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

Associated Press14 hours ago

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — 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.'
___
Riddle is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court sides with religious parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools
Supreme Court sides with religious parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools

USA Today

time14 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Supreme Court sides with religious parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools

WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 27 sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs likely burdens parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They said the school must allow opt-outs while the legal challenge continues. Their decision continues a recent trend of high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights. In the past, the federal courts have shied away from getting entangled in school curriculum issues. WASHINGTON – In a surprise decision, the Supreme Court on XXday sided against a group of parents who want to be able to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. The court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs does not burden parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. Their decision goes against a recent trend of the high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights. But in the past, the federal courts have shied away from getting entangled in school curriculum issues. The Maryland parents – who include Muslims, Roman Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox followers – said they're not trying to prevent other students from reading the books. But free speech advocates argued that will be the practical effect. And national organizations representing school administrators worried schools could face a 'bewildering variety' of religious rights claims. In classrooms across the country, children are routinely taught ideas that conflict with their family's religious beliefs, lawyers for the Montgomery County Public Schools told the court during April's oral arguments. What are the controversial books? School officials said they introduced a handful of books with LGBTQ+ characters into the reading curriculum at the start of the 2022-2023 school year as part of an effort to better reflect the community. The school system, in suburban Washington, is one of the nation's largest and most ethnically and religiously diverse. The controversial books include one in which the handsome prince falls in love not with a princess, but with the knight who helps him defeat a dragon. In another, 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' Chloe's favorite uncle gets married to another man. The book 'Intersection Allies' features nine kids from different backgrounds, including Alejandra, who uses a wheelchair while playing basketball; Adilah, who wears a hijab in ballet class; and Kate, who prefers a superhero cape to 'skirts and frills.' More: What LGBTQ+ books are at the center of a new Supreme Court case? After various teachers, administrators and parents raised concerns about the effectiveness and age-appropriateness of the books, the school system allowed students to be excused when they were read in class. But officials said they had to stop that because the growing number of opt-out requests created other problems, such as high absenteeism and the difficulty of arranging alternate instruction. They also said students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families could face social stigma and isolation if classmates leave the room when the books are read. Some parents said the books conflict with their faith The parents who then sued said they shouldn't have to send their kids to private school or to homeschool to avoid instruction that goes against the tenets of their religions. 'Intentionally exposing our young, impressionable, elementary-aged son to activities and curriculum on sex, sexuality, and gender that undermine Islamic teaching on these subjects would be immoral and would conflict with our religious duty to raise our children in accordance with our faith,' parents Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat said in a court filing about why they didn't want their son to be part of his second grade class's reading of 'Prince & Knight.' But a divided panel of appeals court judges said the parents hadn't shown that they or their children had been coerced to believe or act contrary to their religious views. The parents asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The Trump administration backed the parents, saying the schools had put 'a price on a public benefit of public education at the expense of foregoing your religious beliefs.'

Tax cuts are 'most important' part of GOP tax bill for markets
Tax cuts are 'most important' part of GOP tax bill for markets

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Tax cuts are 'most important' part of GOP tax bill for markets

Republicans are racing to finalize President Trump's tax bill ahead of July 4. Brett Ryan, senior US economist at Deutsche Bank, joins Market Catalysts to break down the short-term stimulus effects of the tax bill and the long-term risks to deficit reduction. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Catalysts here. The Congressional Budget Office, known in your hood as the CBO, estimated that the GOP's tax bill will increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. University of Pennsylvania's Wharton budget model estimates that estimates that it could increase by as much as $4.3 trillion, with the Senate and House hoping to have a finished version of the tax bill ready by July 4th. This could be the next big piece of economic data. I want to bring in Brett Ryan, Deutsche Bank's senior US economist, and so with me, we've got Thomas Hayes, Great Hill Capital chairman and managing member. Great to have both of you here on set for this conversation. Brett, you know, as we consider what Ben was just breaking down and and teeing up and what we're seeing in the difference of long-term costs that are anticipated here, how are you and your team kind of running the modeling around this? Yeah, sure. So you have the near-term impacts which, you know, all of the the tax benefits, especially for businesses and some of the individual uh measures are front loaded, but the cost savings are back loaded. And you know, we've seen this before, um, and the question is, are you ever going to realize those cost savings? There's obviously substantial debate over Medicaid, uh, and that's where the chunk, a good chunk of the cost savings are coming from. So there is a very real question around that. I think near term, it's probably about 100 to 150 billion of additional stimulus to the economy on top of the uh, on top of the extension of the TCJA. So, and you know, we keep things ba, you know, baseline and then you're adding about another 100 to 150 billion over the next, let's call it two to three years. And so, Tom, there might be people out there wondering, why is this the next major catalyst for the markets, knowing that we've already moved through the Fed's most recent decision and they gave some type of or at least alluded to how they're thinking through certain aspects when asked about it. And then additionally, we already had stronger treasury auctions that took place the week prior to that as well. So what is the the larger implications that traders and investors are thinking through in their mindset? The most important thing here is the tax cuts. Okay, so we've gone from bombing and tariffs to growth and deregulation, and growth is a function of the tax cuts. Uh, as Brett is alluding to, it's a little bit stimulative here and you can kind of talk a little bit more about that in detail. I would just say, uh, so that's critical. So, you know, if tax rates were to go up, uh, it's going to impact earnings, it's going to have a negative impact on the economy hiring, growth, the whole thing. So that's not going to happen. We've got, uh, the treasury doing what they're doing with the SLR, we've got the tax cuts coming in, and animal spirits coming back because mana management can plan, they can start to forecast, kind of understand the rules whereas the first half of the year, everyone was uncertain. So, uh, Brett, how do you handicap this getting done by July 4th or no vacation, no one goes home, lock him in a room. You've been through this process many times. Does this look any different or is this just the normal back and forth and eventually they get something done? Yeah, I mean, it does look like the normal process of back and forth. Um, it's just that there are the two biggest portions of this bill, which are salt cap and Medicaid, are still outstanding and we're a week, we're a week away. And so, you know, our baseline has been that it gets done uh sometime after the July 4th recess. You know, this is an arbitrary deadline. Yeah. You know, the only thing that the shot clock here is the debt limit and that's not until September or October. So could this slip till later? Of course, absolutely. Um, but to your point about markets, this is a large anticipation as we saw in the wake of the 2017 tax cuts. Um, there share buybacks increased materially. That's one of the reasons why equity markets are probably um, a little bit uh, you know, bouncing back from all of these issues.

Supreme Court OKs fee that subsidizes phone, internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas
Supreme Court OKs fee that subsidizes phone, internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Supreme Court OKs fee that subsidizes phone, internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas. The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers. A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers' Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers' Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress had given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn had ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator. The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address 'major questions,' in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. But the phone fee case turned out not to be the right one for finding yet another way to restrict federal regulators. President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, defended the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by President Joe Biden's Democratic administration. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at Mark Sherman, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio

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