By: Hannah Taylor
Disagreement over two competing versions of legislation designed to “protect ideological perspectives” in college campus-based organizations surfaced during a Senate committee hearing Wednesday.
Both bills were created to prohibit public institutions taking “adverse action” against belief-based organizations. As defined in the bills text, belief-based organizations are, “any political or ideological student association or any religious student association.”
“There is not a single student association in existence that is not protected by this bill,” said state Rep. Darin Chappell, a Republican from Rogersvilleand sponsor of the bill. “This bill just simply says that freedom of association is one of the premier fundamental rights of this country, and you do not lose that simply because you enrolled in a higher institution.”
But critics say Chappell’s bill could force schools to support groups that discriminate against students who weren’t allowed to join such groups, such as LGBTQ+ students who could be prohibited from joining certain religious-based groups. They prefer a Senate version of the bill that includes an anti-discriminatory provision.
Both bills prohibit enforcing any policy that denies certain “benefits” to these organizations that are readily available to other student associations.
“Benefits,” as described in the bill, are any type of recognition, registration, use of facilities for meetings or speaking purposes, communication channels that are sanctioned by a public institution of higher learning, other assistance and aid.
The House approved the bill in late February with a vote of 108-47.
Most of the discussion Wednesday centered around the protection of free speech and funding these organizations with student fees.
“We’re not discriminating against anyone,” said state Sen. Brad Hudson, a Republican from Cape Fair. “We’re wanting everyone to have equal protection under the First Amendment as it should be.”
Sharon Jones, who testified in opposition on behalf of the Missouri NAACP State Conference, requested the committee look at the language added to the Senate version of the legislation. It is an anti-discriminatory clause stating that if there is evidence that an organization’s viewpoint would cause campus disruption or “interfere with the rights of others,” the protections would not apply.
If included, Jones said it would, “make us neutral on the bill.”
That sentiment was shared among other witnesses who testified in opposition Wednesday.
“It’s something we think balances the needs of all groups on campus and doesn’t do anything to impact the underlying intent of the two bills,” Jones said.
Another concern brought up by those in opposition was that leadership in university-sanctioned student groups could be restricted to leaders who shared the ideology of those groups.
Chappell said this bill doesn’t mean students “can’t choose their leaders.”
“It means that students cannot be compelled by the university to choose leaders that do not represent their views and desires,” Chappell said. “Not just in religion, but politically, economically (and) sociologically.”
This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian. It can be republished in print or online.