PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 4, 2025
This bill prohibits an institution of higher education (IHE) that participates in federal student aid programs from requiring a student enrolled at the IHE, an employee or contractor of the IHE, or an applicant for admission to or employment or contracting at the IHE to make certain ideological oaths or similar statements.
Specifically, the bill prohibits an IHE from compelling, requiring, inducing, or soliciting such an individual to (1) endorse an ideology that promotes the differential treatment of an individual or group of individuals based on race, color, or ethnicity; or (2) provide a statement indicating certain information about the individual, including the individual's views on efforts involving diversity, equity, and inclusion or other specified concepts.
Additionally, the bill prohibits an IHE from providing preferential consideration to a student, employee, or contractor based on the individual's unsolicited support for an ideology that promotes the differential treatment of an individual or group of individuals based on race, color, or ethnicity.
People & committees
Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.927 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.927 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.927 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.927 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.