It is just not clear if these are ongoing issues.
The example of marriage is a serious violation right now. I don’t doubt that this happened to you, but it would not happen now. If it did there would and should be repercussions. This, however, is not relevant to the DI bill at hand.
The research study about Christians being stupid, is wrong headed, but it is not discrimination. People are free to express stupid ideas. We don’t have to like it. In the University setting, we respond by demonstrating they are stupid ideas. What good would legislation do? Nothing.
The other complain is about discriminating against ID. I do not doubt it happens. I also think, however, that most students are smart enough to keep their mouths shut. It does not appear to be a common problem. Correctly informing students (which I hope you do @pnelson) that ID activism is career suicide, will do a great deal to protect them. Hopefully they will be wise enough to listen, and avoid ID activism. However, even the cases that you raised, only one seemed to actually rise to the level of a problem, and this was in 2005. Has this happened, say, in the last 2 years?
If it is wide spread, it means that it merits escalation because there is a systemic problem, that might even need legislative action. I am not sure it is widespread. It seems rather like a non-issue in science right now, that there are already structures in place to prevent abuse of students this way.
Unfair and unjust treatment is usually legal. What BioLogos did to me was unfair and unjust. It was also totally legal. There is no reason to pass legislation fro BioLogos to treat me more fairly, and it would not work either.
Invasive questions are easy to define. I can ask:
Please explain what neutral theory is and how it is used to interpret the relationship between Human and Chimp genomes?
Please explain to me the scientific reasons why biologists conclude that Behe’s Irreducibly Complex argument is invalid? (see Muller’s Two Step: Which Irreducible Complexity?)
Please map out the mathematical errors you see in the use of Algorithmic Complexity to detect design?
These are all fair questions that test their comprehension of the core material of information theory, genetics, and biology. Anyone who answers these questions wrongs has major gaps in their understanding of mainstream science. I cannot, however, ask (from a pedagogical position of power):
Do you personally believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?
Do you personally believe that Behe’s IC argument is invalid?
Do you personally reject information arguments for design?
From a pedagogical point of view, the first list of questions is fair game, and we can appropriately judge students on their response to these questions. We cannot, however, make them answer questions about their personal beliefs. The second list of questions are invasive. It is not fair to ask them, or to judge students based on their answers to them.