State Legislative Outlook: 7 Higher Education Issues To Watch In 2024

With lawmakers set to return to work in most states this month, higher education leaders are bracing for what the new legislative sessions will mean for colleges and universities.

Budget battles, DEI bans, tuition caps, legacy admissions, accreditation challenges and campus free speech are all likely to take the spotlight in one or more state legislatures. Here’s a summary of higher education bills already filed or likely to be proposed in 2024.

According to a summary by The Education Trust, more than 45 bills were introduced across the states in 2023 targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in higher education. While most of these bills didn’t make it into law, Texas Senate Bill 17 did go into effect January 1, banning DEI offices and initiatives at public colleges in the state. Institutions now must prove their compliance with the law to receive state funding for next fiscal year. Other DEI bans were passed earlier in Florida and Tennessee.

Look for more anti-DEI bills this session. Already, a bill has been filed in Kentucky, and they’re expected in Idaho and Utah. Other states are sure to be added to the list.

Kentucky Senate Bill 6, introduced by Republican Senator Mike Wilson, would ban public institutions from requiring students and employees to support or endorse what it describes as “divisive concepts,” with a particular focus on topics involving race and sex.

It also provides “that a student or employee of a public postsecondary education institution shall not be required to endorse a specific ideology or political viewpoint to be eligible for hiring, contract renewal, tenure, promotion, or graduation.” Further, the bill gives a person “aggrieved by a violation of this Act” the right to sue institutions for damages and costs of no less than $1,000 and no more than $100,000 per violation.”

Another new target for conservative lawmakers is the accreditation of colleges and universities. Upset with some decisions by accreditors over curriculum and institutional governance, states are passing legislation requiring public institutions to change accreditors within a certain period of time.

Following Florida’s lead, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina passed Senate Bill 680 last year, which, among other provisions, prohibits University of North Carolina institutions and the state’s community colleges from using the same accrediting agency for consecutive accreditation cycles.

Conservatives in other states may make similar attempts this year to rein in the influence of accreditors, which they claim often overstep their authority.

Some states will see their higher education funding model come under new scrutiny, with special consideration given to institutions better addressing workforce shortages in critical areas. In Iowa, for example, House Speaker Pat Grassley has indicated that House Republicans plan to conduct a broad review of how the state funds its colleges and universities.

According to the Iowa Capital Dispatch, while Grassley said his caucus had not yet drafted specific legislation, it was considering shifts in the funding of insitutions and tuition grants. “I think a lot of it’s going to be looking at what the core mission of our higher educational institutions are, within the state to try to fit the demands,” Grassley said. “Because I think we can’t ignore the fact that the issue of the workforce continues to be an issue in the state.”

Also on the wish list in several states are legislatively imposed tuition freezes, which will likely be paired, as in the past, with any additional state appropriations to colleges and universities. South Dakota, Iowa and Pennsylvania are examples.

Republican lawmakers in Missouri have already introduced more than 20 bills that would place more limits on LGBTQ individuals. While many of those are focused on k-12 schools and curricula, bathroom access and pronoun use, others would restrict the kinds of gender-affirming medical procedures practiced at university medical centers.

Although Missouri’s GOP leadership has claimed these bills are not a legislative priority, don’t be surprised if some of them are passed either as stand-alone acts or amendments to other legislation.

Florida HB 901 would prohibit governmental entities, including public universities, from displaying gay pride flags, specifically prohibiting flags that “represent a political viewpoint, including, but not limited to, a politically partisan, racial, sexual orientation and gender, or political ideology viewpoint.” You can expect similar symbolic gestures in other states as their sessions proceed.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a topic that will be debated in many state legislatures this year. One primary aim will be stopping “deep fakes,” which involve the use of false images or videos of individuals, particularly in political advertising.

In California, the California AI Accountability Act, introduced as Senate Bill 896, would create regulations for state agencies using AI technology, including a requirement that members of the public be informed when they are interacting with AI.

How prospective AI legislation might affect college and universities specifically remains to be seen, but given the surge in AI applications, programs and research on campuses nationwide, it’s almost certain to have a significant impact. A useful summary of the status of AI legislation in the states can be found here.

Massachusetts lawmakers are considering Bill H. 3760 that would impose financial penalties proportionate to an institution’s endowment on universities that give admission preferences to legacy and donor applicants or offer binding early decision policies. Any revenue collected through the provision would constitute a “public service fee” that would help fund community colleges in the state.

Colorado has already banned legacy admissions at its public institutions; New York and Connecticut have both recently considered bans on the practice. And bi-partisan federal legislation has been introduced by Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.). Their Merit-Based Educational Reforms and Institutional Transparency Act – or MERIT Act – would amend the Higher Education Act and impose a new accreditation standard prohibiting institutions from extending admission advantages to children of donors or alumni.

Legislators will continue to pursue what they perceive to be necessary safeguards of free speech on college campuses. Although these bills are usually described as politically neutral, they’re often motivated by concerns that conservative views are not sufficiently represented at many universities.

In Arizona, Senator Anthony Kern (R-Glendale) said he specifically wants to protect conservative speech. “We want to promote an environment where students feel comfortable exploring different ideas and beliefs and not to potentially chill the learning experience,” Kern said. “Censorship and condemnation of conservative values will not be tolerated.”

But free speech advocates like Kern are less interested in protecting speech they don’t like. At a November meeting of the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities, Kern fired this accusation at the universities, according to local radio station KJZZ: “These Marxist professors that teach queer theory and anti-American garbage — they get away with this stuff, because nothing is done to them and it’s under the guise and smoke and mirror of free speech.”

In fact, some states are considering bills that would limit student free speech. In Florida, Republicans have filed bills that would exact financial penalties against college students who back “foreign terrorist” organizations, such as “Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad.”

SB 470 and HB 465 would penalize any student who “promotes a foreign terrorist organization” by requiring the student to pay out-of-state tuition and be ineligible for any fee waivers, institutional scholarships and state-funded financial aid.

Not surprisingly, the bill does not define what it means by “promote,” but it’s difficult to imagine that a student voicing support for Hamas would not be at risk. In fact, it’s not clear whether a student advocating for the Palestinian cause in general would not be threatened as well by a bill that will surely face legal challenges were it to become law.