To view a specific state, click on the link below. Click on the year to view in depth information.

National
1998 – In a surprise move, the House Oversight Committee passed a bill to severely limit the speech of the entire campus community, but a wave of grassroots activity created the pressure needed to stop it from going any further.
2000 – After years of confusion sown by inconsistent lower court decisions, the Supreme Court finally resolved the controversy over the constitutionality of mandatory student fees in. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth. The Court held that a mandatory student activity fee is constitutional, so long as funds are allocated without regard to a student organization’s viewpoints.
2005 – Language urging an “Academic Bill of Restrictions” (ABOR) is inserted into the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, HR 609. Though the section of the Act on “student speech and association rights” does not mandate ABOR, it is nonetheless modeled on and meant to encourage implementing David Horowitz’s bill of restrictions.

Alabama
2009 – House Bill 300, the misleadingly named “academic freedom” bill was introduced to regulate what is taught, how it is taught and how grading occurs in high school and college science classrooms.

Arizona
2006 – Senate Bill 1331, the “alternative coursework” bill is defeated in a narrow vote in the Arizona Senate. The bill would have mandated that faculty offer alternative assignments to students that were offended by the content of their coursework, and was seen as an attempt to force faculty to self-censor controversial content from their classrooms.
2007 – Senate Bill 1542 (previously SB 1612) would have prohibited any instructor in a public K-12 school or institution of higher education from “advocating one side of a social, political or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy” while in their official duties. After students and faculty testified, spoke out to the media and worked with their administrators to stop the bill, it died in the Senate.
2008 – Senate Bill 1108 would have forbidden K-12 teachers from “denigrating American values and the teachings of western civilization” and forbidden college students from forming student organizations based in whole or part on race based criteria.” The bill died in committee.

California
1997 – In a recent victory for the campus forum, the University of California General Counsel's office instructed system and campus administrators to disregard the original ruling of Smith v Regents in light of Rosenberger v. University of Virginia.
1999 – Court says student government can lobby: A University of California policy prohibiting student governments and the University of California Student Association (UCSA) from lobbying has been overturned.
2000 – A proposal to restrict funding for political and ideological activities has died in committee. Senate Bill 829 would have required campuses in the California State University system to “exclude mandatory student government fees as a source of funding for political or ideological activities or organizations.”
2005 – After hearing from students and faculty across the state, the Senate Education Committee votes against SB 5, which would have imposed a version of the “Academic Bill of Restrictions” in California universities.
2006 – California lawmakers pass Assembly Bill 2581, which affirmatively protects student speech and bars prior restraint of student publications.
2008 – California lawmakers pass Senate Bill 1370 which protects student media advisors from discipline for the content of the student publications they advise.

Colorado
2000 – Despite heavy opposition from free speech advocates, the Colorado legislature has imposed a new restriction on student fees.
2008 – Senate Bill 45 or the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”
2009 – Legislators introduce House Bill 1313 which would allow campuses to create optional fees to support student activities and clarifies that student fee revenue can be spent by students on issue advocacy.

Florida
1998 – The introduction of a bill by Senator Kirkpatrick in January raised concerns that members of the legislature were trying to wrest power away from campuses for the fees that support campus activities.
2005 – Legislation that would have mandated an “Academic Bill of Restrictions” in public colleges and universities fails to pass either house of the Florida Legislature.

Georgia
2007-2008 – House Bill 154 or the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”

Hawaii
2006 – Legislation that would have established an “Academic Bill of Restrictions” is defeated at the end of the legislative session.

Idaho
1998 – For the second year in a row, legislation that would curb student group's work on ballot initiatives was passed out of the Idaho House.

Illinois
2005 – The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issues its ruling in Hosty v. Carter. The decision opens the door for administrators to regulate the content of student publications in higher education when the publications are supported by student fees. Many worry that the decision, which applies only to Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana, will allow greater regulation of any student organization or event supported by student fees.
2007 – Illinois lawmakers pass Senate Bill 729 which protects student journalists in both K-12 and higher education from censorship. The bill effectively undoes the damage to Illinois student press rights done by the 2005 Hosty v. Carter decision.

Indiana
2005 – Legislation that would have mandated an “Academic Bill of Restrictions” is introduced in the Indiana House of Representatives. The bill, HR 1531, fails.
2008 – House Bill 1139 or the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”
2009 – House Bill 1537 or the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”

Iowa
2009 – House File 183, the misleadingly named “academic freedom” bill is defeated. The bill was intended to regulate what is taught, how it is taught and how grading occurs in high school and college science classrooms.

Kansas
1998 – Civic participation plays an important role in higher education institutions. Students have complemented their classroom education with hands-on experience addressing issues such as foreign policy, the environment, education funding, and others. However, in Kansas much of this civic activity has been banned.
2006 – Kansas HCR 5035 is introduced, expressing the sense of the Kansas House of Representatives and Senate that colleges should adopt an “Academic Bill of Restrictions.” The resolution is defeated at the end of the legislative session.

Kentucky
1998 – In the highly contentious Kincaid v. Gibson (1997) decision, a district judge upheld the decision of Kentucky State University administrators to halt distribution of yearbooks and remove the advisor of the campus newspaper.
2001 – In January 2001, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision in Kincaid v. Gibson that upheld the censorship of the Kentucky State University yearbook, The Thorobred. The appeals court ruled that the University's confiscation of the yearbook violated students' First Amendment right to free expression, reaffirming the powerful constitutional protections of campus free speech.
2007 – HB 158 which would have required each institution to adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights” is defeated.

Louisiana
2005 – Legislation similar to the “Academic Bill of Restrictions” is introduced in the Louisiana House of Representatives. The bill, HCR 25, fails.

Maine
2005 – Legislation mandating an “Academic Bill of Restrictions” is defeated in the Maine Senate.

Maryland
2005 – Legislators reject an attempt to pass an “Academic Bill of Restrictions” in Maryland.

Massachusetts
2006 – Legislation requiring an “Academic Bill of Restrictions” is defeated in the House of Representatives. HB 1234 was originally introduced in 2005.
2007 – HB 1190 which would have required each institution to adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights” is defeated.

Minnesota
1997 – Inspired by legal attacks on campus fees in Wisconsin, a bill to dismantle the current system of funding student activities was introduced into the Minnesota State legislature in April.
1998 – Supported by the Minnesota Family Council, a conservative religious lobby group, five students at the University of Minnesota filed suit against the Board of Regents in February. Their case claims that the funding for the University Young Women, the Queer Student Cultural Center, and La Raza Student Cultural Center is unconstitutional.
2001 – Supported by the Minnesota Family Council, a conservative religious lobby group, five students at the University of Minnesota filed suit against the Board of Regents in February of 1998 claiming that the funding system at the university was unconstitutional. In a victory for student free speech, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit against the university citing as precedent the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court victory in Southworth vs. the University of Wisconsin.
2006 – Legislation requiring a version of the “Academic Bill of Restrictions” is defeated at the end of the legislative session. SB 1988 and HB 2164 were introduced in 2005 but failed to pass either year.
2008 – HF 3922, similar to the “Academic Bill of Restrictions” is defeated in the House of Representatives.

Missouri
2007 – House Bill 213 or the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”
2008 – House Bill 1315 and its companion, Senate Bill 983 or the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”
2009 – Senate Bill 499 or the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”

Mississippi
2008 – Senate Bill 2651 and House Bill 1253, similar to the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”

Montana
2007 – House Bill 525 or the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”
2007 – House Joint Resolution 55 would have established an interim committee to investigate intellectual diversity on college campuses. Sponsored by the same Representative as HB 525, the bill would likely have built support for more restrictive measures in the future.

New Jersey
1998 – The legislature is considering new restrictions on campus speech.

New York
1999 – Within a 2-week time period, multiple state bills were introduced that could turn campus debate on its head.
2001 – A bill designed to nix the use of mandatory student activities fees at New York's public universities and colleges is currently pending in the state legislature.
2005 – Both the State University of New York (SUNY) Board of Regents and the legislature reject attempts to institute an “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”
2007 – The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issues its ruling in Amidon et al v. SUNY Student Association et al. The Court held that in the context of a mandatory fee, some types of referenda are unconstitutional in allocation decisions. It also held that referenda or similar mechanism that measure only projected involvement in a student organization likely is constitutional in a funding decision and that it is constitutional for different student organizations to receive different levels of funding.
2007-2008 – AB 4406 and SB2300 which would have required each institution to adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights” is defeated.

North Carolina
2005 – Senate Bill 1139, which would have required each institution of the University of North Carolina to adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights” is defeated.

Ohio
2001 – A lawsuit filed as part of an ongoing effort to limit debate on college campuses is pending in the Southern District Court of Ohio.
2005 – Legislation is introduced (SB 24) to require colleges and universities to adopt an “Academic Bill of Restrictions.” The bill is withdrawn after the Inter-University Council agrees to a far less restrictive set of principles.

Oklahoma
2008 – House Bill 2600, similar to the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”

Oregon
1999 – What do the Governor of Oregon and the lead singer of the rock band Everclear have in common? Both John Kitzhaber and Art Alexzakis have signed a letter of support being circulated by Oregon students.
1999 – On February 23rd, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the University of Oregon's use of mandatory student fees. Both courts found that the mandatory student activity fee creates a marketplace of ideas that enhances the educational mission of the University, while rejecting the claim that such funding violates the first amendment rights of dissenting students.
1999 – The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has added yet another strong precedent in support of campus speech. The court's opinion in Hollingsworth v Lane Community College, issued on March 24th, upholds a 1997 District Court ruling that supports the marketplace of ideas created by student fees.
2001 – In a victory for campus free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of Hollingsworth vs. Lane Community College, letting stand the decision that, among other things, held that the use of referendum on campus is constitutional.
2007 – House Bill 3348, similar to the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”
2007 – HB 3350 which would have required each institution to adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights” is defeated.
2007 – House Bill 3279 is signed into law at the urging of campus journalists and student advocates. The law affirmatively protects the rights of student journalists to control the content of their publications and prohibits prior restraint of those publications.

Pennsylvania
2005 – The Pennsylvania House votes in favor of HR 177, establishing a Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education.  The Committee is charged with examining the academic atmosphere and the degree to which faculty have the opportunity to instruct and students have the opportunity to learn in an environment conducive to the pursuit of knowledge and truth at State-related and State-owned colleges and universities and community colleges in the Commonwealth.  Many see the Committee’s investigation as an attempt to eventually pass an “Academic Bill of Restrictions.
2006 – The Pennsylvania House Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education votes unanimously for a final report and recommendations that find no problem to be addressed in higher education and recommend against legislation or other measures that would restrict what students are able to learn in college classrooms.

Rhode Island
2005 – Legislation that would have required an “Academic Bill of Rights” is defeated in the Senate.

South Dakota
2006 – House Bill 1222 is defeated in the Senate.  The bill, known as the “intellectual diversity” bill, would have mandated restrictions similar to those in the “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”

Texas
2007 – SCR 3 was a resolution to encourage the state’s colleges and universities to implement policies to safeguard academic freedom. Though the language was mostly innocuous, faculty and students opposed the resolution because it represented too much intrusion on the content of education by legislators.

Virginia
2007 – House Bill 1643, a version of the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”
2008 – House Bill 118, a watered down version of the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”

Washington
2006 – The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the student fee allocation system is constitutional.– House Bill 1991, creating an “Academic Bill of Restrictions” is introduced in 2005 but proponents are unable to amass enough support to pass it.  The bill is defeated with the end of the legislative session.
2007 – House Bill 1307 would have protected student press rights. Similar to bills in California, Oregon and Illinois, the bill would have ensured that student journalists can control the content of their publications and would have prohibited prior restraint. The bill failed in the Senate.
2008 – Senate Bill 6449, nearly identical to 2007’s House Bill 1307, fails in the Senate.
2008 – Senate Bill 6893, the “intellectual diversity bill” would have imposed restrictions similar to David Horowitz’s “Academic Bill of Restrictions.”
2009 – Senate Bill 5946, nearly identical to 2007’s House Bill 1307 is introduced to protect student journalists.
2009 – Senate Bill 5776 passes. The bill affirmatively allows students to charge themselves a voluntary fee through either a student referendum or student government vote and allows students to use fee revenue to advocate on issues they care about.

West Virginia
2007-2008 – HB 2884 which would have required each institution to adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights” is defeated.
2009 – HB 2700 which would have required each institution to adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights” is defeated.

Wisconsin
1997 – The introduction of a bill to prevent Universities from collecting mandatory fees to fund certain student organizations and activities has drawn harsh criticism from many quarters on campus.
2000 – After years of confusion sown by inconsistent lower court decisions, the Supreme Court finally resolved the controversy over the constitutionality of mandatory student fees in. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth. The Court held that a mandatory student activity fee is constitutional, so long as funds are allocated without regard to a student organization’s viewpoints.
2002 – The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the student fee allocation system is constitutional.