There have been some well-publicized incidents in which student groups or other protesters have interfered with scheduled appearances by right-wing speakers at US universities. In response, a number of states have considered “campus free speech” bills based on model legislation produced by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank. Different bills introduce specific penalties for students who shout down the speech of others and prevent college administrators from disinviting speakers, to give two examples.

One such bill is being debated in Wisconsin. Faculty and university officials in the state are concerned about what else might be prevented by the bill's overly vague language, according to the local Cap Times. As often happens with bills relevant to science education, the debate has also elicited some rather bizarre comments from the bill’s sponsors.

The trouble comes from this section of the bill: “That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view of social policy.”

While the bills’ scope is focused on public events involving invited speakers, there are a couple key questions here. University officials want to know how far this requirement “to remain neutral” extends. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has spoken out against proposed bans on stem cell research on campus. Would the university run afoul of this law if it did so again?

And, of course, some are worried that students could use this law to shield themselves from having to recognize scientific facts that are publicly controversial. When one Democrat at a hearing asked Republican Representative and bill sponsor Jesse Kremer whether a geology professor would be allowed to tell a student who believed the Earth to be 6,000 years old that they are wrong, Kremer bristled. “The Earth is 6,000 years old. That’s a fact,” he said. (The Earth is, as a matter of empirical fact, a little over 4.5 billion years old.)

And although the bill is not focused on classrooms, Kremer suggested that such a student could potentially bring a complaint to a “Council on Free Expression” the bill would create—a body composed of leaders from each state school and two politicians.

Another Republican sponsor of the bill, Representative Robin Vos, invoked climate change as a “public controversy of the day.” He said, “Probably the biggest debate is global warming. A lot of people think it’s settled science and an awful lot of people think it isn’t. I think both sides should be brought to campus and let students decide.”

Vos, a critic of the state’s universities who has sought to limit tenure for faculty, has complained that most invited speakers are liberal.

The Wisconsin bill has not yet come up for a vote.