The Following Content Has Been Provided by:Bob Unruh
A federal judge in Alabama has shot down demands by extremists in academia for the “right” to continue to push their DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion, ideologies on students.
Those agendas often include lessons that are racist or sexist, or both.
It is U.S. District Judge David Proctor that concluded the plaintiffs failed to prove enough of their case to qualify for a preliminary injunction while the arguments develop in court, a decision that allows the state legislature’s new limits on specifically teaching students to be divisive to stand.
The law bars publicly funded schools from hosting or funding DEI programs that promote radical agendas. It also condemns “divisive concepts,” like forcing kids to feel guilty or complicit in historical wrongs based on their race or ethnicity.
An example would be the ideology that blames all white people for slavery. Such agendas frequently have moved to extremes, in some cases demanding that whites who never were slave owners to pay billions of dollars in “reparations” to blacks who never were slaves.
Such programs are purely based on race.
The judge concluded the law doesn’t cause a problem for speech or academic freedoms, and teachers still are allowed to discuss, and students are allowed to hear, about such issues as long as the teaching is “in an objective manner without endorsement.”
If a teacher teaches “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 said.
The law provides a list of common-sense guidelines so that teaching focuses on facts, not the individual beliefs of a teacher, or his or her political agenda.
It defines “divisive concepts” to include teaching that any “race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior,” or that “individuals should be discriminated against or adversely treated because of their race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.”
Teachers, under the law, cannot force students to agree that “the moral character of an individual is determined by his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin” or “by virtue of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, the individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.”
Further, students cannot be ordered to adhere to the faith that individuals, because of their race or color “are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.”
Nor can students be ordered to “assent to a sense of guilt, complicity, or a need to apologize on the basis of his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.”
State money cannot be used to sponsor “any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or maintain any office, physical location, or department that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion programs,” or “direct or compel a student, employee, or contractor to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to a divisive concept.”
Other free speech points include that state-funded schools cannot require students or employees to participate in “any diversity, equity, and inclusion program or any training, orientation, or course work that advocates for or requires assent to a divisive concept”
Significantly, students cannot be required to “participate, as part of any required curriculum or mandatory professional training, in an activity that involves lobbying at the state or local level for legislation related to a divisive concept.”
Punishments for disagreeing with a teacher’s ideology also is barred.
Teachers were recommended to implement a disclaimer in their courses, explaining classes “may present difficult, objectionable, or controversial topics for consideration, but will do so through an objective scholarly lens designed to encourage critical thinking.”
One professor, a plaintiff, however, insisted that she be allowed to indoctrinate students with her beliefs about “[w]hite privilege, implicit bias, structural racism, mental health disparities, homophobia, racism, sexism, and systemic oppression of minority communities.”
She apparently believes “racism and sexism are deeply embedded in American society” and she wants to train students about the “impact of systemic racism.”
The judge’s ruling triggered a flood of outrage from leftists, who have supported the plaintiffs claims that the law protecting students is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
The case, Simon v. Ivey, challenges the law implemented in the state just months ago.
They claim “harms” from the ruling will include “censorship of teachings and discussions involving race-based and sex-based inequalities.”
Plaintiff Cassanda Simon said the law already “has upended the lives of Alabama students and educators, who should have the right to receive and provide the high-quality of education that all Alabamian learners deserve.”
She demanded an “inclusive curriculum.”
Another like-minded plaintiff, Sydney Testman, said, “I’ve seen firsthand how SB 129 has transformed my college campus for the worst (sic). Voices have been silenced, opportunities have been revoked, and meaningful community engagement has faded. This decision undermines the need for students to properly feel a sense of belonging and inclusion on campus.”
Yet another plaintiff, Ja’Kobe Bibbs, said the “detrimental effects” of the law are obvious.
Bibbs wants a campus “where people across identities and walks of life can come to learn, build community, and grow together.”
Dana Patton, a teacher and another in the long list of plaintiffs, added that the decision is “yet another step backwards for the University of Alabama system and fails to address the harms that Alabama students and professors have faced on account of this law.”
Patton complains that professors now much live in a “culture of fear.”
