The stuff in italics is from the bill. I read this again, and can see some problems. I think that I misunderstood what they meant by some of this. It all boils down to how the courts interpret it. I agree. This could get messy. (bolding is mine).
(2) Students have a right to expect that they will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects they study and that they will not be discriminated against on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
It depends on what they mean by "reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge". Why even put the words 'reasoned' and 'appropriate' in there?
(6) Faculty and instructors have a right to academic freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but they should make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own and should encourage intellectual honesty, civil debate, and critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.
Depends on what they meant by "serious scholarly viewpoints". If they mean that a point of view can be used in lieu of scientific theory, then there is a problem.
Exactly. I don't consider ID a serious scholarly viewpoint. Is some court going to tell me I should?