MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A coalition of students and professors from Alabama's public universities is urging an appeals court to intervene and suspend a newly enforced law that effectively bans diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This controversial legislation also restricts the endorsement of so-called 'divisive concepts' related to race and gender in public education.
The law, which went into effect in October 2024, aligns with a national trend among Republican legislators targeting DEI programs on college campuses. It prohibits the allocation of state funds to any educational programs that endorse identified 'divisive concepts,' which encompass issues surrounding race, religion, gender identity, and ethnicity. The law specifies that educators are also barred from fostering feelings of guilt based on these identities.
U.S. District Judge David Proctor has upheld the law, stating that it does not obliterate the opportunity for educational discourse regarding these topics but rather mandates such discussions occur in an objective manner without endorsing the associated concepts. Proctor noted, 'To the contrary, it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes discussion of the listed concepts as long as it is delivered without endorsement.'
This legal battle follows a July directive from the Department of Justice, which imposed similar restrictions on public school campuses nationwide. Critics of the law point to a significant upheaval within Alabama's educational framework; several student affinity groups have disbanded, faculty members have faced leaves of absence due to non-compliance issues, and certain distinctive publications aimed at Black students have ceased operations. Moreover, the educational curriculum has been notably modified under the law's constraints.
Antonio Ingram, an attorney for the plaintiffs from the Legal Defense Fund, argues that the law lacks clarity regarding what constitutes endorsement, exposing educators to unwarranted scrutiny and stifling their capacity to convey legitimate academic research.
'Truth becomes what the state deems correct, as opposed to the findings of independent scholars who have dedicated years to their work,' Ingram stated emphatically, warning that this legislation may transform universities into mere 'mouthpieces' for state propaganda that lack empirical credibility.
Some educators, like Dana Patton at the University of Alabama, have already modified long-standing curricula. Patton expressed concerns about the ambiguous legal language, which could easily mislead students into viewing specific lessons as endorsements of a singular perspective. Following complaints from students, she has removed components from her syllabus, acknowledging that it feels safer to omit controversial topics to evade potential legal repercussions.
'We feel very constrained by the vagueness of the law,' Patton said, highlighting a shift towards a more cautious academic environment where exploration and debate on critical issues may be overlooked in favor of compliance with the law.
