Passing obviously illegal laws to be struck down by courts is how the right has been driving their angry voter base for decades. This is just part of the show, and having the court strike it down is a necessary part of the strategy.

Now do “common-sense gun control”. Politicians of all stripes do this because it works.

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. That's not allowed, regardless of which politics/ideology you're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

I think this is a bad law, but what specific legal theory could be used to challenge it in court? Please cite the specific section of the law that is in violation of the US Constitution or federal law?

Freedom of speech also covers compelled speech so I would think this would violate that.

No one is being compelled to answer the survey. Have you read the actual law?

The state (thru taxes) is funding the universities, right? Speaking for myself, if I was funding a university I would do things to encourage intellectual diversity.

I’m more sympathetic to the more general view that education is not the business of state governments, period.

Intellectual diversity imposed upon universities (rather than being some quasi-constitutional thing to sue over) is in my view solely of use to grifters and morons. It sounds like a nice idea but it's so easily manipulated (especially by politicians looking to signal to their base rather than actually fix something even out of naivete)

It’s already happening by left-wing politics. Discussed here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31149311

How is that intellectual diversity? Isn't the common refrain that we should be enforcing intellectual diversity and not other kinds, specifically because the other kinds of diversity don't result in intellectual diversity?

Of course, you shouldn't worry yourself over this too much, Canada's not the US, and while that is a government mandated policy there, it would be illegal here.

> if I was funding a university I would do things to encourage intellectual diversity.

The first amendment prohibits the state from doing such a thing. They must allow diversity of opinion, they cannot require it (this would be silly, where does it end, Edwards v. Aguillard and Kitzmiller v. Dover seem pretty clear on this).

The first amendment places limits on the conditions that a state government can attach to university funding?

See South Dakota v. Dole, which holds (among other things) that federal funding cannot be granted contingently on a requirement that would otherwise violate the constitution or be "coercive". This would almost certainly apply to the states via incorporation. So while a state could choose to not fund universities at all, if it chooses to, it cannot favor certain universities based on a speech-test.

Then you are arguing that these surveys would abridge free speech?

If done with the intent "to encourage intellectual diversity." Yes. At the point where you have intellectuals being required to register their views with the government, you're veering heavily into red scare territory.

These surveys are compelled speech. Freedom of speech not only means you are free to speak out, but that you can not be compelled to speak.

Education should not be a business.

What does this mean?