Judge refuses to block Alabama school DEI ban
The judge ruled the University of Alabama professors and students did not meet the standard for a preliminary injunction after they argued the new law violates their First Amendment rights. The case will continue but the law will remain in place for now.
The Alabama law, which went into affect last October, prohibits schools from hosting or funding DEI programs and says 'divisive concepts' such as making one feel guilty or complicit about past or present actions because of their race or ethnicity.
The judge argued this law does not prohibit professors from teaching these subjects, but 'it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.'
'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' the judge wrote in his decision.
The professors argued they have changed lessons plans due to the law and that it violates their academic freedom.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Mississippi social media law upheld
In an emergency ruling Thursday, the justices denied internet trade group NetChoice's request to reinstate a lower court's order protecting social media giants like Meta, X and YouTube from the new requirements. The Supreme Court did not explain its order or disclose the vote count, as is typical in emergency cases. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, wrote a solo opinion cautioning that NetChoice is likely to ultimately succeed on its First Amendment claims even though he was siding against the group at this stage. 'In short, under this Court's case law as it currently stands, the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional,' Kavanaugh's brief opinion reads. 'Nonetheless, because NetChoice has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time, I concur in the Court's denial of the application for interim relief,' the conservative justice continued. NetChoice had asked the court to intervene after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the district judge's decision shielding the platforms from the 2024 law without explanation. 'Neither NetChoice nor this Court can know why the Fifth Circuit believed this law satisfies the First Amendment's stringent demands or deviated from the seven other decisions enjoining similar laws,' NetChoice wrote in its request. It argued it would face 'immediate, irreparable' injury should the law be allowed to go into effect. Mississippi's law establishes requirements for social media companies to confirm their users' ages. Minors must have express consent from a parent or guardian to use the platform, and covered websites must strive to eliminate their exposure to harmful material or face a $10,000 fine. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden found the law unconstitutional as applied to NetChoice members YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Nextdoor, Dreamwidth and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. The Hill's Ella Lee has more here.
NBC Sports
19 minutes ago
- NBC Sports
NFL will continue to put social justice message in end zones
Whether the league will admit it or not, it's currently engaged in a high-wire regarding diversity initiatives, with a desire to do the objectively right thing on one hand and an urgency to placate certain political forces on the other. As it relates to the messages that have been painted on the back lines of end zones since 2020, those will continue. Via the Associated Press, all 32 teams will have one of four messages at the back of one end zone: End Racism, Stop Hate, Choose Love, or Inspire Change. At the back of the other other end one will be the message, 'It Takes All of Us.' Here's the reality. Some messages will invite less scrutiny from anti-DEI types than others. Choose Love, Inspire Change? Fine. End Racism, Stop Hate? Tread lightly. That said, 'End Racism' will be the message for each of the four international games. And the Eagles will rotate through all four messages. Kudos for the NFL to not suspending or postponing or pausing the end-zone messages. Especially if the gesture at some point triggers a social-media attack and/or a suggestion that the effort to acquire 10 percent of ESPN could be scrapped unless the messages are erased.
CBS News
19 minutes ago
- CBS News
Judge blocks Trump administration guidance targeting DEI programs in schools, universities
A federal judge on Thursday struck down two Trump administration actions aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the nation's schools and universities. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher in Maryland found that the Education Department violated the law when it threatened to cut federal funding from educational institutions that continued with DEI initiatives. The guidance has been on hold since April when three federal judges blocked various portions of the Education Department's anti-DEI measures. The ruling Thursday followed a motion for summary judgment from the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, which challenged the government's actions in a February lawsuit. The case centers on two Education Department memos ordering schools and universities to end all "race-based decision-making" or face penalties up to a total loss of federal funding. It's part of a campaign to end practices the Trump administration frames as discrimination against white and Asian American students. The new ruling orders the department to scrap the guidance because it runs afoul of procedural requirements, though Gallagher wrote that she took no view on whether the policies were "good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair." Gallagher, who was appointed by President Trump, rejected the government's argument that the memos simply served to remind schools that discrimination is illegal. "It initiated a sea change in how the Department of Education regulates educational practices and classroom conduct, causing millions of educators to reasonably fear that their lawful, and even beneficial, speech might cause them or their schools to be punished," Gallagher wrote. Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy firm representing the plaintiffs, called it an important victory over the administration's attack on DEI. "Threatening teachers and sowing chaos in schools throughout America is part of the administration's war on education, and today the people won," said Skye Perryman, the group's president and CEO. The Education Department did not immediately comment on Thursday. The conflict started with a Feb. 14 memo declaring that any consideration of race in admissions, financial aid, hiring or other aspects of academic and student life would be considered a violation of federal civil rights law. The memo dramatically expanded the government's interpretation of a 2023 Supreme Court decision barring colleges from considering race in admissions decisions. The government argued the ruling applied not only to admissions but across all of education, forbidding "race-based preferences" of any kind. "Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon 'systemic and structural racism' and advanced discriminatory policies and practices," wrote Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary of the department's Office for Civil Rights. A further memo in April asked state education agencies to certify they were not using "illegal DEI practices." Violators risked losing federal money and being prosecuted under the False Claims Act, it said. In total, the guidance amounted to a full-scale reframing of the government's approach to civil rights in education. It took aim at policies that were created to address longstanding racial disparities, saying those practices were their own form of discrimination. The memos drew a wave of backlash from states and education groups that called it illegal government censorship. In its lawsuit, the American Federation of Teachers said the government was imposing "unclear and highly subjective" limits on schools across the country. It said teachers and professors had to "choose between chilling their constitutionally protected speech and association or risk losing federal funds and being subject to prosecution."
