Ban on ‘loyalty pledges’ in public college employment and admission passes NC House
The North Carolina House passed a bill Tuesday that would prohibit the state’s public universities and community colleges from asking applicants for employment or academic admission about their views on matters of “contemporary political debate or social action.”
The language in House Bill 607 closely mirrors that of a policy passed by the UNC System Board of Governors in February. The bill would cement in law the prohibition of “compelled speech” for the state’s public universities and extend it to the state’s 58 community colleges.
The bill does not outline specific topics that may be prohibited, but opponents fear it would prevent schools from asking about applicants’ beliefs about diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, which are included as tenets in some universities’ mission statements or as part of questions on applications. Supporters, however, say it would protect conservative applicants.
“This deals with, basically, loyalty pledges to one ideology or the other on the application,” Rep. Destin Hall, a Granite Falls Republican and sponsor of the bill, said in the House Rules committee Tuesday.
In committee and on the House floor Tuesday, bill sponsor Rep. Steve Tyson, a New Bern Republican, cited current state law that prevents colleges and universities from requiring students or faculty to “publicly express a given view of social policy,” and said HB 607 extends those ideas to applicants.
“This bill would extend that courtesy to prospective employees of the university, when you’re taking a job application, or students that are looking to attend one of the public universities,” Tyson said.
The bill passed the House 74-42 on its second reading, and by a voice vote on its third reading.
The state Senate on Tuesday passed a bill with similar language to HB 607, but one that would apply it to state employees, their workplaces and training.
Bill does not specify prohibited topics
Rep. Ashton Clemmons, a Greensboro Democrat, asked the bill sponsors in committee Tuesday what would be defined as a matter of “contemporary political debate or social action,” or who would decide what topics or issues colleges and universities would be prohibited from asking applicants about.
Without a definition in the bill, Clemmons said, “I don’t know how institutions would make that decision.” Clemmons also said the vague language could “leave our institutions in a vulnerable place.”
In a House education committee last week, Rep. Lindsey Prather, a Candler Democrat, asked a similar question of Tyson, about whether the bill’s language would prevent schools from asking applicants about their views on diversity, which UNC System universities include in their mission or vision statements.
At UNC-Chapel Hill, for example, the university’s mission statement includes that the university aims “to teach a diverse community” of students. N.C. State University’s vision statement says the university “will be known as a diverse, equitable and inclusive community.”
N.C. State’s undergraduate admission application previously included a question asking applicants how they would “contribute to a more diverse and inclusive” environment at the university, but the question will not be required in the future, The N&O previously reported.
Responding to Prather, Tyson said he personally didn’t think such questions were “appropriate to ask.”
“If somebody’s asking to do a job, I think it needs to be based on the merits of can they do the job, particularly in education,” Tyson said.
Bill would not prevent background checks
The bill would not prevent applicants from voluntarily sharing their views on prohibited topics, nor prevent hiring or admissions managers from asking about the content of applicants’ resumes or professional work.
Rep. Amos Quick, a Greensboro Democrat, asked the bill’s sponsors in committee Tuesday whether the bill would prevent schools from asking applicants about any comment they may have made “that goes against the values of the institution.”
Hall responded that the bill would not prevent schools from asking applicants about social media posts “that might be problematic for that student being on campus,” saying the bill was intended to prevent compelled speech, such as “making a student say something on an application as to some issue of the day that’s going on.”
Hall previously said in committee last week that the bill would help conservatives who feel “like they’re getting the shorter end of the stick” in hiring and admission by having to state their views. He has heard from conservative professors and students “who have said they feel like their speech has been frozen.”
“There’s a chilling effect on some of these questions,” Hall said.
The bill also does not prohibit the banned topics from being discussed on campus or in classrooms.
This story was originally published May 2, 2023 at 6:39 PM with the headline "Ban on ‘loyalty pledges’ in public college employment and admission passes NC House."
