Mississippi DEI ban blocked by federal judge. Will IHL walk back its new campus policies?
The ruling, issued Monday, stops the state from enforcing House Bill 1193 while the case plays out in court — raising questions about whether Mississippi's public universities will move forward with new policies meant to comply with the now-paused law.
Wingate initially issued a temporary restraining order for the new law in July, and after an August hearing, he upgraded that to a preliminary injunction — blocking enforcement of key parts of the law while the lawsuit plays out.
HB 1193 bans public schools from running DEI offices, requiring DEI training, or asking for 'diversity statements' in hiring. It also outlaws programs deemed 'divisive concepts,' allows formal complaints and lets the state cut funding for repeat violations. The bill passed the Mississippi Legislature this past session and was signed into law by Republican Gov. Tate Reeves in April.
What IHL did in response to the law
In July, Mississippi's Institutions of Higher Learning adopted one policy and introduced another in a closed, behind-doors session, both aimed at complying with House Bill 1193. Those two policies are:
The 'Academic Responsibility' policy, which is currently in effect, prohibits public universities from requiring ideological or political statements in hiring, promotion or admissions processes. It affirms academic freedom while emphasizing that universities must remain ideologically neutral in their official operations. According to the policy, faculty and students are free to explore ideas, but instructors 'should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matters or divisive concepts which have no relation to their subject.'
The policy also states that IHL institutions must provide learning environments free from requirements to conform to specific political or ideological beliefs — including those related to DEI. Universities are expected to maintain rigorous and relevant curricula, while faculty are encouraged to clarify when they speak as individuals, not as representatives of their institution.
The 'Non-Discrimination' policy, still in draft form, goes further. It would bar universities from operating DEI offices, requiring DEI training or asking job applicants to submit diversity statements. It also prohibits giving preferential treatment in hiring or contracting based on race, sex or national origin, and protects individuals who disagree with DEI-related initiatives from being penalized. The policy remains under review and must complete the Administrative Procedures Act process before it can be finalized.
How IHL is responding to the court's ruling
In a statement Wednesday, IHL spokesperson John Sewell clarified the status of the two policies.
'The non-discrimination policy considered by the IHL Board of Trustees on July 18 remains in draft form and has not received final consideration by the Board,' Sewell said. 'The academic responsibility policy is in effect and provides guidance to universities in a way that does not conflict with the federal court's preliminary injunction.'
Sewell also confirmed that Wingate's ruling does not jeopardize any other policies the board may be planning to implement in response to HB 1193.
Why Wingate blocked HB 1193
In his 22-page ruling, Wingate said HB 1193 is likely unconstitutional, noting that it imposes vague and viewpoint-specific restrictions that could discourage free speech on college campuses. Wingate also criticized the statute for being poorly defined and prone to selective enforcement.
"It (HB 1193) is unconstitutionally vague, fails to treat speech in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and carries with it serious risks of terrible consequences with respect to the chilling of expression and academic freedom," Wingate wrote.
Who sued over the DEI law?
The plaintiffs in the case are a coalition of civil rights groups and educators. That includes the Mississippi Center for Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi and Legal Defense Fund attorneys, among others.
They filed the lawsuit on behalf of several professors and students at public universities in Mississippi, arguing that House Bill 1193 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by restricting academic freedom and free speech.
In a press release Tuesday, the groups applauded Wingate's ruling, calling it a win for public education:
"We are please that this law is preliminarily enjoined," said Joshua Tom, legal director at the ACLU of Mississippi. "The State's attempt to impose its preferred views — and ban opposing views — on Mississippi's public education system is not only bad policy, it's illegal, as the Court has preliminarily found today.'
Additionally, Rob McDuff, attorney and director of the Mississippi Center for Justice George Riley Impact Litigation Campaign, said Wingate's ruling offers a reprieve for Mississippi's teachers and students, who were left wondering how to keep teaching subjects like history and biology without running afoul of the law
'Thankfully, this puts to rest for now the concerns springing up among administrators, teachers, and students around the state, wondering how they could suddenly stop teaching and learning about issues that have long been essential to a complete education in courses like history, biology, literature, and many others,' McDuff said.
Contact Charlie Drape at cdrape@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Mississippi Clarion Ledger: Mississippi's anti-DEI law blocked. What IHL plans to do next
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
11 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Texas House OK'd GOP-favored redistricting. California intends to counter with map of its own
The national redistricting battle enters its next phase Thursday as California Democrats are scheduled to pass a new congressional map that creates five winnable seats for their party, a direct counter to the Texas House's approval of a new map to create more conservative-leaning seats in that state. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has engineered the high-risk strategy in response to President Donald Trump's own brinkmanship. Trump pushed Texas Republicans to reopen the legislative maps they passed in 2021 to squeeze out up to five new GOP seats to help the party stave off a midterm defeat. Unlike in Texas, where passage by the Republican-controlled state Senate and signature by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott are now all that's needed to make the maps official, California faces a more uncertain route. Democrats must use their legislative supermajority to pass the map by a two-third margin. Then they must schedule a special election in November for voters to approve the map that Newsom must sign by Friday to meet ballot deadlines. The added complexity is because California has a voter-approved independent commission that Newsom himself backed before Trump's latest redistricting maneuver. Only the state's voters can override the map that commission approved in 2021. But Newsom said extraordinary steps are required to counter Texas and other Republican-led states that Trump is pushing to revise maps. 'This is a new Democratic Party, this is a new day, this is new energy out there all across this country,' Newsom said Wednesday on a call with reporters. 'And we're going to fight fire with fire.' Texas Democratic lawmakers, vastly outnumbered in that state's legislature, delayed approval of the new map by 15 days by fleeing Texas earlier this month in protest. They were assigned round-the-clock police monitoring upon their return to ensure they attended Wednesday's session. That session ended with an 88-52 party-line vote approving the map after more than eight hours of debate. Democrats have also vowed to challenge the new Texas map in court and complained that Republicans made the political power move before passing legislation responding to deadly floods that swept the state last month. A battle for the US House control waged via redistricting In a sign of Democrats' stiffening redistricting resolve, former President Barack Obama on Tuesday night backed Newsom's bid to redraw the California map, saying it was a necessary step to stave off the GOP's Texas move. 'I think that approach is a smart, measured approach,' Obama said during a fundraiser for the Democratic Party's main redistricting arm. The incumbent president's party usually loses congressional seats in the midterm election, and the GOP currently controls the House of Representatives by a mere three votes. Trump is going beyond Texas in his push to remake the map. He's pushed Republican leaders in conservative states like Indiana and Missouri to also try to create new Republican seats. Ohio Republicans were already revising their map before Texas moved. Democrats, meanwhile, are mulling reopening Maryland's and New York's maps as well. However, more Democratic-run states have commission systems like California's or other redistricting limits than Republican ones do, leaving the GOP with a freer hand to swiftly redraw maps. New York, for example, can't draw new maps until 2028, and even then, only with voter approval. The struggle for — and against — Texas redistricting Texas Republicans openly said they were acting in their party's interest. State Rep. Todd Hunter, who wrote the legislation formally creating the new map, noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed politicians to redraw districts for nakedly partisan purposes. There was little that outnumbered Democrats could do other than fume and threaten a lawsuit to block the map. Because the Supreme Court has blessed purely partisan gerrymandering, the only way opponents can stop the new Texas map would be by arguing it violates the Voting Rights Act requirement to keep minority communities together so they can select representatives of their choice. House Republicans' frustration at the Democrats' flight and ability to delay the vote was palpable during the Wednesday vote. House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced as debate started that doors to the chamber were locked and any member leaving was required to have a permission slip. The doors were only unlocked after final passage more than eight hours later. Republicans issued civil arrest warrants to bring the Democrats back after they left the state Aug. 3, and Abbott asked the state Supreme Court to oust several Democrats from office. The lawmakers also face a fine of $500 for every day they were absent.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
There's Only One Real Way for Democrats to Disarm Texas Gerrymandering
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. The summer battle over partisan gerrymandered new maps has reached a fever pitch this week, with Texas Democrats ending their blockade of a session to redraw the state's maps in favor of Republicans, Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom promising to amend the state's constitution to respond in kind, and Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson pledging to fight California's efforts to combat Texas' electoral machinations. If this all sounds like a spiral that is slowly escalating out of control with no end in sight, well, that's because it is. As experts in election law and constitutional law, we think we have an idea to potentially quell the conflict before it goes any further. First, it's important to think of the gerrymandering wars as you might an actual war. So imagine you are the head of a free nation. You learn that a hostile foreign state intends to launch a devastating nuclear attack against you. How might you stop it? Students of history will recall the lessons of the Cold War, when the United States and Soviet Union used the mutual threat of retaliatory strikes to prevent all-out nuclear destruction. President Donald Trump started this latest partisan conflict by calling on Texas lawmakers to gerrymander the state's maps, and now we are on the verge of a similar standoff for American democracy. In this tit for tat, though, California's threats to respond have thus far proved ineffectual. Despite Newsom's very public threat to retaliate with a state redistricting plan that would neutralize any Republican gains, Texas lawmakers are plowing ahead with their own gerrymandering efforts. That is the opposite of what happened after retaliatory threats during the Cold War. What gives? For one thing, Texas officials may believe they are calling California's bluff. To gerrymander its own maps, after all, would require California to jump through quite a few hoops, including an expensive state-level initiative to change the constitution in a special election this November. But, more fundamentally, Republicans like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott are gleeful that California is talking openly about playing by the same, democracy-distorting rules because it allows them to argue that Republicans are gerrymandering only because California Democrats are. At the end of that line of argument is a vicious cycle in which more and more states retaliate with gerrymandered maps of their own, eliminating even the few competitive House districts that remain. There is a way out of this death spiral. It involves a simple concept: automation. By enacting a law that would automatically gerrymander California's maps if and only if Republican-controlled legislatures do so first, California officials can make clear that the choice is entirely in the hands of Republican state legislators. In other words, just as automated nuclear retaliation systems helped prevent a horrific strike during the Cold War, a similar approach can stop the gerrymandering race to the bottom before it's too late. Here's how the plan would work. A blue state like California, or perhaps New York, could adopt a system similar to the one it presently has, with an independent bipartisan commission drawing the state's congressional map. Like the current system, the law could require the commission to account for certain criteria like making districts contiguous and compact. Then the new system would add a critical, novel factor: The commission must draw congressional districts to ensure national partisan balance so the percentage of Republican and Democratic seats in Congress closely corresponds to the number of votes for Republicans and Democrats nationwide. This means that California's maps would automatically respond to red states' partisan gerrymanders. For example, if Texas implemented its new and more aggressive partisan gerrymander, California's new and automatic redistricting system would respond in kind. The result would be that, as much as practically possible, California's system would neutralize Texas' partisan gerrymander. So far, this might sound like exactly what Newsom has proposed. But there is a critical difference. The problem with the governor's approach is that because it is an ad hoc political response to Texas' gerrymander, it virtually guarantees a continued race to the bottom. Texas will be heavily gerrymandered, and so will California. And so will the next red state and the next blue state, and potentially on and on. That's not the best outcome we can hope for. Representation of Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California matters too. We should aim for a national map without partisan gerrymandering in either red states or blue states. This is where a principled, automated redistricting system in California would make all the difference. Newsom's approach is aimed at teaching Texas that if it gerrymanders, then California likely will too. What Texas doesn't know, however, is that if it doesn't gerrymander, then neither will California—a legitimate concern given the latter's race to put its new partisan maps on the 2025 ballot. Under an automated redistricting system, by contrast, California's independent, bipartisan commission would be authorized to redraw the state's maps only if Texas acts first. And, just as significantly, if Texas were to eventually undo its own gerrymander, an automated redistricting law would ensure that California's independent commission would do the same. In short, by tying itself to the mast of an independent redistricting process with national partisan balance as a strict goal, California can guarantee that no state—neither it nor Texas—gets caught unilaterally disarming in the partisan gerrymandering wars. Just as importantly, it wouldn't require Texas to formally agree to a truce. And although this should not be the only consideration, adding national partisan balance as a required factor to an independent redistricting process strikes us as more salable to the California voting public than an overt call to embrace gerrymandered maps. There are important technical details to work out to make this principled, automated system work. How will it measure national partisan balance? When will it issue its maps after the decennial census? Must it wait for every other state to issue its maps, or just traditionally red states like Texas? One question that shouldn't arise, however, is whether this response would violate the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has already said it won't undo even the most extreme partisan gerrymanders. We wish the justices had decided differently, but in the world the court has created, a principled and automatic counter-gerrymander must surely survive. Ultimately, of course, even if California adopts a principled, automated redistricting system, Texas may gerrymander anyway. But at the very least, this approach promises what tit-for-tat political retaliation cannot: hope to end the partisan gerrymandering wars.
Indianapolis Star
26 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Trump isn't Indiana lawmakers' boss. They should tell him so on redistricting.
When I was hired to run the state's mental health and addiction work, my daughter was 4 years old, and boy was she confused. 'Are you the governor?' she asked. 'No, I'm not the governor, but I work for him.' That made sense for a moment. But then came the follow-up: 'Doesn't everyone in Indiana work for the Governor?' No, I explained, the governor actually works for all of us. 'Oh, okay,' she said. Then she thought a little longer and asked about the president. 'Does the governor work for the president?' 'No,' I said. 'The governor serves the people of Indiana. And this particular president, well, he sort of works for himself.' Eventually she got it, though during my time at the state she would still complain about people littering and ask why I didn't do something about it. But, in general, she understood: I worked for Gov. Eric Holcomb, and he worked for the people of Indiana. We often collaborated with the federal government, but they were not our bosses. Why do I bring up this story, besides the fact that it's adorable (which, honestly, might be reason enough)? Because I'd like to remind our Republican state legislators that Donald Trump is not, in fact, their boss. The backdrop for this, of course, is the ongoing pressure campaign from the Trump administration on red states to redraw districts mid-decade in a bid to secure a GOP House majority in 2026. Governor Braun and Indiana's legislative leaders clearly don't want to participate, but they haven't ruled it out. Indiana is already heavily gerrymandered. Republicans hold 78% (7 of 9) U.S. House seats in a state where they usually get about 60% of the vote. National attention is focused on flipping Rep. Frank Mrvan's seat in Northwest Indiana, and maybe even Rep. André Carson's in Indianapolis, despite both incumbents winning reelection by healthy margins in 2022 and 2024. Of course, gerrymandering happens in red, blue, and purple states alike. It's a kind of tolerated cheating, part of the 'unwritten rules' of politics. But like in baseball, the system's balance depends on everyone knowing which lines not to cross. What makes this redistricting push especially dangerous is that it represents the final form of the worst political trend of the last 10-15 years: the nationalization of state and local politics. The gravitational pull of Washington has hollowed out the traditional role of governors and legislatures as problem-solvers for their own states. Instead, every fight gets reframed as a proxy war in the national culture struggle. The 2024 Indiana GOP gubernatorial primary is a perfect example. That race was dominated by national, culture-war coded topics: the 'war on woke,' virtue signaling about trans athletes, or border enforcement in a state that is hundreds of miles from the closest border. That is why Trump's allies think they can dictate Indiana's maps. But resistance, right now, would be timely, brave, and necessary pushback against this insidious trend and a chance to remind voters that Indiana's leaders should answer to Indiana, not to a fading national figure. The unwritten rule of American politics has been that districts are redrawn after every decennial census, in a manner that may advance partisan goals. It's actually a fairly elegant agreement: count the people, draw districts, and redo it after the next count. This norm keeps the system from being brutalized by a would-be dictator in pursuit of raw power, while acknowledging the reality that political actors will pursue political goals. Our legislators understand this, which is why they don't want to do it. Here's the thing, and it is really the only thing that matters: they don't have to do it. This decision belongs entirely to Indiana's legislature. Like I told my daughter: Donald Trump is not their boss. The only tool MAGA has is political pressure, and if you take a closer look, there's a decent case for not bending the knee. Very soon, Trump will be a lame-duck president, likely presiding over a recession. And like an aging NFL wide receiver (remember the Andre Johnson year with the Colts, woof), his decline will probably be sudden and striking, not gradual. If you're an elected Republican, this is exactly the moment to create daylight between yourself and Trump. You have a clear moral case, and a strong practical one, since this amounts to threatening decades of statewide dominance for maybe one more congressional seat. Yes, they can threaten to primary you, but can they really primary all of you? That's a bluff worth calling, because they cannot be allowed to win this one. Yes, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing. Yes, Trump's opponents have cried fascism so often that many people have tuned out. But, if you remember your Aesop, the real danger of crying wolf is that sometimes the wolf actually shows up. Here's hoping that the Indiana legislature holds the line.
