 
from their institutions.
    Students often lack awareness of the First Amendment, or 
the precepts of academic freedom, sometimes believing that the 
best answer to noxious ideas is to drown them out, or to call 
on university authorities to shut them down.
    At PEN America, we argue that the essential drive to render 
American campuses more diverse, equitable, and inclusive need 
not, and must not come at the expense of robust, uncompromising 
protections for free speech and academic freedom.
    I have written a book, Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech 
for All, which centers on 20 principles for how we can live 
together in our diverse, digitized, and divided society without 
curbing free speech. Essential insight of our work in this area 
is the idea that an open campus must uphold the ability of all 
students to participate freely and fully.
    If some students, by virtue of their background, gender, 
race, nationality, religion, or political views, feel hindered 
from speaking up in class or voicing their opinions, the 
marketplace of ideas suffers. Sometimes calls to curtain or 
punish speech are born out of a frustration that campuses, or 
society at large, have not done enough to address the lingering 
vestiges of racial, gender and other forms of exclusion.
    While such efforts to suppress speech are misguided, I 
believe they cannot be effectively addressed without looking at 
what motivates them. Since 2021, alongside these challenges, we 
have confronted a new threat to open discourse on campus. We 
have documented proposed and enacted State legislation, 
curtailing what can be taught and studied in college and 
university classrooms.
    There are seven laws across seven states that we classify 
as educational gag orders, affecting higher education. We 
define educational gag orders as laws that explicitly limit 
what can be taught and studied on campus. As of March 16, there 
were an additional 24 higher education bills pending in 15 
states across the country.
    The wording of these gag orders is deliberately vague. It 
casts a willful chill on a wide swath of speech as faculty and 
administrators struggle to understand where the lines are 
drawn. Collectively, these bills are liberal in their attempt 
to legislate, but certain ideas and concepts are out of bounds.
    They are intended not to keep speech open, but to put 
universities on notice that they are being watched, and will 
face the consequences if their decisions fall afoul of the 
politics.
    Indeed, in pushing back against orthodoxies, the proponents 
of these measures have embraced and even surpassed the very 
tactics they claim to decry, putting the weight not only of 
social pressure, but of government power behind efforts to 
repress certain viewpoints. This year we are also seeing a 
State of alarming new tactics being introduced to curtain open 
discourse on campus. These include the takeover of the public 
New College of Florida by a group of out of State trustees, and 
the advancement of HB 999 in Florida, which would abolish 
certain courses of study.
    Those who believe in the First Amendment understand that 
its essence lies in restricting the power of government to 
mettle in the realm of ideas, not inserting the heavy hand of 
the State to dictate what can and cannot be taught. Escaping 
this escalating tit for tat battle of assaults on free speech 
on U.S. campuses will demand leadership.
    University presidents need to insist and ensure that all 
viewpoints, left and right alike, get a fair hearing on campus. 
They need to speak up and resist intrusive legislation that 
micromanages curriculum, and undercuts academic freedom. 
Efforts to foster diversity, equity, inclusion on campus, 
should span the gamut of individual differences--racial, 
socioeconomic, religious, ethnic, ideological, gender based, 
political and more.
    We also need to introduce the norms and ideals of free 
speech to all students and teach them how to uphold it, whether 
in the lecture hall, or while mounting a protest.
    The intensifying battle for control over free expression in 
education should worry us all. The greatest casualty of this 
battle may be neither progressive nor conservative ideas, but 
the principal of free speech itself. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify, and I welcome your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Nossel follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
        
    Chairman Owens. Thank you, also. I would like to last 
recognize Ilya Shapiro.

   STATEMENT OF MR. ILYA SHAPIRO, DIRECTOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
        STUDIES, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

    Mr. Shapiro. Thanks, Chairman Owens and distinguished 
members. I actually agreed without 90 percent of what Suzanne 
just said, but thanks for this chance to share my thoughts 
about the State of campus free speech.
    I have long been a First Amendment advocate but more 
recently had a lived experience in this area. Just over a year 
ago, I had my most direct and acute exposure to higher ed 
culture that is hostile to civil discourse. Indeed, shut up was 
the response in more obscene terms, that I got from students at 
UC Hastings when I tried to speak there just over a year ago 
about my last book, Supreme Disorder.
    They prevented the event from taking place, chanting and 
banging as if it was to occupy Wall Street. Applying the bad 
faith lens to a poorly phrased tweet, activists had judged me a 
racist misogynist, and my expertise illegitimate. I was 
suspended from my new position at Georgetown, pending an 
investigation into whether I violated university policies on 
harassment and discrimination.
    Now those who shut down my event wanted to hear neither my 
reasoning about the President's Supreme Court criteria, nor my 
broader analysis of the confirmation battle to come. The 
protestors also castigated their own law school for even 
allowing me to speak, never mind that Hastings would be 
violating the First Amendment if it disapproved speakers based 
on the content of their speech.
    You would think that law students should have a greater 
appreciation for open engagement with provocative ideas than 
undergrads. After all, lawyers face much harder situations than 
bad tweets. My experience was no isolated incident, not even 
for March 2022. The following week, a similar thing happened at 
Yale, at a panel bringing together lawyers from the left and 
the right that agreed on little other than the importance of 
free speech.
    Dean Heather Gerken basically buried her head in the sand. 
Then it happened again at Michigan, when students obstructed a 
debate on Texas's Heartbeat bill. The only thing these events 
had in common was that speakers presented ideas that some did 
not like. The trend of canceling speakers instead of 
challenging them, represents the loss of grace in our culture 
more broadly.
    The desire to ascribe maligned motives to one's political 
enemies, to think of them as evil, not merely wrong. As 
American society is secularized, politics has replaced religion 
to fill our spiritual needs. In that context, it is easy to see 
one's political opponents as heretics. Then of course their 
sacrilege is not worth hearing.
    It will take real courage from political leaders and 
cultural influencers to get us back to a place where we can 
disagree without wanting to ruin the lives of the people with 
whom we disagree. As for me, after a 4-month investigation, 
Dean Bill Trainer cleared me on the technicality that I was not 
an employee when I tweeted. The report from the Diversity 
Office set me up for discipline the next time that I 
transgressed progressive orthodoxy.
    Any comment that anyone found offensive would have gotten 
me in trouble, such as a opining that racial preferences in 
admissions were unconstitutional. The freedom to speak is no 
freedom at all, if it makes an exception for speech someone 
doesn't like.
    Georgetown applies even these so-called principals 
inconsistently. Contrast my case with many examples of 
professors tweeting much worse things from the left, castrating 
white men who supported Kavanaugh for example. It is free 
speech for thee, not for me.
    Strong policies are not enough if university leaders are 
not willing to stand up to those who demand censorship. 
Proliferating DEI offices, and orthodoxies that stifles 
intellectual diversity, undermines equal opportunity and 
excludes dissenting voices. It is quite overwhelming.
    Even the deans of elite law schools buck these political 
commissars at their peril. What Georgetown subjected me to--
would have subjected me to had I stayed, is a heckler's veto 
that leads to a star chamber. I made a noisy exit, and I am 
using this platform to shine a light on the rot in academia. I 
am generally long on America, but we may have passed the point 
of no return in terms of the illiberal takeover of higher 
education.
    DEI offices have broadened terms like harassment and 
discrimination not to promote welcoming environments, but to 
enforce progressive ideology. This is not the decades old 
complaint about from conservatives about liberals taking over 
the faculty lounge.
    Wherever college president's stand up for free speech, the 
mob disburses, but most officials are careerist bureaucrats. 
Deans like Trainer and Gerken are not woke radicals. They are 
spineless cowards, unwilling to confront the illiberal inmates 
who have taken over their institutions. Schools must instill a 
culture of respect for opposing views and end compelled speech 
in the form of diversity statements.
    It can not all be done from within, so we need external 
controls from State legislators and attorneys general, as well 
as congressional oversight tied to Federal funding. We also 
need exogenous shocks, like the boycott of hiring judicial 
clerks from Yale, led by Judge Jim Ho, which I think he should 
now extend to Stanford.
    There is still a long way to go before universities return 
to their mission of seeking truth and knowledge, and law 
schools should return to their goal of teaching future lawyers 
to uphold the rule of law. The battle has been joined, thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    

    
    Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. Under Committee Rule 9, 
we will now question the witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I 
will begin this process. Ms. Trump, the title of this hearing 
is Diversity of Thought, Protecting Free Speech on College 
Campuses. As we have heard today, universities and their 
administrators are increasingly focused on diversity, but only 
diversity in a narrowly defined way.
    We have seen a startling lack of philosophical diversity, 
in some ways college administrators should promote more aspects 
of diversity such as viewpoint diversity with the students. Do 
you agree with that premise?
    Mrs. Trump. That universities should promote more viewpoint 
diversity? Absolutely. Yes.
    Chairman Owens. Yes.
    Mrs. Trump. There are ways to do it you know, the 
universities could actually teach students about viewpoint 
diversity, which is something they often leave out of their 
freshman orientation materials, or often do not require 
students to discuss in the classroom.
    A lot of universities actually mandate that students take 
DEI classes, diversity, equity, inclusion classes in order to 
graduate, which often will talk about anti-racism, trigger 
warnings, social movements, but they usually will leave out any 
kind of viewpoint diversity or free speech conversation.
    That is usually not a mandated requirement in order to 
graduate. The first step would be for universities to actually 
start trying to enforce this, because administrators really do 
paint the environment and paint the picture on the campus. You 
can see a lot of examples for what the administrators believe, 
and what their political agendas are affecting and influencing 
students.
    Often times you will see something like what we saw at 
Colorado State University, where they demonized the concept of 
free speech by having a sign that says if you, or someone you 
know, has experienced a free speech event, then here are 17 
counseling services we can provide you for.
    This is clearly when students, when universities are not 
prioritizing these concepts, students are not going to 
prioritize them either.
    Chairman Owens. Very good. Thank you so much. Mr. Shapiro, 
in an instance such as the school--I am sorry, instances such 
as what happened at Stanford University, animosity among young 
people to what our country's founding principles. You described 
the actions of DEI staff as enforcing orthodoxy that stifles 
intellectual diversity, and denies equal opportunity, and 
excludes dissenting voices.
    From your perspective, how is the increasing prevalence of 
these DEI beliefs impact student's likelihood that they will 
fully embrace the principles of free speech?
    Mr. Shapiro. The way that these DEI bureaucracies 
indoctrinate false values, a sense of those magic words DEI, 
puts them in tension with speech, which they need not be, as 
Suzanne explained, or as the letter from Stanford Law Dean 
Jenny Martinez explained, how free expression, civil discourse 
is essential if we actually want appreciation for diversity and 
inclusion and all of those good things.
    The problem is these post-modern theories about 
restructuring society along different social hierarchies, 
dismantling structures, oppressor and oppress classes, all of 
these weird things that have migrated back all of a sudden, 
subvert the classical values of speech, civil discourse, due 
process and everything else that we are supposed to believe in, 
not just in higher ed, but in America more broadly.
    Chairman Owens. Okay. How has the university setting 
tending to influence our culture at large?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes. We used to think that what happens on 
campuses, well that is just those crazy kids. Once they grow up 
they will be exposed to the real world, things are going to 
change. Well, as I discussed in the Wall Street Journal weekend 
interview that dropped last night, all of a sudden these 
students are growing up and occupying positions in society all 
over the place.
    You know, I focus most on law schools, and that is really 
alarming because those are the gatekeepers of our political and 
legal institutions of the future, the Federal judges, the 
corporate suites, and legal offices. If they do not believe the 
ideas that they do not like are worthy of hearing, then our 
society, our whole constitutional order is lost.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I appreciate that. I now 
recognize Ranking Member Scott for his questions for the 
witnesses.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Joner, 
who--you mentioned the situation that happened at a law school. 
What was the official response from the law school to the 
Dean's behavior?
    Mr. Joner. Thank you, Congressman. President Tessier-
Lavigne and Stanford, President of Stanford University, and 
Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez issued an apology to 
Judge Duncan a few days after the incident occurred. I commend 
the apology, and I think it was a well written response.
    Then just a few days ago, about a week ago, Dean Martinez 
released a ten page letter to the Law School and the greater 
public at large that apologized for the incident, and talked 
about how they were going to--committed herself to free speech, 
and I commend her letter. I thought it was excellent.
    Mr. Scott. Was she suspended?
    Mr. Joner. Yes. The Dean is currently on leave.
    Mr. Scott. That was the official response from the 
university. Ms. Nossel, is there a difference between unruly 
students and State policy?
    Ms. Nossel. Thank you, Congressman. Yes there is, and that 
is what we are--excuse me, there is a major difference, and 
that is what concerns me so much. You know, we can agree on 
this panel on many of the same concerns about lack of grounding 
among students and principles of the First Amendment and 
freedom of speech, the need to educate them, the need to 
reinforce the idea that diversity, equity, inclusion need not, 
and most not be at odds with robust protections for free 
speech.
    The minute you insert the heavy hand of the State that you 
resort to statist solutions, and that legislation into the 
realm of the university, a realm that I think we all agree 
should be the zone of scholarship of free inquiry, where we 
want faculty. We are talking about the importance of tenure 
that faculty be protected from reprisal.
    To enact legislation that cordons off certain concepts that 
says this may not be taught, if you venture into this, you may 
get into trouble, you maybe face discipline. That, to me, as an 
American, honestly, is very dangerous. That is the kind of 
tactic that we see in repressive countries around the world 
where there is no buffer zone between the hand of the State, 
and what happens on a university campus.
    In our system we have faculty, we have university 
leadership that creates that zone of protection for the free 
flow of ideas. We are not under the thumb of government at 
American universities. Look, I think we agree to a large degree 
on the diagnosis of the problem, and the question really 
becomes what is the solution? Is the solution, you know, here 
in the United States of America, with our First Amendment where 
we stay the hand of government when it comes to the realm of 
ideas, are we really going to break with that, and endorse 
legislation to try to adjudicate what can and can't be said on 
campus?
    I think that is a very dangerous route to go down, and we 
have already talked about better solutions including training 
and the reinforcement of policies that can uphold the value of 
free speech on campus without departing from the First 
Amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Now, do these laws that have passed limiting 
what can be taught, and that kind of thing, does that have a 
partisan tinge to it? Does it have a partisan tinge to it?
    Ms. Nossel. It does. You know that is a serious concern, a 
principle is not a principle if it is not applied to all 
equally. To pick out and cherry pick certain ideas, certain 
course materials, certain theories and say these are out of 
bounds, that is the core of what the First Amendment protects 
and gets. Viewpoint based discrimination, the notion that the 
government would be listing out particular topics, subjects of 
discussion, aspects of a curriculum, and saying that these are 
out of bounds.
    You may--some here in this room may endorse what is on 
those lists today, but what is going to be on those lists 
tomorrow?
    Mr. Scott. Does that have a partisan tinge to it, 
republican or democrat?
    Ms. Nossel. It is republican legislatures across the 
country that have enacted these laws and tabled these 
proposals. I am not aware of any proposal emanating from 
democratic legislators.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Is it possible for unchecked freedom 
of speech to create a hostile environment in violation of Title 
VI?
    Ms. Nossel. Can unchecked freedom of speech create a 
hostile environment? No. What creates a hostile environment is 
discriminatory harassment, yes, that can be the origin of 
hostile environment. It typically requires action, not just 
speech.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize 
the Congresswoman from Indiana.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 
witnesses for being here today. I am a mom of a college 
freshman with two teenagers getting ready to prepare for 
college. I am certainly glad that this committee is considering 
this important topic. Free speech on college campuses where 
students should have the opportunity to think out loud, voice 
opinions, that is very important.
    Indiana has nearly 60 colleges and universities across the 
State, including Indiana University in my district. I am 
certainly very interested in this conversation. One thing I 
have heard from some students, they are fearing speaking out 
about their true opinions in the papers that they write for 
professors. In the things that they say in class.
    One conservative student who attends a university in 
Indiana, not IU, a school in Indiana, commented that he was not 
about to expose himself as a conservative to his professors for 
fear that his grades would suffer, and that would somehow 
impact his future, so that is something I am really concerned 
about.
    Another concern is when we were touring colleges, we 
visited a school that had 200 student groups, and not a single 
conservative group among them. That leaves no opportunity for 
conservative students to organize. Some of the issue may be 
that there is not a professor willing to sponsor a conservative 
group on campus.
    We hosted a series of roundtables earlier this month. We 
discussed this faculty sponsor requirement for students to form 
new groups on campus. I would hate to think that there are 
these barriers for students to convene and organize. Do you 
think Ms. Trump, is this an issue that would rise to the level 
of discrimination of these student groups if they are unable to 
organize for lack of a sponsor?
    Mrs. Trump. On some of the stuff that you said earlier with 
regards to the fear that students are feeling, being able to 
express their political viewpoints, that is why these clubs, 
these conservative clubs are actually so vital and important to 
students when they do want to speak out about some of their 
viewpoints and ideas.
    I think it is really important to recognize that the fear 
is pretty widespread on campuses. Faculty members have told me 
that they intentionally do not include open discussion in their 
classrooms anymore because they are afraid they might have to 
step in and make a comment. Students have told me on the same 
vein of what you mentioned earlier, a Texas student told me 
that he does not wear cowboy boots to class because that is 
associated with conservatives.
    He knows that if his professor found out he was a 
conservative, he fears that he would have retaliation, via his 
grades. There is a serious concern, and I can keep going on 
various examples, but to answer your question more directly 
about whether this is viewpoint discrimination.
    The policies that are in place on campuses that are 
creating these environments are in the vein of viewpoint 
discrimination. Most students and professors are afraid to 
associate themselves with conservative organizations, so they 
often times will go to these meetings in secret, and professors 
are usually unwilling to be faculty advisers for clubs, which 
is usually a requirement.
    That is something that once a university starts to be more 
open toward various viewpoints, and stop discriminating, then 
maybe you are going to get more conservative professors who are 
willing to represent these clubs.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you. To Mr. Shapiro, one of the things 
that we have also discussed is whether this committee should 
consider a student's bill of rights. We have just passed the 
Parent's Bill of Rights, where we would reaffirm a student's 
freedom of speech rights on campus. I want to thank you for 
your work at the Manhattan Institute.
    You said something in your written testimony that I want to 
highlight here. The problem goes far beyond speech on campus, 
worrying as developments here are for the next generation. It 
is even more important to have a national reckoning about our 
inability to discuss controversial issues without canceling 
those with whom we disagree.
    I certainly could not agree more. I think it has been a 
common theme that many on the right have been willing to go and 
have those debates where you do not have the same engagement 
from our counterparts on the left. You mentioned jokingly, 
maybe engaging with Whoopi Goldberg on Joe Rogan.
    I am wondering has she taken you up on that yet?
    Mr. Shapiro. She has not, alas. The offer is still open, or 
maybe Bill Maher, if you are listening, I would be happy to go 
on your show to talk about this stuff. Look, there is 
absolutely a role for Congress here, and especially for State 
legislatures, particularly with respect to public institutions. 
It is not that any legislation in this area is a slippery slope 
to authoritarianism.
    You can absolutely require recipients of higher ed funds to 
certify they will not violate the Constitution. They will 
preserve the already codified sense of Congress to protect 
student speech and freedom of association.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize 
Congressman Takano.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Nossel, I read in 
your statement that you said, ``We've decried student protests 
that went too far, such as at Yale, Stanford, and Georgetown.'' 
I am assuming the Stanford reference is the same incident that 
happened at Stanford that Mr. Joner was speaking of?
    Ms. Nossel. Yes. That is right.
    Mr. Takano. You regard that as an incident, as a protest 
that went too far.
    Ms. Nossel. Yes. I think it was an attempt at exercise of a 
heckler's veto, and I think the administration did not perform 
its proper responsibility to ensure that this invited speaker 
was given the opportunity to express his views, and that those 
who came to hear him had a chance to do so.
    You know, that for us is a free speech organization's 
concern.
    Mr. Takano. Based on Mr. Joner's testimony I would agree 
with you, and I would agree that universities must be protected 
zones with buffers all around them, so that they are true 
places of inquiry, where freedom of thought and a diversity of 
opinion can exist.
    Let me switch, let me kind of go to a related topic, I 
noticed that you have an expertise in human rights, Amnesty 
International, Human Rights Watch, that you have done a lot of 
research specific to Hong Kong and China, free speech issues. 
Is it fair to say that the political authorities, or the 
politicians, or the political authorities in China have the 
ability to impose a curriculum in institutions of higher ed?
    Ms. Nossel. Absolutely. The State controlled institutions. 
In Hong Kong, traditionally, there was a long tradition of 
academic freedom, and those universities were globally 
respected, and there were exchanges of scholars from around the 
world. That really has changed. It is kind of a free setting in 
with the passage of the National Security Law and the 
imposition of a much stronger hand from Beijing.
    That kind of leeway in Hong Kong to talk about issues like 
press freedom, human rights, and dissent has diminished.
    Mr. Takano. There was a before the basic law, when the 
basic law was in effect, the democratic institutions were 
strong, more robust freedom of inquiry at universities, basic 
law has been undermined. The CCP of China asserts its dominance 
in Hong Kong and you just described what happened at the 
universities.
    What kind of affect did this have on the students and the 
professors at Chinese universities in Hong Kong?
    Ms. Nossel. Yes. It is chilling. Some professors have left. 
They do not want to teach in that kind of environment. Others 
have had to change their curriculum. Courses have been 
decommissioned, because it is risky to take a stance, publish 
an article, talk about something in class that might fall afoul 
of the Beijing authorities.
    We know where this leads. I will never forget just very 
briefly, meeting a young, very well educated Chinese student 
who had said he had never heard of the Tiananmen Square 
massacre until he was in his 20's because that information was 
so sharply repressed. That is not what we want here.
    Mr. Takano. Okay. Well great. Are you able to draw any 
comparisons between what you witnessed in Hong Kong and 
globally, to what you are seeing now transpire under Governor 
DeSantis in Florida, and the republican legislature.
    Ms. Nossel. I do not want to overstate it, I think it is 
really important to recognize that there are clear 
distinctions, and we remain a free country. We are having this 
hearing. We can discuss these issues, but I do--I am concerned 
about this legitimization of the intervention of the State, and 
the idea that legislation, even if it is sort of loyalty oaths 
to the Constitution.
    That is not a tactic that we are comfortable with in this 
country.
    Mr. Takano. Well more specifically, I am a former community 
college trustee. I was elected as trustee. I do not recall ever 
inserting myself, or the board asserting itself into the 
curriculum that was being taught, but that was the province of 
the academic Senate, and the subject matter experts. Is that 
kind of a fair description of how things work in higher 
education?
    Ms. Nossel. Absolutely. I mean we have the idea that 
academic freedom requires universities to be able to, you know, 
it is described as the Supreme Court as you know, the four 
freedoms of being able to choose what is taught, who taught, 
who teaches it, how it is taught, and who the students are. The 
minute we intrude on that, we lose the independence and the 
strength of the university.
    Mr. Takano. Well, you know, Governor DeSantis himself, and 
they have inserted themselves into a public university 
replacing all the trustees, and encouraging the adoption of a 
conservative curriculum based on the Hillsdale College of 
Florida. Is this something that you find disturbing?
    Ms. Nossel. I find it chilling that in this country they 
would dismantle the autonomy of public university, and take it 
over in that way;
    Mr. Takano. Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize 
the Chair, the Chairwoman of the full committee, Ms. Foxx.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our 
witnesses for being here today. Mr. Shapiro, one of the most 
important lessons I learned as a college President, was the 
importance of institutional neutrality. Institutions should 
maintain a welcoming environment for all speech. What happens 
to our students and faculty when colleges selectively pick and 
choose speech to support? Is your mic on? Pull your mic up to 
you if you do not mind.
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes. I appreciate that question, Chairwoman 
Foxx. It is an important one because when universities, or any 
unit of the university takes a position on a controversy, that 
chills speech of students or faculty who might disagree on that 
position. That is why the gold standard for this sort of thing, 
the University of Chicago's Calvin report recommends, and 
Chicago adopted, not taking any sorts of institutional 
positions.
    When something arises, they do not have to decide oh, are 
we going to weigh in on this, or we are being pressured by both 
sides, how should we massage it? They can just say we are not 
in the business, we are in the business of education, we are 
not in the business of political punditry.
    Mrs. Foxx. As a followup, how does this harm the role 
universities should play in society when they pick and choose?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes. It transforms the university into an 
advocacy group on political controversy, not about its own 
interests, rather than detracting it--distracting it from its 
mission of seeking truth, educating students, creating 
knowledge.
    Mrs. Foxx. Well, thank you very much, and thank you very 
much for the work that you are doing every day. I really 
appreciate it. Mrs. Trump, the legal advocacy work at Speech 
First shows how necessary it still is to combat violations of 
free speech. I believe it is important to hold institutions 
accountable.
    This committee has thought long and hard on how to 
appropriately balance Federal policy. Do you believe Congress 
has a role to play in ensuring colleges maintain free speech 
environments?
    Mrs. Trump. Yes. Congress does have a role to play because 
a lot of these universities receive Federal funding, and so it 
is--the onus is on Congress a lot of times to actually make 
sure that these institutions are protecting the rights of the 
students that are going to these schools, especially Federal 
and publicly funded schools.
    Additionally, if the Department of Education is enforcing 
policies, and putting policies into place that are violating 
students first amendment rights, then Congress has a role to 
investigate what is going on at the Department of Education, 
and why they feel the need to do that.
    There is a lot of definitions under Title 9 and Title 6 of 
harassment and discrimination that are ever changing with every 
administration. It would be wonderful if Congress could codify 
some of these definitions.
    Mrs. Foxx. I love the Constitution, and it seems to me it 
is pretty firm on what it says. Yes, I believe you are right. 
We have a role to play here although it is a very delicate role 
to play. Mr. Joner, I passionately believe that colleges and 
universities should prepare students to be lifelong learners. 
It is important to graciously engage with ideas and people with 
whom you disagree.
    As we have seen from today's testimoneys, institutions are 
not promoting this key part of learning. Based on your 
perspective as a current student, how can colleges better equip 
the next generation to value free speech?
    Mr. Joner. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. What 
I have seen on campus is that after incidents like this at 
Stanford Law School, and other incidents across the country, is 
that stifling free speech in our classrooms, that both 
conservatives and liberal students do not feel comfortable to 
speak out.
    It is an exiled debate into those other rooms, and in order 
to enforce this, we need to have university administrators who 
are in place, force the basic principles of free speech, and 
make sure that students are respecting these. What we have seen 
is that administrators at Stanford Law School, just a couple 
weeks ago, were not doing their job to enforce the principles 
of free speech, and the university's own policies on free 
speech.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much, again to our witnesses for 
being here today. This is an extremely important topic on the 
minds of Americans, on the minds of college students. I think 
it is important that we have held this hearing. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to recognize Mr. 
Takano to enter some materials into the record.
    Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to enter 
into the record this memo by Jenny S. Martinez of the Richard 
E. Lang Professor of Law and Dean of Stanford Law School that 
the issue that she issued in response to the incident.
    Chairman Owens. No objection.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you.
    [The information of Mr. Takano follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    

    
    Chairman Owens. I would like now to recognize Ms.--
Bonamici, I am sorry. Bonamici.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much to the Chair and Ranking 
Member. I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle that it is important to protect free speech at public and 
private colleges around the country. Public colleges have a 
constitutional obligations, as we have heard, to uphold free 
speech on campus, and public and private colleges have a 
responsibility to provide each student with a higher education 
that is intellectually stimulating, challenges their world 
view, and exposes them to perspectives different from their 
own.
    To my knowledge, the vast majority of colleges are 
upholding this obligation, this responsibility. I am deeply 
concerned about the academic censorship at all levels, and 
including in higher education that is being advanced by several 
republican leaders, especially at the State level.
    Most recently, as our colleagues described, Florida 
republicans took steps to prohibit public colleges in the State 
from mentioning or working on anything related to diversity, 
equity, inclusion, and Mr. Chair, this is actual censorship. 
Silencing voices you do not agree with. I urge you and your 
colleagues to do some much needed introspection before 
distracting the American people from the real issues at hand, 
which is a systematic assault on democratic values, and 
increasing unaffordability of college.
    I want to note that I agree with Berkeley Law School Dean 
Chemerinsky, his statement that freedom of speech does not 
protect a right to shut down others, and I thank you, Mr. 
Shapiro, for citing Dean Chemerinsky. I also, although I agree 
that you absolutely, Mr. Shapiro, have a right to call Dean's 
Trainer and Gerken ``spineless coward who are unwilling to 
confront the illiberal inmates who have taken over their 
institutions.'' I find statements like that to be unnecessarily 
inflammatory, and not helpful to finding solutions to the 
challenges we are discussing today.
    My question is for Ms. Nossel, and I thank you for your 
testimony. I am acutely aware of the fine line between free 
speech and hate speech, or harassment on college campuses. I 
appreciate the work you do for free expression for all. Thank 
you to PEN America.
    Ms. Nossel, where does the line of freedom of expression 
start and end on a college campus, and are there situations 
where there should be parameters placed on such expression?
    Ms. Nossel. Yes. We have well established First Amendment 
law that defines things like true threats, harassment, that are 
not protected speech, that can be banned and punished. That 
should be our lotus star. I do not think we should be passing 
new legislation that puts new categories of information and 
expression out of bounds. That we do not have under the First 
Amendment laws that dictate what can and can not be in the 
curricula.
    To us, that evokes the McCarthy era.
    Ms. Bonamici. I find that very problematic. Could we talk 
about private colleges for a minute. Should they consider the 
distinction between free speech allowed under their respective 
codes of conduct because it is not a First Amendment issue, and 
speech that would otherwise be considered prohibited by the 
First Amendment, threatening violence for example?
    Ms. Nossel. I think most private colleges have staunch free 
speech obligations of their own that they voluntarily have 
undertaken. As part of a mission statement, or a university 
policy, many of the universities like Stanford that we are 
talking about, have adopted those policies, and I think that is 
extremely important because again, they are incubators of 
democratic citizenship.
    We want students on those campuses to be exposed to all 
ideas, and I think that is why it is so important that the 
leadership of Stanford University did step in, and say this was 
not handled appropriately, and here is what our principles are.
    Ms. Bonamici. I absolutely agree with that. Yes, I agree, 
it is important for students to be exposed to different, and 
sometimes uncomfortable perspectives in college. As you 
mentioned, that is how they get prepared to be in the real 
world. Do you agree that it is also important for colleges, 
public and private, to consider the mental and physical health 
and safety of students, and is it important for them to have 
policies in place before a controversial speaker, or a large 
protest is expected on campus?
    If so, how can they strengthen existing policies and better 
educate faculty and students on the parameters of their free 
speech rights and on campus policies?
    Ms. Nossel. Yes, sure. Of course, a university has to 
ensure physical safety. That is paramount. There is a lot that 
they can do to lay the groundwork to protect free speech 
without impinging upon physical safety. They can have policies 
that allow people to protest outside, and allow them to protest 
in ways that do not disrupt.
    That can be a very powerful, potent protests that get the 
message across without interfering with people's ability to 
listen to a speaker. I think pushing those policies, educating 
students, educating faculty, ensuring this is part of the 
curriculum, part of a freshman orientation, would instill those 
values, and get people to come to grips with those values and--
--
    Ms. Bonamici. Are there some institutions, and I do not 
mean to cut you off.
    Ms. Nossel. No, no.
    Ms. Bonamici. The clock is ticking. Are there some 
institutions that are doing that well?
    Ms. Nossel. Some are. We are doing free speech institutes 
at PEN America that are very well received. We are working with 
universities across the country, but it needs to be much more 
widespread.
    Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. As I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record 
a statement from the American Psychological Association in 
support of the right of educators to do their jobs without 
political interference.
    Chairman Owens. No objections.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    [The information of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    

    
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like now to recognize 
Mr. Banks.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to include 
for the record a study from the Heritage Foundation Titled 
Inclusion Delusion, the Anti-Semitism of Diversity, Equity and 
Inclusion Staff at Universities dated December 8, 2021, by Dr. 
Jay Green and James Paul.
    Chairman Owens. No objection.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you.
    [The information of Mr. Banks follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    
    Mr. Banks. Dr. Shapiro, is wokeism, or more specifically 
DEI programs a gateway to anti-Semitism, and even hatred or 
violence toward people of faith?
    Mr. Shapiro. Absolutely. It seems that Jews are not part of 
the latest hierarchy of intersectionality, and they are too 
privileged in various ways, and certainly the growth of the 
bureaucracies and programs has been correlated with the growth 
of anti-Semitism.
    Mr. Banks. Can you talk about how they--how DEI programs 
foster hatred toward people of faith?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, they foster illiberal attitudes of all 
kinds, and again, this is not as Suzanne said, the words 
diversity, equity, inclusion, nobody could disagree with their 
facial meaning. Intellectual diversity, people wanting to feel 
welcome, treated fairly, equitably, that is great, but the way 
that they have been perverted--you ask about religious groups. 
There are plenty of ripe examples of religious groups that are 
not treated the same as secular groups of various kinds, even 
though the Supreme Court ruled more than 25 years ago in 
Rosenberger vs. UVA, that if you provide certain types of 
resources, you should provide them equally equitably to 
religious organizations as well.
    Mr. Banks. The study that I just mentioned from the 
Heritage Foundation, 2021, found that DEI related staff on 
American college campuses were overwhelmingly anti-Israel, and 
a majority were indifferent, or even agreeable to the Chinese 
Communist party.
    Based on a search of over 700 Twitter accounts of DEI staff 
on campuses across the country, just 28 tweets were found to be 
favorable toward Israel, while 605 tweets were negative. 133 
tweets were pro-China, while just 83 of the overall tweets were 
negative.
    Does it seem like these DEI staff are in themselves not 
very diverse in their viewpoints?
    Mr. Shapiro. That is true. I mean they have their 
individual constitutional rights as well to speak on however 
they like, but those kinds of views definitely are imbued in 
the trainings that we have seen, and the materials of the 
various kinds of programming that they promulgate. Since you 
are citing studies, I have another Heritage Study, I can not 
enter it, but I suggest I recommend that you look at Heritage 
Backgrounder 3641, by the same authors, Jay Green and James 
Paul titled Diversity University DEI Bloat in the Academy.
    That addresses a host of these issues, including one of 
your colleagues mentioned the increasing cost, and the growth 
in bureaucracy certainly contributes to that as well.
    Mr. Banks. 190 billion dollars a year that the Federal 
Government gives to colleges and universities. What can we do 
to stop universities from hiring these DEI or woke programs 
that directly attack people of faith?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, I think the Federal Government spends 
too much money on almost everything, and this is certainly an 
area where cutbacks are, I think, appropriate, but at least 
attach heavier strings, constitutionally based values based of 
classical liberalism that we are all supposed to agree on in 
the broad quality.
    Mr. Banks. It seems like quite a problem that we have, and 
I am deeply concerned that the leadership, the administrations 
of our universities are hiring these woke officials, DEI 
programs that attack people of whatever faith. I appreciate you 
bringing light to that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Shapiro. Could I say one more thing, Mr. Banks?
    Mr. Banks. I have 48 seconds left.
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes. I just want to clarify, and I think you 
probably would agree with this distinction between the DEI 
bureaucracies and staffs, and the sorts of folks working on 
civil rights compliance, Title 9, ADA, all of these things that 
we would have recognized from our time in college and graduate 
school 20-25, 30 years ago. It is a fairly recent phenomenon, 
so it is not about shutting down student groups that want to 
care about their ethnic backgrounds, or anything like that.
    It is about institutional promulgation of illiberal post-
modern theories.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize 
Ms. Manning.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today. We have seen a rise of anti-
Semitism on college campuses across the country, and according 
to ADL's most recent audit of anti-Semitic incidents, anti-
Semitic activity on college and university campuses has 
increased by 41 percent in 2022, compared to the previous year.
    College and university leaders play a key role in 
responding to these types of situations. They must ensure that 
no one is punished for their protected speech. Just because it 
discomforts some, and simultaneously, they must use their moral 
authority to counter hateful and anti-Semitic speech with 
timely, specific and direct responses.
    How can administrators, staff, faculty, and all community 
members more effectively respond to hateful speech, including 
anti-Semitic speech, while fulfilling the promise of creating 
educational institutions that both safeguard free expression, 
and ensure that all members of the community feel safe and 
welcome?
    Ms. Nossel.
    Ms. Nossel. Thank you so much, Congresswoman. There is a 
lot the university can do to address bigotry and hatred whether 
it is anti-Semitism, or anti-LGBT, or racist speech on campus. 
It happens through education. It happens through nurturing and 
supporting student groups that mobilize, and that unify and 
bring people together to draw attention to these issues.
    It happens through ensuring open discourse, that there are 
not topics that are off limits that, you know, even if it is 
robust debate on say issues of Israel Palestine, which can be 
very contentious, which can lead to claims of harm on both 
sides, that there is space to those even very challenging, and 
sometimes uncomfortable conversations that that is something 
that the university stands for, and makes possible.
    There is no contradiction between creating a hospitable, 
welcoming environment for students from all backgrounds, be it 
racial, religious, or otherwise, and robust protections for 
free speech. In fact, they are mutually reinforcing.
    Ms. Manning. What is the best way to help administrators, 
and professors, and faculties understand that this is not an 
either/or. It is a yes. How can we provide the information, the 
tactics, and techniques they need to be effective in both of 
these areas.
    Ms. Nossel. Yes. I think it is a matter of fostering 
greater emphasis, greater training, greater discussion. That is 
what we have been doing as PEN America across the country, 
convening faculty, students, and university leaders from across 
the political spectrum. People have been on opposing sides of 
some of these inflammatory incidents to get them around the 
table, and talk about why did they invite that speaker?
    What was going on? How did other people react to that? What 
was unanticipated? Training people in the precepts of the First 
Amendment and free speech, and the role of the university. We 
find when you do that, people understand it. It clicks, they 
recognize, this is not a contradiction that even if you are a 
DEI official you can do your job without impinging on freedom 
of speech.
    Unfortunately, I think that training is not always in 
place, and we have just got to reach more widely and broadly to 
get to those who are in those roles.
    Ms. Manning. Do you believe we can use DEI to encompass 
discrimination against Jewish students, and other kinds, other 
minority groups?
    Ms. Nossel. Yes. I think DEI should look at all forms of 
diversity on a campus.
    Ms. Manning. Are there other proactive things that 
universities should do to educate not just their faculty and 
administrators, but their students about the importance of free 
speech and accepting the fact that people come from different 
backgrounds, and have different cultural religious beliefs?
    Ms. Nossel. I think so. Look, I think it is extremely 
important, overwhelmingly college students in this country are 
progressive. We hear that in this panel the conservative 
students are in the minority on these campuses. We need to 
present the ideas of free speech in the First Amendment in ways 
that make sense to progressive students, that resonate with the 
struggles that they want to wage.
    They need these rights to be protected in order to advocate 
for climate justice, or gender justice. It is a matter of if it 
becomes a partisan cause, if they are set by laws and 
restrictions that constrain their ability to study, theories 
and topics in American history that touch on race or religion, 
they are going to be alienated from the principle of free 
speech.
    I think that is a real risk with the tactics that are being 
pursued right now, this heavy hand of the State being inserted 
in the form of legislation to dictate what can and can not be 
taught and studied on campus.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. I wish we had time for a longer 
discussion, but my time has expired, and I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I now would like to recognize 
Mr. Grothman.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Joner, I am glad you are 
here today. I do think personally that we need a little more 
diversity on campuses. I would like to ask you what you know 
about Stanford's DEI program. You hear, at least in 
universities in Wisconsin, great concerns about the lack of 
diversity among faculty, whether you measure that be religious 
background, or religious belief.
    Whether you measure it by political belief, students feel 
that frequently they have to lie because of a hatred toward 
more conservative view of the world. Do you feel that the DEI 
offices in Stanford are diverse like our, whatever, 45 percent 
of the people, you guess, pro-life, or you know, maybe 45 to 50 
percent voted for President Trump, that sort of thing.
    What is your opinion of the diversity of the DEI offices at 
Stanford?
    Mr. Joner. What I have seen at Stanford is that the DEI 
office is very one sided. There is not much neutrality, and 
what we have seen in incidents like--I do not personally 
interact much with these DEI officials, and I do not know many 
students who do, despite Stanford having one of the highest--
the highest rate of DEI officials per capita.
    What we do see from the DEI officials are these videos, 
like the 6-minute speech from the Dean at Stanford Law School a 
couple weeks ago. The harmful language initiative released from 
Stanford that really tends to censor free speech. These DEI 
officials are not really promoting this diversity of thought. 
They are actually squashing it in the classroom, and the 
university.
    Mr. Grothman. I am familiar with the Stanford video. It 
seems there was a lot of hate going on at Stanford that day. Do 
you feel there is a lot of hate disseminated by the DEI 
bureaucracy?
    Mr. Joner. I am not sure that I would say there is a lot of 
hate disseminated by the bureaucracy, but what we have seen in 
like just that video from a few weeks ago at Stanford Law 
School is that these university administrators who are supposed 
to be the ones enforcing these principles, which are in the 
university's policies, are not doing just that.
    They are condemning in this case, Judge Kyle Duncan's right 
to speak, condemning his actions, and they are not taking the 
place of a neutral university administrator, and not doing 
their jobs.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. Mr. Shapiro, could you comment in 
general on the cost of these DEI programs, and do they add 
anything to the academic atmosphere that you have in 
universities?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, the cost of tuition and university 
budgets has certainly exploded in the last five, 10, 15 years, 
concomitant with the growth of initially bureaucracies are more 
broadly and non-teaching staff. I think about 2010 non-teaching 
staff started to exceed the number of teaching full-time 
instructors at most institutions.
    Of late, most of that bureaucratic growth has been in the 
DEI sector. I do not have a number off the top of my head, or 
an average or anything like that.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, wait a minute. Did you just say that in 
the universities today we have among white collared jobs more 
people who are non-teaching positions than teaching positions?
    Mr. Shapiro. In some places there are more non-teaching 
staff than students, indeed. You could have--somebody wrote a 
cute op-ed saying maybe each student at Yale should get their 
own personal butler.
    Mr. Grothman. That is shocking, but perhaps no wonder why 
there are so many kids in debt out there. Could you elaborate a 
little bit more on are they making progress, the DEI in hiring 
more conservative professors, or making the professors more 
like America in general? Are they making any progress there? 
Are they really going the opposite direction, kind of the 
opposite of diversity. We want to stamp out diversity.
    Mr. Shapiro. Faculty hiring is generally separate from DEI, 
although the DEI offices do impose diversity statements, 
loyalty oaths to progressive orthodoxy that have proliferated 
upwards of a quarter of faculty, I think these days nationwide 
can not be hired if they do not pass that ideological litmus 
test.
    Similarly, on the other side of whether they are succeeding 
on their own terms, there have been campus surveys, a very good 
report by Scott Yenner about Texas A&M specifically, Jonathan 
Height, a social psychologist has done good work on this. As 
the DEI offices have grown, students comfort and sense of 
belonging at school has decreased, and that is especially among 
members of racial minority.
    Even on their own terms, DEI offices are failing 
spectacularly.
    Mr. Grothman. Do you think because the Congress, the State 
legislatures contribute so much money to academia that we have 
to step in, as we have in the private sector, and should not 
have quite frankly, but we have to step in and force more 
diversity like, say like 40 percent of the English professors 
should be conservative, religious in thought, or that sort of 
thing?
    Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Chairman, I see the red light on. May I 
answer? Well again, I am hesitate to recommend State 
legislatures, let alone Congress get involved in the minutia of 
faculty hiring, or impose some sort of quotas or preferences, 
affirmative action based on ideologies, so I would not 
recommend that. I would, as I said, recommend strings attached 
to Federal funding to make sure that everyone is treated 
equally, nobody is discriminated against, free speech rights 
are observed, and there is not this huge chilling effect for 
faculty and student alike, feel like they have to walk on 
eggshells, lest they be investigated by these diversity 
inquisitors.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you, Chairman from Oregon. Please, 
you are recognized.
    Mrs. DeRemer. Well, thank you. Thank you for being here. I 
appreciate it. Ms. Trump, it seems there are biased 
administrators that are empowered by their school's ability to 
define harassment past what Title 9 provides. Resulting in 
weaponized and fluid definitions of serious terms, would it be 
responsible for Congress to provide schools with clarity on 
what is and what is not harassment?
    Mrs. Trump. Yes. Currently there is something called the 
Davis Standard in place on Title 9, and this is something that, 
through our lawsuits, we have also had universities implement 
in their other harassment and anti-discrimination policies. 
This Davis standard has a very high bar for what kind of speech 
can be considered harassing conduct.
    Because of that, it balances--the best example we have seen 
today that balances First Amendment Rights and protections with 
protecting students through these policies. The Davis standards 
says that in order for speech to be considered harassing 
conduct, it has to be so severe, pervasive, and objectively 
offensive, that to the point where students do not have equal 
access to education, and that is the best example we have seen.
    It would be great if Congress was interested in codifying 
something like that.
    Mrs. DeRemer. Well, that kind of answers my next question. 
I will go ahead and leave it at that. Ms. Nossel, I think it is 
important to remember that my democratic colleagues also value 
the First Amendment. As the democrat witness, who is fully 
invested in protecting free speech on college campuses, in 
which specific areas should democrats and republicans on this 
committee work together to address this specific issue?
    Ms. Nossel. I think shining a spotlight on those shared 
concerns, reinforcing those shared concerns, and the basic 
precepts of the First Amendment. I think the kinds of 
legislation that we have seen. Mr. Shapiro just said he would 
be hesitant to see legislation trying to dictate who can and 
can not be hired on college campuses.
    I wonder why that same concern is not raised in relation to 
what can and can not be taught on a college campus, or whether 
a college campus can have something called a DEI office that 
may deal with things like veterans affairs, and disability 
rights issues, along with other topics.
    I think reinforcing that basic precept of the First 
Amendment that says, this is not the realm of legislation that 
academic freedom on campus needs to be protected, that we need 
a buffer zone so that it is not direct intervention and 
political dictates in what can and cannot be taught. I think 
that is a place where I would hope we could come together.
    Mrs. DeRemer. Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would now recognize Mr. 
Thompson.
    Mr. Thompson. Chairman, thank you so much. Chairman, 
Ranking Member, thank you for this important hearing, very 
timely obviously. We see this in the news almost every day, you 
know. I appreciate it. My first question is for Mr. Joner. Mr. 
Joner, across the country we have seen student groups on the 
campus, particular religious and conservative groups, face 
challenges with recognition and hosting events.
    When you discriminate against any group for whatever 
reason, that is discrimination right? It is--how can we make 
sure all student groups are treated equally when expressing 
their views?
    Mr. Joner. Congressman, thank you for the question. I will 
point to two examples that I witnessed on campus besides the 
incident at the Law School. Vice President Mike Pence came to 
speak at Stanford about a year ago, and initially his request 
for funding was denied by the student government. Matt Walsh 
recently came to campus a few weeks ago, and his fliers, and 
posters were burned down around campus.
    We see this often. It is a common occurrence. What we need, 
we need individuals on campuses, and students like myself to 
respect this principle of free speech. Then we do need 
university administrators who are there to enforce these 
principles.
    What we have seen just a few weeks ago throughout the 
country is that these universities are hiring administrators 
who are not committed to this principle of free speech, which 
is embedded in their policies already. While we need this to be 
an integral part of each student's education, we also need to 
have these university administrators who are able to enforce 
these policies, and make sure that they are doing so.
    Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. I mean I think that so much of 
what we are seeing is based on the administrators, the 
supervisors, the folks who are hired, who are not doing their 
due diligence, and showing in a responsible way a commitment to 
freedom of speech. Our universities are supposed to be 
laboratories of ideas, ideals, and should not be, that scale 
should not be--their thumb should not be on the scale one way 
or the other.
    Clearly, with what we see is across most universities 
today. I do not want to paint with a complete broad brush, but 
we have seen the individuals who are responsible for that free 
speech. Quite frankly, the faculty. Their biases come through. 
My belief is universities are there to teach you how to think 
in terms of applying critical analysis, all right.
    They are not there to teach you what to think, outside the 
scope of perhaps specific details of a particular profession 
that someone may be preparing for, the technical details of 
that. Ms. Trump, you talk about the rise in bias reporting 
systems on college campuses.
    Can I expect these types of 1984 esque environments 
occurring on campus in say Communist China. It is hard to 
imagine that on American college campuses we are encouraging 
adults, and that is who these folks are, they are young people, 
some of them just becoming adults, and quite frankly with what 
we used to call atypical students, they are clearly in their 
adult years, to report on their peers for something as little 
as hurting someone's feelings.
    Do you believe that bias reporting, Ms. Trump, creates an 
environment of pressing students in the specific ideologies, 
and even to survey a State, and how does this type of 
environment impact the long-term mental health of students when 
they enter the real world?
    Mrs. Trump. Yes. Students are absolutely walking on 
eggshells on college campuses. Most of the students that I 
speak to are quietly telling me what their political opinions 
are, and oftentimes will refuse to even talk to me about their 
political ideas on campus, or on the phone while they are on 
campus, out of fear that someone will overhear their 
conversation, and a target will be painted on their back.
    Because there are these reporting systems, as you 
mentioned, the biased reporting systems, where the universities 
have put mechanisms in place, and constantly send emails and 
encourage students to report on each other, and on faculty 
members.
    We have seen examples that range from the ridiculous ones, 
where someone reported Saudi Arabia that was written on a white 
board, and there was no evidence of who wrote the word Saudi 
Arabia, or why, but they reported because they thought oh, my 
initial instinct, my immediate reaction to seeing something 
that might potentially be offensive is to report it to an 
administrator, rather than to actually ask a question about it.
    We have seen plenty of examples like this, and it goes--you 
really start to ask the question what is going to happen when 
they graduate because they will take these mindsets with them 
into the professional world, like we have already seen with 
cancel cultures.
    These are going to be tech CEOs, these are going to be 
people who are going to run organizations, and run businesses, 
and they are going to take these ideas of shutting down other 
ideas that they do not agree with into the professional world.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you so much, Chairman. Thank you 
once again for this hearing, and I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you so much. I would like to now 
recognize Mr. Good.
    Mr. Good. Thank you Chairman Owens, again thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today. This challenge of the 
suppression of the free exchange of ideas on campuses, the 
toleration, that is an interesting word, for freedom of speech 
on campuses, is a relatively new phenomena.
    It is about maybe 30 years old. It does seem to come almost 
exclusively from the left and the suppression of free speech on 
the right of the more conservative side. It is ironic because 
it used to be that it was the left, it was the liberals that 
they used to call themselves, who were the ones who had a 
terribly strong and in a positive way, commitment to free 
speech, free expression of ideas.
    The old saying of you know I may disagree with what you 
have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to 
say it. That is sadly long gone on our college campuses. Mr. 
Joner, a study from the Foundation of Individual Rights and 
Expression found that over 16 percent of students on college 
campuses think that shouting down a speaker is an acceptable 
tactic, to stop a campus speech.
    20 percent in the study said they consider it acceptable 
for people to use violence to stop certain speech. I personally 
experienced resistance to my right to free speech when invited 
to speak to a group of law school students at the most 
prominent law school in my district recently.
    Mr. Joner, based on your experience, would you say that 
most of the students on campus that you interact with, whether 
it is at Stanford or other places, do they truly understand 
what it means to have the right to free speech?
    Mr. Joner. I do not think that the average student majority 
of the students really understand what this, you know, 
principle of free speech means, and we are not seeing it 
clearly communicated at the university, or taught.
    Stanford's orientation, which is a week before for all 
freshman, you have 2000 students, a week long of seminars, 
there is no discussion on free speech. I cannot recall anything 
I learned in there, and so we are not seeing that, but we are 
seeing discussion on many of these other topics, like 
diversity, equity, inclusion.
    Mr. Good. At universities, and obviously Stanford is a 
highly esteemed university, that what we are supposed to be 
teaching students how to think, how to reason, how to persuade 
ideas and thought, and viewpoints, should hold up to the 
challenges of scrutiny and debate and so forth, and that is so 
absent on many of our campuses. How would you think we could 
address this?
    How do you think this can be addressed, free speech, or the 
lack therefore on college campuses?
    Mr. Joner. Yes. Well, first off it is these incidents that 
we have seen across the country that are destroying this debate 
in the classroom, because students are too scared to speak up, 
and they know that if they say something the university 
administration is going to come after them.
    What we need are these university officials to truly uphold 
these principles, and in the future, demonstrate that we are 
not going to be in a cyclical cycle of this fallout, this 
incident where a speaker is shouted down, and then they 
apologize.
    Then months later, or years later, the same thing is going 
to happen again. That is only contributing to the cycle in this 
culture that is destroying free speech, and we need these 
university administrators who stand up for this, and stand up 
for it once and for all and firmly.
    Mr. Good. Yes. It is not just happening on a micro level 
with university policies that are retaliatory toward free 
speech, but also we get reports on a micro level where students 
will tell us that they have to change what they--how they--
their academic content, what they write on papers and so forth, 
because they are told by professors if you express a 
conservative worldview, you are going to get a bad grade.
    Numerous students have told me that personally. Mr. 
Shapiro, Stanford, not to pick on Mr. Joner, but published a 
list of words recently deemed harmful language that is racist, 
violent or biased, and some of those words in what Stanford 
published were American, freshman, she and so forth. Even the 
term trigger warning was deemed to be too triggering. Free 
speech zones have been implemented at universities across the 
country, which effectively, as you know, prohibit free speech 
anywhere outside that zone, and often come with requirements 
that you have to register to use the space.
    Could you comment on the impact that that has, these kinds 
of things have on the ability to learn when commonplace terms, 
common terms that we all would use are deemed politically 
incorrect, or prohibited on a college campus?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes. I have also seen, whether on that 
Stanford list or elsewhere, that merit, excellence, academic 
rigor--these are forbidden things--logic, reason, it is 
bizarre. You cannot have an institution of higher education if 
those things are forbidden. With respect to free speech zones, 
I actually encountered this when people were protesting me. At 
least I later learned they were protesting me a few weeks ago 
at the University of Denver, which is a private institution out 
there.
    The Dean, I think they just did not want to make national 
headlines like Stanford has made, and that is a good goal for 
them to do, but they went overboard by shunting anybody who 
wanted to protest into these zones where I did not even see 
them, and then not allowing signs that were disruptive at all.
    Look, I believe strongly in the right to protest, but there 
is a difference between protest and disruption, time, place, 
and manner regulations, so you do not violate the fire code, 
all of these things like this. I think maximal speech is great, 
whether I agree with it, or anybody else.
    Mr. Good. We are sorry that you were victimized for 
expressing your viewpoint. It is interesting on a college 
campus you are unqualified to be on a college campus. If you 
were to define a woman, but you are qualified apparently to go 
to the Supreme Court if you can not define what a woman is.
    Mr. Shapiro. My event in Denver was on the importance of 
free speech on college campuses.
    Mr. Good. Amazing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you.
    Mr. Walberg.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
allowing me to wave on to this very important committee, and 
very important discussion today. On campus organizations exist 
to help students find community and support in a very new and 
demanding chapter of their lives. Countless studies have shown 
that religious organizations, especially improve feelings of 
belonging, cultural awareness and academic success.
    We often see universities restricting these beneficial 
groups from organizing, with examples from 37 states involving 
93 colleges and universities, and these are just the ones that 
were actually reported. In 2020, the Trump administration put 
in place--somebody needs to protect that button there, 
protections for on campus religious organizations.
    Last month, the Biden Department of Education announced 
proceedings to rescind those protections. That is why this week 
I reintroduced H.R. 1816, the Equal Campus Access Act. The 
legislation would revoke funding for any institution of higher 
education that denies religious student organization's 
recognition, funding, or any other rights that secular groups 
have.
    I asked for nothing more than just the saneness for all the 
organizations. I ask for unanimous consent to include a support 
letter from 34 organizations for the record.
    Chairman Owens. No objection.
    [The information of Mr. Walberg follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    

    
    Mr. Walberg. We should strive to reaffirm diverse 
theological beliefs, and solidify religious freedom rather than 
encouraging discrimination. Mr. Joner, across the country we 
have seen student groups on campus, particularly religious and 
conservative groups, face challenges with recognition and 
hosting events.
    How can we make sure all student groups are treated equally 
when expressing their views?
    Mr. Joner. Mr. Walberg, thank you so much for the question. 
I am also the President of an evangelical Christian group on 
campus, and I appreciate your concerns there. Again, what I 
have said earlier is that I mean we need these individuals who 
are committed to this principle of free speech, but we have to 
have these university administrators who are hired by the 
university, to uphold these principles.
    What we have seen is that those who are being hired, like 
Dean Karen Steinbeck at Stanford, we are never really committed 
to those principles, and if those are the people that the 
university is hiring, then it is a very concerning trend, and 
putting Dean Steinbeck on leave is a good start, but are there 
other administrators who are not committed to the principle of 
free speech?
    Are there other administrators that they are going to hire 
in the future who are not committed to this principle of free 
speech? We need these universities to ensure that those who are 
enforcing this are going to uphold free speech neutrally for 
all students. What we have seen is that is currently not the 
case.
    Mr. Walberg. A negative thumb is not on the scale for 
anyone in any organization. Mr. Shapiro, in your testimony you 
mentioned using Federal dollars as leverage when it comes to 
shutting down bureaucracies that completely contradict 
institutional policies and our Nation's values.
    How far should Congress be willing to go?
    Mr. Shapiro. I am not an expert on contracting law, and 
appropriations law, so I can not get into the nitty gritty, but 
I think requiring adherence to the Constitution and Federal law 
is important, and you mentioned the importance of treating 
religious student organizations the same as secular ones. I 
would have thought that you do not even need a regulation for 
that. I am frankly appalled that this regulation is being 
rescinded.
    As I mentioned to your colleague Mr. Banks a little while 
ago, there is a 1995 Supreme Court case called the United 
States--sorry, Rosenberger vs. UVA, which was precisely about a 
religious newspaper at University of Virginia that was being 
denied funds that were otherwise being provided to other 
publications.
    I do not think that you even need this regulation, or 
frankly, further legislation to make the point. You can just 
say as long as you are complying with existing Supreme Court 
precedent, and the sense of Congress about not even religious 
freedom, but equal treatment of different student 
organizations. I think those kinds of strings are not--you do 
not even approach any sort of line about going too far.
    Mr. Walberg. Okay. We should not have a situation where 
average length of time of a civil case is 29 and a half months 
to complete, and that is a concern. Ms. Trump, how could 
leaving free speech violations up to the decisions of the 
courts dissuade students from coming forward with complaints, 
and how do we address this issue?
    Ms. Trump. Well as I mentioned earlier, a lot of students 
are actually very afraid to speak up and complain about the 
policies on campus because they do fear retaliation. We are a 
membership organization at Speech First, which means we 
actually are able to keep their names out of the lawsuits, 
which is part of the reason they are able to come to us.
    I think you are right in pointing out the fact that for a 
student to have to try to sue their school in order to have 
free speech protections on campus is definitely a step too far. 
We should not have to let it go that far, so it really comes 
down to what Mr. Jones was saying earlier, in that universities 
need to do a check and an audit of all their policies, and see 
which ones they are targeting student speech with, and consider 
maybe rescinding those, so that they are not going to be held 
legally accountable in the court of law.
    Additionally, they could start hiring folks, as was 
mentioned earlier, that actually respective the First Amendment 
and the free speech culture in this country.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. Mr. Kiley, you are recognized.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair for organizing today's 
hearing on protecting freedom of speech at the place where it 
is most vital, our institutions of higher learning. This really 
should not be a partisan issue in any way, shape or form. If 
there is one thing that should not be a partisan issue it 
should be this. We should fight about everything else, 
exercising our First Amendment rights, but freedom of speech 
itself is foundational to the character of our country.
    Indeed, just a few years ago, 2017, in the California 
legislature, I authored a resolution affirming freedom of 
speech as a foundational campus value. The resolution 
encouraged universities across the State to adopt the gold 
standard, free speech statement, which is the University of 
Chicago, statement of free expression.
    Now, this is a democrat super majority in California, and 
it passed our legislature unanimously. This was just in 2017. 
In 2016, President Barack Obama had this to say. He said there 
is been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to 
disinvite speakers with a different point of view, or disrupt a 
politicians rally. Do not do that, Obama said. No matter how 
ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out 
of their mouths.
    There will be times when you should not compromise your 
core values, your integrity, and you have the responsibility to 
speak up in the face of injustice. Listen, engage. If the other 
side has a point learn from them. If they are wrong, rebut 
them. Teach them. Beat them on the battlefield of ideas.
    A few years later, we continue to see incidents like we saw 
just recently in California, at UC Davis, and at your 
university, Mr. Joner, Stanford. I understand you are the 
Executive Editor of the Stanford Review, is that right?
    Mr. Joner. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Kiley. I understand your publication has done some 
great work, covering the attacks on free speech that have 
happened on campus.
    Mr. Joner. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Kiley. What I want to ask you is about what the 
mentality you think is of the students who created these 
disruptions, because these are Stanford law students 
presumably, very bright, and yet we saw them so flagrantly 
defying the admonition from former President Obama.
    Not even letting someone of an opposing viewpoint speak. 
They seemed to think that stopping the words from being 
expressed was the proper response to their disagreement. How do 
you think it is that some of the brightest students we have in 
this country do not seem to understand this basic American 
value?
    Mr. Joner. Absolutely, it is quite concerning, so thank you 
for the question Congressman. Stanford Law School, I believe, 
is currently the second ranked law school in the country. We 
know that these students will go on to be the next business 
leaders, sitting in these very chairs one day, and even at the 
Supreme Court, I mean these are the students that Stanford Law 
is graduating.
    These students, and this was over 100 student protestors 
here, completely disrupted Judge Duncan's speech, and if you 
watched the video and read the details in my article, or other 
articles, they are holding obscene signs, heckling obscene 
remarks, that I would not even state here in this setting.
    I do not know what has brought these students to take on 
this worldview that means they can just shut down someone 
else's speech because they disagree with them, or have said 
something controversial. I have said we need university 
administrators in place to enforce it, and we absolutely do.
    We need them to educate these students on these principles, 
and we need these students to uphold these principles of free 
speech themselves, and maybe that starts early on. It should 
happen in college, but maybe it needs to be something that is 
done and is not being well done in early education.
    Mr. Kiley. I think you are exactly right. I think that it 
starts at the primary and secondary school. Well, we need to 
get back to teaching civics in a real way. One thing I did find 
encouraging in the Dean of your university's response, Jenny 
Martinez, is she said that they are going to--one step the law 
school will take will be on the mandatory half day session for 
all students on the topic of freedom of speech, and the norms 
of the legal profession.
    I think that this is a good idea. Now, it is not going to 
compensate for the shortcomings we see at our--at the secondary 
and primary level around the country, but I think that the more 
universities that can do something like this, not necessarily 
in response to you know, incidents that occur on campus, but 
just as a matter of your basic training, your basic orientation 
where you come to school, I think that that would be something 
of great value.
    Mr. Chair, I think that would be perhaps something that we 
could look at as a committee, as to how we can encourage that 
sort of education about the importance of the First Amendment 
and free speech at our universities. Thank you, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. As we begin to close this out, I 
want to thank again our witnesses for taking the time to 
testify before the subcommittee today. Let me just give you a 
quick observation. First of all thank you, for each and every 
one of you, for being engaged in this particular topic.
    Really showing our country a way that the all American way 
used to be. We can respect to agree to disagree. We talk 
together, and eventually we figure out a way to come to that 
space where free speech is what we want to get to. I want to 
thank you for that.
    Also, Mr. Joner, what I want to say is I am so impressed 
with someone of your age. I would have never done what you are 
doing right now at my age, believe me, never. It says--gives me 
hope that we do have remarkable young people that know how to 
articulate themselves, how to be courageous where you stand.
    This is one of the most important things we can do. I just 
want to say that as we close this out. Without objection, there 
will be no further business, and the subcommittee now stands 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon the subcommittee adjourned at 12:03 p.m.]

                                 [all]