Never thought I would agree with Tennessee lawmakers on anything

[Berkut]

Huh - the bill apparently does NOT protect administrators or instructors from being punished for there micro-aggression accusations, just the students.

[grumbler]

Disorderly conduct doesn't mean just about anything. If it did, people could be arrested for just about anything.

That's the main objection to disorderly conduct arrests - they are arbitrary since almost any behavior at all can be called "disorderly" if the arresting officer so desires. Conviction is another matter, of course, and that's why DO arrests are not more common.

I don't know what the definition of disorderly conduct is in Tennessee, but someone disrupting a class or obstructing test administration (such as by announcing answers during the test) would meet a reasonable one. Those were your examples. The school wouldn't be punishing students for the content of their speech, but the disorderly conduct.

The requirement is that one must be "intending to upset or alarm others" and also "creates a dangerous or offensive condition without a good reason," or "making excessive noise that prevents other people from going about their business."  Calling out the answers to a test wouldn't seem to meet any of the requirements except perhaps "intending to upset.. others" and in that case still doesn't create a "dangerous or offensive condition."

[grumbler]

True but they are usually appointed by the Governor and approved by the legislature.

I don't know about "usually."  In Michigan they are elected by statewide ballot.  In Virginia, they are appointed by the Governor with, as you write, approval of the legislature (though House of Delegates, not state senate, which I thought interesting).

[alfred russel]

Calling out the answers to a test wouldn't seem to meet any of the requirements except perhaps "intending to upset.. others" and in that case still doesn't create a "dangerous or offensive condition."

I disagree.

[dps]

Those things could be considered disorderly conduct.

Yes, but that's a criminal charge.  The school couldn't punish the students and they'd have to call the cops.  Would the cops even respond if there is no threat of violence and no harm to the public?

The article states that:

The law itself, which is to be discussed next Tuesday by the Education, Administration and Planning subcommittee, would prohibit schools from “punishing, disciplining, or censuring students for the content of students’ lawful speech by way of or through any of the faculty, employees, or organizations of the institution.”

It doesn't say that the school is prohibited from punishing unlawful speech that the police aren't responding to.

I think the key word in the bit you bolded is "content".  It seems that the schools wouldn't be able to punish a student for the content of their speech, but they could punish them the circumstances under which it was uttered--as in, for example, trying to disrupt a class.  That seems appropriate to me.