AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, relative to public institutions of higher education.
SB1741, known as the “Charlie Kirk Act,” requires each public institution of higher education in Tennessee to adopt and publish policies on freedom of expression and the university’s role in political and social action that are identical or substantially similar to two University of Chicago reports: the 2015 Committee on Freedom of Expression report and the 1967 Kalven Report. The bill incorporates detailed language emphasizing that universities should not shield students or faculty from offensive ideas, should protect open debate, and should avoid taking collective positions on public issues. It also requires institutions to publish these policies on their websites.
The bill further restricts public colleges and universities, and their agents, from disinviting speakers because of threatened protests or the speaker’s viewpoints, or from blocking student organizations and faculty members from inviting speakers to campus. It also prohibits retaliation or discrimination against faculty based on their scholarly viewpoints or other speech protected by the First Amendment. In addition, it bars discrimination or retaliation based on sincere religious beliefs or positions concerning abortion, homosexuality, or transgender behavior, and it protects student groups and employers from denial of recognition or campus interview access on those grounds.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 49 by adding a new part governing public higher education and by expanding the statutory definition of “substantially obstruct or otherwise substantially interfere” in the campus speaker context. It creates enforceable policy requirements for public institutions, limits institutional discretion over invited speakers and expressive activity, and adds explicit protections tied to academic freedom, religious conscience, and viewpoints on abortion, homosexuality, and transgender behavior. The act takes effect immediately for policy adoption purposes and July 1, 2026 for all other purposes, affecting public colleges, universities, faculty, student organizations, and campus employers/interview access.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the legislative process, passing the Senate Education Committee unanimously and advancing on the floor by comfortable margins. The vote totals suggest broad support for its free-speech and anti-retaliation framework, though not unanimous. The overall tone of the bill is strongly pro–free expression and pro–institutional neutrality, with supporters likely viewing it as a campus speech protection measure.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s mandate that public universities adopt specific model policies and its explicit protection for positions on abortion, homosexuality, and transgender behavior. Critics may view these provisions as limiting institutional autonomy or as privileging certain viewpoints in politically and socially sensitive areas. Supporters, by contrast, appear to favor the bill as a safeguard against viewpoint discrimination, speaker disinvitation, and retaliation against faculty, students, and religious or ideological dissenters.