logo
Federal judge weighs whether Alabama's anti-DEI law threatens First Amendment

Federal judge weighs whether Alabama's anti-DEI law threatens First Amendment

Independent14 hours ago

Professors and students at the University of Alabama testified on Thursday that a new an anti-diversity, equity and inclusion law has jeopardized funding and changed curriculum, as a federal judge weighs whether the legislation is constitutional before the new school year begins.
The new state law, SB129, followed a slew of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses. Universities across the country have shuttered or rebranded student affinity groups and DEI offices.
The law prohibits public schools and universities from using state funds for any curriculum that endorses or compels assent to viewpoints about eight 'divisive concepts' related to race, religion, gender identity and religion. Instructors are also prohibited from encouraging a person feel guilt because of those identities. Schools are still allowed to facilitate 'objective' discussions on those topics, according to the law.
Dana Patton, a political science professor at the University of Alabama, was one of six professors and students who sued the school and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey in January, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on educators' speech. The lawsuit also argued that the law unconstitutionally targets Black students because it emphasizes concepts related to race and limits programs that benefit Black students.
Shortly after the law took effect in October, Patton said that school officials told her that five students had made complaints suggesting that the interdisciplinary honors program she administered had potential conflicts with the new legislation. The program focuses on social justice and community service.
University officials said a 'powerful person' in the state Capitol was behind the five student complaints, Patton testified.
The complaints alleged the program 'promoted socialism' and focused on 'systematic racism" and 'producing engaged global citizens as opposed to patriotic Americans,' according to evidence presented at the hearing. The complaints also said students 'feel unsafe' because 'the leadership of the program has a clear view of the world from a divisive perspective."
'I was completely shocked, stunned," Patton said.
After weeks of meetings where Patton exhaustively laid out the content of her courses to administrators, she said she was introduced to Alabama Republican Rep. Danny Garrett at a school football game.
Garret told her that 'we need compromise here' because the legislators involved in the complaints are 'tenacious' and 'not going to let this go.' He then sent her links to work he had done with Black Democratic state legislators after the death of George Floyd to address racial tension.
Patton said the conversation 'very much felt like a threat' because Garrett is the chair of the Alabama House Ways and Means Education Committee, which is one of two legislative committees that oversees the university's funding.
The tenured professor said she has since removed some course material from her syllabus and is no longer posting slides of her lectures online, out of fear that her lessons might be misinterpreted.
Garrett declined to comment on the pending litigation.
University lawyer says law hasn't caused harm
Jay Ezelle, the defense attorney for the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, said the school had an obligation to investigate if students complain about being tested on an opinion, not on a performance.
'If that's violated, the university has to investigate, correct?' Ezelle asked during cross-examination.
He added that the law had not created any measurable harm against the plaintiffs, because no faculty had been terminated or formally disciplined, and school administrators had sourced private funding for some affinity groups, who still have access to campus facilities.
Professors said they had to remove class assignments
Other professors testified that they felt compelled to pull class assignments or stop offering classes altogether based on Patton's experience, as well as formal instruction from the university about the 'risks' of testing students on divisive concepts.
Rising senior Sydney Testman said she lost her scholarship because it was tied to her job at the Social Justice Advocacy Council, which was terminated after the anti-DEI legislation went into effect.
'No one wants to say it's disproportionately affecting Black people,' she said. 'The vibes are kind of 'everyone fend for yourselves.''
Federal U.S. Chief Judge R. David Proctor said the case will largely hinge on whether classroom speech is protected under the First Amendment and whether the state has a right to influence curriculum. Proctor will also consider if the six students and professors who brought the lawsuit against the University of Alabama have been harmed by the new law.
He said he will make a decision in time for Alabama schools to have 'clarity by the start of school.'
___

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

CNN host's warning over Trump outrage at nuclear strikes reporting
CNN host's warning over Trump outrage at nuclear strikes reporting

The Independent

time21 minutes ago

  • The Independent

CNN host's warning over Trump outrage at nuclear strikes reporting

CNN anchor Abby Phillip warned that the White House 's efforts to punish media for reporting on a preliminary intelligence assessment of Iran military strikes represent a "slippery slope to autocratic governing." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth publicly criticized CNN and other news outlets for covering an intel report suggesting the bombing raid only set Iran's nuclear program back a few months. The president has demanded CNN fire reporter Natasha Bertrand for breaking the intelligence assessment story and threatened to sue CNN and The New York Times for their reporting. The administration's outrage stems from media reports that contradict the president's claim that Iran's nuclear program was "totally and completely obliterated" by the military operation. Both The New York Times and CNN have refused to retract their stories, with CNN calling the administration's allegations of "demeaning" the US military "blatantly manipulative" and "absolutely false."

Trump claims ‘GIANT WIN' in ‘Birthright Citizenship Hoax' after massive Supreme Court ruling
Trump claims ‘GIANT WIN' in ‘Birthright Citizenship Hoax' after massive Supreme Court ruling

The Independent

time21 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Trump claims ‘GIANT WIN' in ‘Birthright Citizenship Hoax' after massive Supreme Court ruling

President Donald Trump on Friday falsely claimed a Supreme Court decision narrowing the power of courts to issue nationwide injunctions was a 'giant win' in his administration's efforts to block children born in the United States to some immigrant parents from receiving citizenship despite the high court failing to green light the controversial and racially-charged executive order at issue in the case. Writing on Truth Social, Trump wrote that there'd been a 'GIANT WIN' for his administration by the court's right-wing majority, which stripped federal courts' authority to issue nationwide injunctions that have blocked key parts of his agenda. 'Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,' he said, adding later that he'd be speaking about the news at 11:30 am. The 6-3 ruling, issued along partisan lines and written by Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett, states that federal judges who had issued such injunctions went too far in blocking his executive order that seeks to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a citizen by exceeding 'the equitable authority that Congress has given to the federal courts.' It did not address the question of whether Trump can who are born to certain immigrant parents.

Supreme Court upholds Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing pornography online
Supreme Court upholds Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing pornography online

The Independent

time21 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Supreme Court upholds Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing pornography online

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law aimed at blocking children under 18 from seeing online pornography. Nearly half all states have passed similar age verification laws as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access online porn, including hardcore obscene material. The ruling comes after an adult-entertainment industry trade group called the Free Speech Coalition challenged the Texas law. The group said the law puts an unfair free-speech burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking. It agreed, though, that children under 18 shouldn't be seeing porn. A leading adult-content website, Pornhub, has stopped operating in several states, citing the technical and privacy hurdles in complying with the laws. The Supreme Court has confronted the issue before. In 1996, it struck down parts of a law banning explicit material viewable by kids online. A divided court also ruled against a different federal law aimed at stopping kids from being exposed to porn in 2004 but said less restrictive measures like content filtering are constitutional. Texas argues that technology has improved significantly in the last 20 years, allowing online platforms to easily check users' ages with a quick picture. Those requirements are more like ID checks at brick-and-mortar adult stores that were upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, the state said. ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store