Legislation mandating "intellectual diversity" at Virginia's public colleges received a major setback in a 5-3 House education subcommittee vote that "all but kills House Bill 1643," The Roanoke Times reports.  The Times, which earlier this month issued a scathing editorial against the bill, reported that vague phrases contained within the legislation, such as "academic freedom in support of intellectual diversity" stifled the bill's progress as legislators did not see the need for this solution in search of a problem.

Brian Turner, president of the Virginia Conference of the American Association of University Professors and political science professor at Randolph-Macon College testified that:

"Intellectual diversity" is a new phrase invented by actors mostly outside of higher education, although keenly interested in higher education. It refers to political and ideological viewpoints presumably held by faculty, or promoted in classrooms, or presented by outside speakers on campus. Diversity is measured at the level of the institution, and achieving it would require the administration to somehow categorize the political and ideological viewpoints of faculty members, guest speakers, courses, textbooks and readings.

Delegates Jeion Ward (D-Hampton) and James Schuler (D-Blacksburg) were instrumental in rounding up support for tabling the bill.  The bill's sponsor, Delegate Steven Landes (R-Weyers Cave) admitted that the bill was not drafted in response to any problem with academic freedom or students' rights at Virginia's public colleges.

The bill, in fact, did not even originate in the Virginia legislature, but is based on model legislation being forwarded by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni not only in Virginia, but also in Montana, Missouri, and Georgia.  At the hearing Anne Neal, president of ACTA, testified for the need for such legislation citing "studies" released documenting problems with political bias on college campuses.  However, a recent study released on behalf of Free Exchange debunks all of those studies.

The original proposed legislation was modified in subcommittee in part because the original bill would have required the employment of an institutional ombudsman for every higher education institution in Virginia.  This would have meant spending upwards of $5 million on a useless piece of legislation.  Given that schools already have procedures in place to deal with problems students may have with their professors, including violations of students' rights, HB 1643 would have passed an unnecessary cost onto Virginia taxpayers.

The defeat of HB 1643 sends a clear message to David Horowitz, Anne Neal and other ideological opponents of higher education that even in "red states," government interference with the free exchange of ideas will not be tolerated.