MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A group of students and professors at public universities across Alabama are asking an appeals court to halt a state law that bans diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in public schools and prohibits the endorsement of what Republican lawmakers dubbed 'divisive concepts' related to race and gender.
The Alabama measure, which took effect in October 2024, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers aimed at targeting DEI programs on college campuses.
The law prohibits public schools and universities from using state funds for any programs or curriculum endorsing 'divisive concepts' related to race, religion, gender identity, and religion. Instructors are also prohibited from 'encouraging' feelings of guilt based on those identities.
U.S. District Judge David Proctor allowed the law to remain in place, stating that a professor’s academic freedom cannot override a public university’s decisions regarding classroom content. Proctor wrote that the law 'does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus.' It allows for objective discussions, provided they do not endorse the concepts.
The appeal follows a July mandate from the Department of Justice outlining similar changes required on public school campuses nationwide. In the aftermath of the law, numerous student affinity groups have disbanded, professors have been placed on leave, and course curricula have been altered.
Antonio Ingram, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that the law lacks clarity on what constitutes endorsement, leaving professors vulnerable to groundless inquiries and inhibiting their ability to present objective research. He expressed concerns that this could compromise the educational integrity in Alabama.
Dana Patton, a political science instructor at the University of Alabama, noted that this legislation forced her to alter a curriculum she has taught for years due to the fear of misinterpretation by students. She has removed certain materials from her syllabus to mitigate the risk of complaints, feeling pressured by the ambiguity of the law.
“As teachers, we feel constrained by the vagueness of the law, concerned that students might misconstrue our lessons as endorsing specific views rather than presenting varied perspectives,” Patton stated.
Ingram emphasized that if the law is allowed to remain, universities could risk becoming tools of the state, pushing narratives that lack accuracy and empirical basis. The ongoing challenge reflects a broader conflict over academic freedom and curriculum content in Alabama.
The Alabama measure, which took effect in October 2024, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers aimed at targeting DEI programs on college campuses.
The law prohibits public schools and universities from using state funds for any programs or curriculum endorsing 'divisive concepts' related to race, religion, gender identity, and religion. Instructors are also prohibited from 'encouraging' feelings of guilt based on those identities.
U.S. District Judge David Proctor allowed the law to remain in place, stating that a professor’s academic freedom cannot override a public university’s decisions regarding classroom content. Proctor wrote that the law 'does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus.' It allows for objective discussions, provided they do not endorse the concepts.
The appeal follows a July mandate from the Department of Justice outlining similar changes required on public school campuses nationwide. In the aftermath of the law, numerous student affinity groups have disbanded, professors have been placed on leave, and course curricula have been altered.
Antonio Ingram, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that the law lacks clarity on what constitutes endorsement, leaving professors vulnerable to groundless inquiries and inhibiting their ability to present objective research. He expressed concerns that this could compromise the educational integrity in Alabama.
Dana Patton, a political science instructor at the University of Alabama, noted that this legislation forced her to alter a curriculum she has taught for years due to the fear of misinterpretation by students. She has removed certain materials from her syllabus to mitigate the risk of complaints, feeling pressured by the ambiguity of the law.
“As teachers, we feel constrained by the vagueness of the law, concerned that students might misconstrue our lessons as endorsing specific views rather than presenting varied perspectives,” Patton stated.
Ingram emphasized that if the law is allowed to remain, universities could risk becoming tools of the state, pushing narratives that lack accuracy and empirical basis. The ongoing challenge reflects a broader conflict over academic freedom and curriculum content in Alabama.
