HR19

Testimony in Opposition to HR 19 House Education Funding Committee HR 19 is a redundant, ideologically biased resolution that wastes legislative time and public resources while purporting to solve a problem that does not exist. New Hampshire’s colleges and universities already possess full authority to invite speakers from across the political spectrum, and they do so regularly. No evidence has been presented that conservative viewpoints are excluded by policy or practice. This resolution does not expand free speech, protect academic freedom, or improve educational outcomes—it merely signals partisan grievance. Taxpayer-funded legislative bodies should not be issuing symbolic directives to higher education institutions to advance a particular political ideology under the guise of “viewpoint diversity,” especially when no corresponding encouragement exists for other underrepresented or marginalized perspectives. More troubling is the context in which this resolution arises. In recent sessions, this legislature has advanced legislation that courts and experts have warned undermines constitutional protections, targets disabled people, and erodes civil and human rights. Against that backdrop, HR 19 asks colleges to elevate voices associated—rightly or wrongly—with policies that many Granite Staters experience as ableist, exclusionary, and hostile to dignity and equal participation in public life. Encouraging institutions of higher learning to platform ideology disconnected from human decency, evidence-based policymaking, and respect for vulnerable communities is not neutrality; it is an abuse of legislative influence. Academic institutions exist to pursue knowledge, not to serve as vehicles for rehabilitating the public image of a political movement increasingly out of step with constitutional values and the lived realities of New Hampshire residents. Finally, HR 19 is fundamentally unnecessary. The resolution itself concedes it cannot compel action, alter curriculum, or mandate invitations—making it little more than a performative exercise. At a time when public education faces real crises—underfunding, staffing shortages, student mental health needs, and accessibility gaps—this legislature should focus on substantive solutions rather than ideological signaling. HR 19 does nothing to improve education, protect students, or strengthen democracy. It should be rejected as wasteful, biased, and inconsistent with the principles of equity, respect, and responsible governance.

I do agree with the part about condemming political violence, but I think this is overall unneccesary. I am assuming none of these folks have been on a college campus in a while but speaking about KSC, FPC, and Antioch, there are already all sorts of viewpoints allowed for speakers. I think college students are old enough to make their own decisions on that.

Please stop wasting time and money on attempting to control what other people think, say or hear.

True viewpoint diversity happens organically when campuses support free speech for all - not when the state pressures institutions to curate programming to meet a political benchmark. Public colleges should remain spaces where ideas compete freely, guided by academic judgment and student interest, not legislative mandates.

I oppose HR19. College students are adults who are fully capable of deciding which ideas and speakers they want to engage with. A core purpose of higher education is to encourage independent thinking, critical analysis, and open inquiry. Mandating that public colleges and universities “invite more conservative speakers” suggests that lawmakers, rather than students and faculty, should determine which viewpoints deserve a platform. That undermines academic freedom and institutional autonomy. This bill also raises an important question: how is “conservative” defined? Political ideology is not a fixed or universally agreed-upon label. Who decides what qualifies as conservative, and by what standard? Without a clear, objective definition, this policy risks becoming arbitrary, politicized, and potentially discriminatory. True viewpoint diversity happens organically when campuses support free speech for all — not when the state pressures institutions to curate programming to meet a political benchmark. Public colleges should remain spaces where ideas compete freely, guided by academic judgment and student interest, not legislative mandates.

Why on earth of the state legislature getting involved with this? This is a waste of your time to be “encouraging” the universities to do something. Save your partisan crap for a cpac event

Oppose HR 19. The government should not be in the business of managing or dictating specific viewpoints on our college campuses. Our state universities already value free speech. This bill undermines academic independence. Keep politics out of our higher education system and vote ITL on this bill.

If you want diverse, it shouldn't just be conservatives being encouraged.

I think it is more important to let college campuses choose their own speakers - the state should not be telling them how to choose speakers.

I am a NH constituent and I strongly OPPOSE HR19. The republicans have decried for years that the libs are “grooming” students, which is emphatically FALSE (most sane people simply find progressive positions more favorable to themselves and their communities). Now republicans are trying to push through a resolution which is clearly an attempt to “GROOM”, i.e. manipulate college students into conservative stature. By the very fact that they are COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY students speaks to their ability to know their own mind. Let our students decide for themselves who they wish to hear/learn from. I further contend that it is completely inappropriate for any government body to be submitting such ludicrous legislation.

I oppose HR19 because decisions about campus speakers should remain with colleges and universities, not be directed by the legislature. Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are essential to fostering genuine intellectual diversity, and resolutions promoting one political viewpoint undermine that principle.

College-aged students are adults and capable of choosing which speakers they wish to listen to on their college campuses.

Different points of view should be encouraged and valued. This resolution does not say that.

I believe this bill should be amended to read" The NH Legislature should invite more "woke" speakers to explain how these bills are hurting the "Live Free or Die" state.

College-aged students are adults and capable of choosing which speakers they wish to listen to on their college campuses. How is "conservative" defined in this regard? What barometer will be used?

The term conservative has changed dramatically in my lifetime. It does not mean what it used to and the government should stay out of college affairs like this.

This bill claims to want diversity and then calls only for encouraging events from only one side of the political spectrum. That is hypocritical, and at best a silly waste of time.

Now it sounds like some of the vastly overworked and underpaid representatives in our Statehouse want to voluntarily assume leadership and guidance roles in our state colleges and universities?! This whole notion of promoting either side of a liberal/conservative perspective unilaterally from our legislative body reeks! There is no logic or reason to implement this attempt at passive indoctrination by either conservative or liberal politicians. Stay out of the schools of learning and let the people acquire their politics as they will!!

In opposition to this resolution: Diversity of thought is indeed a worthy goal, but directing public institutions to amplify a single political viewpoint is not how meaningful intellectual diversity is achieved. Universities should retain the academic freedom to determine their own programming in service of open inquiry, rather than being steered by political resolutions. I urge the House to reject this resolution.

My name is Dr. Nathan R. Shrader, and I have been teaching Politics and Political Science at the collegiate level for 14 years. This resolution is based upon a hideous misrepresentation of what occurs in America’s colleges and universities. As such, I can inform the esteemed members of the committee that there is no cabal of Marxist revolutionary leftists plotting to defame apple pie, motherhood, and baseball in America. All one must do is attend a singular faculty meeting anywhere in the nation to learn that we as college professors cannot possibly orchestrate the mass brainwashing of young people which has become a popular and false trope. Colleges, universities, and faculty have never evaded the responsibility of ensuring that our students are well-versed in political ideology, knowledgeable about the political and partisan positions open to them, and able to plan and organize speakers who represent a vast array of perspectives. This is a resolution in search of a purpose beyond keeping the taskmasters in the fringe media fat and happy with fresh content. How about if we focus on issues Granite State families care about like making the cost of housing and healthcare affordable, reducing property taxes, and protecting the civil rights and liberties of the people. Anything short of this is just another political game.

This is for the sake of all NH voters.

I strongly OPPOSE HR19. The republicans have decried for years that the libs are “grooming” students, which is emphatically FALSE (most sane people simply find progressive positions more favorable to themselves and their communities). Now republicans are trying to push through a resolution which is clearly an attempt to “GROOM”, i.e. manipulate college students into conservative stature. By the very fact that they are COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY students speaks to their ability to know their own mind. Let our students decide for themselves who they wish to hear/learn from.

I strongly oppose forcing colleges to choose certain speakers on campus. How would "conservative" be defined? Because with some issues, such as climate change, when it's demanded that "both sides" get equal weight even though essentially all climate scientists believe in climate change, it gives too much credence to pseudoscience and mischaracterizations of the truth, which some consider the "conservative" point of view. College students and administrators should be able to choose for themselves what speakers to invite onto campus.

It is ridiculous to try to indoctrinate college students into any political philosophy by deliberately targeting (i.e., institutionalizing) more activity/exposure to any particular political (or religious) persuasion. This is NOT government's role in state-funded programs. College students are adults and are in college to begin thinking for and acting for themselves...there should not be a mandate to increase exposure to any particular ideology, especially when funding for these state schools is non-partisan and comes from the taxpayers of the state. This is a ridiculous proposal...are you listening to yourselves people???

This bill is overreach. The government does not need to dictate or even recommend who universities bring in for speakers.