Bill Overview
Title: Restoring Academic Freedom on Campus Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits institutions of higher education (IHEs) that participate in federal student-aid programs from using political tests in the selection, hiring, or promotion of students, employees, or faculty. Political test refers to a method of compelling or soliciting an applicant for enrollment or employment, student, or employee of an IHE to identify commitment to or make a statement of personal belief in support of any ideology or movement that (1) promotes a specific partisan or political set of beliefs, (2) promotes a particular viewpoint on an issue of public controversy, or (3) promotes the disparate treatment of any individual or group of individuals on the basis of race or ethnicity.
Sponsors: Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]
Target Audience
Population: Students, faculty, and staff at institutions of higher education subject to the bill.
Estimated Size: 25500000
- All students currently enrolled in IHEs that participate in federal student-aid programs will be directly impacted by this bill, as it pertains to their admission and coursework environments.
- Faculty and staff at these institutions are directly impacted as the bill affects hiring and promotional practices.
- Prospective students planning to apply to these institutions will also be impacted, especially those whose personal beliefs might have previously affected their admissions.
- IHEs that are part of the federal student-aid system account for a majority of higher education institutions worldwide, since many countries have strong public education systems that are dependent on aid.
- Given that political tests are banned for distinction of race or ethnicity, minority groups within such educational institutions would see changes in how diverse viewpoints are handled, impacting roughly similar proportions of students in varying regions.
Reasoning
- The policy affects students, faculty, and staff in IHEs that use federal aid, emphasizing institutions across the U.S. with a vast population in terms of sheer numbers. Thus, including diverse opinions from across regions is imperative.
- Budget constraints suggest limited impact on smaller or non-federal-aid-reliant colleges which comprise a more minor segment of the U.S. higher education landscape.
- The policy's explicit focus on non-discrimination regarding political beliefs means those who feel marginalized due to these beliefs previously may experience an increase in wellbeing.
- Students and staff who do not engage in ideological discourse may see neutral impacts, while those more politically active could experience changes in campus culture, either positive or negative.
- The policy's clarity on ideological beliefs affects political, racial, and ethnic discussions—a focal point of modern discourse and hence potentially significant shifts in student and staff experience.
- Considering U.S. institutions' diversity, faculty and prospects feeling either threat or discomfort due to ideological enforcement may benefit from such grounding legislative measures.
Simulated Interviews
College Student (New York, NY)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel like sometimes my opinions aren't welcome in class discussions.
- If the policy is enforced well, I might feel safer to express my views without fear of backlash.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
History Professor (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't personally felt a direct impact of political tests, but discussing diverse perspectives is crucial to my work.
- As long as it doesn't stifle critical debate, the policy can ensure openness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen peers struggle with admissions due to their political involvement.
- With this policy, pathways for diverse voices might open more widely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Administrative Staff (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how this will affect programs designed to increase campus diversity.
- If it undermines such efforts, that might be a step backward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Research Assistant (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My work involves sensitive political debates; removing bias helps my scientific integrity.
- It depends on how institutionally supported these changes become.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Undergraduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I try to stay out of politics, focus on studies and music.
- I don't expect the policy to affect my day-to-day life much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Dean of Students (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial to maintain a balanced atmosphere for all students.
- I'm hopeful this might formalize some unwritten inclusivity rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Law Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's liberating to know political beliefs won't hinder academic progress or opportunities.
- Could lead to more vibrant, less partisan legal discussions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Campus Maintenance Staff (Columbus, OH)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure how this affects my job directly.
- Any policy that supports fairness sounds good, I suppose.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Faculty Librarian (Denver, CO)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It'll be interesting to see if this encourages different research perspectives.
- A balanced policy implementation could be an academic asset.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $24000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $7500000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost of compliance includes training and administrative costs that institutions may pass on to students, indirectly affecting tuition rates.
- The potential impact on faculty recruitment and retention is significant if hiring practices are adjusted, possibly influencing educational quality.
- Enforcement mechanisms need clear definition to avoid lawsuits and potential non-compliance issues.
- Determining what constitutes a 'political test' could be contentious and costly in terms of legal interpretations.