The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Court Blocks Florida Stop WOKE Act's Limits on What and How Public University Professor Can Teach
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression reports:
Today a federal court halted enforcement of key parts of Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" in the state's public universities, declaring that the law violates the First Amendment rights of students and faculty.
The court ruled that the "positively dystopian" act "officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints." The court invoked George Orwell to drive home that if "liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
In September, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a lawsuit challenging Florida's Stop WOKE Act. FIRE's lawsuit, on behalf of a professor, student, and a student group, argued that the higher education provisions of the act unconstitutionally chill free expression and mandate faculty censorship on the state's college campuses….
In the wake of the Stop WOKE Act—which restricts instruction on eight concepts related to "race, color, national origin, or sex" in college classrooms—colleges warned faculty that the law prohibits endorsing "any opinion unless you are endorsing an opinion issued by the Department of Education," limits offering a "critique of colorblindness," and requires faculty to censor guest lecturers….
To defend its position, Florida argued that faculty members speak on behalf of the government, which can "prohibit the expression of certain viewpoints." The state also agreed that its theory meant that if Florida's government changed hands, it "could prohibit … instruction on American exceptionalism because it alienates people of color and minorities because it suggests … that American doesn't have a darker side that needs to be qualified." As FIRE pointed out, that argument is at odds with every federal appellate court to have considered the question….
Judge Walker rejected the state's arguments that faculty speak for the state—that is, that "so long as professors work for the State, they must all read from the same music." The court made clear: "The First Amendment protects university professors' in-class speech." …
In contrast to other lawsuits challenging the act filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union, FIRE's suit is limited to higher education and does not take a position on the truth of the prohibited concepts of race and sex. Rather, FIRE takes the viewpoint-neutral approach that faculty retain the right to give an opinion—whether that opinion supports or opposes the prohibited concepts in the Stop WOKE Act….
The opinion is quite long (35,000 words!), so I may not be able to get to it for a bit, but I thought I'd pass along FIRE's summary. Note that the government is generally allowed to closely control what is taught in government-run K-12 schools, though university faculty have generally (though not uniformly) indeed been seen as having substantial free speech rights.
Congratulations to Adam Steinbaugh, Greg Greubel, and Joshua Morris of FIRE, and to Garry Edinger, all of whom represented the plaintiffs. Note: I've consulted for FIRE in the past, and expect to work closely together with them on other projects, but I was not involved in this case.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Now we have to assure the right of professors to teach racist or sexist or any other views they want to. In those cases it isn't government that needs to be constrained, but university administration.
A teacher was just fired for turthfully stating that most people think their own race is superior.
You know what most people think, do you?
What will be interesting is when a student challenges a grade on the basis of this decision, as it appears to overrule academic judgement.
A hypothetical -- Kenny the Klansman attends an Organic Chemistry class and instead of addressing the curriculum, decides to use it as a forum to express his racist views. Instead of answering the questions on exams, he instead writes racist diatribes, etc.
Is the court saying that he is entitled to an "A" in the class?
No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.
"Now we have to assure the right of professors to teach racist or sexist or any other views they want to. In those cases it isn’t government that needs to be constrained, but university administration."
Aren't the university administrators part of the government?
I don't see the distinction that is being made here -- notwithstanding the nuances of deference to shared governance or whatnot, reality is that the state government runs state universities and that the state government selects the university administration. After all, the state has the authority to create, abolish, and reorganize both the university administration and the campi they administer.
For example, William "Billy" Bulger was the President of the UMass System in 2003 when he was called to testify before a congressional committee investigating the FBI's ties to mobster informants such as his brother "Whitey" Bulger, then on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list. Upon seeing Bulger's televised testimony, then-Governor Mitt Romney decided to fire Bulger.
As vacancies appeared on the system's Board of Trustees, Romney started appointing trustees who'd promised to fire Bulger, which forced Bulger to resign. A Governor who had wanted to did have the power to run the state university.
So why the myth that university administrators aren't state officials?
"Now we have to assure the right of professors to teach racist or sexist or any other views they want to."
There is no blanket "right to teach" -- one only has the right to teach that which the institution hires one to teach. For example, if I am hired to teach Social Studies Methods to prospective K-12 teachers, I can't instead turn around and teach about the evils of the Biden or Trump Administration. Sure I can mention Betsy DeVos (Trump's ED Secretary) or the nameless twit Biden has) but I'm supposed to be teaching the subject that I was hired to teach. Not the one that I'd much prefer to teach...
What I see here is the court denying the institution it's traditional right to determine what will (or won't) be taught -- imagine a professor hired to teach French who instead teaches Spanish because he wants to. Would that be tolerated?
Sure the professor has the right to publicly condemn the institution's decision to teach French rather than Spanish, and he can make certain that his students know how much he'd rather be teaching Spanish, but he still has to teach French -- and make a good faith effort to do so.
A real example from Planet UMass -- the Computer Science Department had taught the Pascal programming language all through the 1980s and continued to do so into the 1990s. However industry had shifted to the various C languages and wanted UMass to instead teach these newer languages. But the professors refused to do so.
A coalition of computer companies then went to the state government and threatened to leave Massachusetts and to publicly state that UMass' failure to teach C was why they were leaving. And the professors were told that they would be teaching C instead of Pascal, or they could go teach elsewhere.
It's the right of an institution to set its curriculum and to determine what it will be teaching.
Do you have a link to the UMass controversy? I graduated there and was forced to learn Pascal rather than C.
Like most UMass scandals, it never made the press.
"A coalition of computer companies then went to the state government and threatened to leave Massachusetts and to publicly state that UMass’ failure to teach C was why they were leaving. And the professors were told that they would be teaching C instead of Pascal, or they could go teach elsewhere."
That sounds pretty odd to me. The purpose of a CS degree is to teach you to program, not teach you to program in the language du jour. Learning programming languages isn't hard - most programmers will be using several different ones at any given time, and that collection of languages will change fairly frequently over time. It seems quite odd that even one, much less several, software companies would be so off base as to say such things.
In my career, I had a couple of times where Fred quit, and I got to finish the projects Fred was working on, which were written in languages I didn't know. So you learn whatever the language was, finish the project, and move on. I can't imagine telling my boss 'But I don't know LanguageX!'.
Moreover, as long as I'm ranting from my soapbox, for most large projects the learning curve is less the language that the overall environment of the software project. If you want to work on, say, Firefox, the hard part isn't learning whatever language Firefox is written in, it is learning the overall environment - how your little piece is supposed to work inside the larger software environment.
Seems like the right bottom line result, although the rhetoric seems a little much, and I doubt the opinion needed to be longer than Prof. Blackman’s CV.
heh
well played, sir, well played.
Huh. I wonder how long until we see biology teachers teaching young earth creationism.
Should be taught now, it's just a Theory, like Evil-lution.
In the 1970's I had a Mammalogy prof who said he 'didn't want to hear any of that evolution nonsense in his class'.
Maybe he actually had read Darwin and believed what Darwin said about his theory. Have you?
Yes.
"I wonder how long until we see biology teachers teaching young earth creationism."
So far as I know, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), regarding establishment of a religion, is still good law. How long that will remain so with the current rogue SCOTUS is anybody's guess.
1. Sure, but that case wouldn't prevent the teaching of creationism.
2. I'm so old, I remember when the consensus on the left was that claiming that the court was rogue, or even activist, was just another way of saying you didn't like their rulings.
The reasoning of Epperson indicates that the teaching of creationism by a public school teacher would constitute a prohibited establishment of religion.
You should look at Scalia's dissent in Edwards v Aguillard. He basically provides a road map of how to get around the issue - even were Lemon still in place, which it isn't.
From an essay in prep:
Scalia’s dissent in Edwards was based not just on his distaste for Lemon but on a much more subtle idea, involving an end-run around the test itself. What he did was argue that the states knew what they were doing, and that as a matter of jurisprudence they must be presumed to be acting constitutionally. No state legislature intentionally violates the constitution, so if a legislature can show that it took evidence from both sides as to the religious nature or otherwise of creation science, or the unscientific nature of evolution, when it reached its decision as to the wording of any legislation, nothing more need be said.
Once a state legislature can claim that on the evidence they have heard, creation science or its rebranded Intelligent Design is genuinely science, it can assert that the legislation has a secular purpose by teaching the existence of alternative theories which by the evidence they have heard they deem to be scientific not religious; by the same token, once ID is deemed to be science the act requiring it to be taught does not advance a religion, and nor is there any entanglement. Scalia will inquire no further into the decision process, the relative strength of the real scientific evidence, the nature of the supporters, evidence of motives, etc. What he did in Edwards was prepare the ground for the next generation of creationist legislators to be just subtle enough in the legislative process to pass an act which will allow a conservative Supreme Court to decide, “the legislature of (say) Mississippi says it’s science, and that’s good enough for us”.
" No state legislature intentionally violates the constitution,"
This sort of thing is why I say that "legal fictions" ought to more accurately to be called "legal lies". OF COURSE state legislatures occasionally intentionally violate the Constitution! How could any informed person think otherwise?
I entirely agree. My point is that the Scalia approach would have the court assume that, and would hence show undue deference to a state legislature when it comes to Creationist legislation.
Intelligent Design is literally nothing an attempt to rebrand creationism as science.
I can't speak for judges, but teaching ID would be a pretty clear violation of the establishment clause.
One would think that after Kitzmiller that would be the case, but with the Lemon test gone, and Kitzmiller after all not being binding outside 3rd Circuit (I'm not even sure it's binding within it) I am not so sanguine.
I'd agree, but ruling it out a priori is as much a theological position as assuming it.
I mean, I think intelligent design is a wrong theory, but it's still a legitimate theory.
It's not a "theory" at all. "God did it" is not a testable hypothesis, let alone something that can be dignified as a theory.
Not it's not a legitimate theory, that's the point.
Fundamentalist Christians wanted to teach their faith in Science classrooms, so they called it Creationism.
Then they were told that they were obviously just teaching their religion, so they changed the name to Intelligent Design, in some cases literally literally just running a find/replace in textbooks.
There's no theory, there's no legitimate scientific predictions, there's just a very transparent attempt to teach the Christian religion in public schools.
Let us know when a reputable university hires a creationist to teach biology.
Contrary to what you seem to think, peopehave to actually know a thing or two to get faculty jobs. You don't just show off nd start mouthing off your opinions.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/03/08/a-creationist-professor-of-evolutionary-biology-in-england/
as a purely theological matter, it is not theoretically inconsistent that a (some) god created the universe ~13-14B years ago, and then let evolution progress.
Possibly with some subtle tweaks along the way, but mostly just relying on setting the right original conditions, and not sweating the details.
Really, bernard11?
Maybe when they come to grips with the youth of distant galaxies that negates the big bang theory.
What does that have to do with evolution by natural selection?
" the youth of distant galaxies"
That presumes that time is a constant -- Eisenstein didn't think so, and there are sane people who argue that time is actually a fourth dimension. It's not my field, but I think it has something to do with string theory, which I'm not even going to pretend I understand.
Creationism of any age isn't as ridiculous as believing Human Sexual Determination is determined by personal choice. Knock yourself out! Cut off your Penis/Balls, you're still not a chick, but a Dude who cut off his Penis/Balls.
Frank "Still has both"
Two out of three. Just like Hitler.
Godwin's law in action. Glad you've got all 3. Too bad it's your 21st Chromosome(s).
Mengele, you are just too easy.
And in other college news students get an organic chem prof fired because the class is too hard. Not sure what is worst the tard students taking organic chem or the tard admins who fired the prof.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/are-college-classes-too-hard-for-today-s-students-alarming-numbers-say-yes/ar-AA14d5cF?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=25cfb9ed090b4fd48cc5bc67316ce0b6#comments
Loved Organic Chemistry, P-chem, Neuro, Micro and Gross Anatomy, the more trival structures/formulas/structures/equations the better, (I was into Hamilton(ians) before Lin Miranda could talk) of course my nickname was "Rain Man"
Frank " I'm a very good driver"
This is actually quite old and has already been extensively covered by articles here.
IIRC the prof admitted that the students weren't learning what was expected. Sounds like firing him was a no-brainer.
You can't fix Stupid. Funny how Casey Stengel did so well with the Yankees and Shitty with the Mets, almost like talented players matter.
You can't fix stupid, but you don't pay some dude to teach Organic Chemistry to stupid either.
More like expelling the students for terminal stupidity and laziness was the no brainer.
Perhaps, but you still don't need the professor.
So, the government can't dictate what is taught in its schools. The obvious solution seems to be: shut down such schools. Vacate the area. You want to teach hateful nonsense? Do it on your own dime!
I am surprised that the Court here did not quote Justice Robert Jackson's famous observation that "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).
Perhaps Ron DeSantis was not paying close attention at Harvard Law School. Occam's razor, however, suggests that DeSantis just doesn't care.
Parents have no say in public school education.
Oh wait. That's a different kind of petty official.
Which parents? Maybe some parents don't want their kids to learn a whitewashed version of history?
Not to worry, Howard Zinn's fictional "Peoples History of the United States" is in the K-12 curriculum. The students' view of American history has already been distorted to the left before they get to college.
Where, exactly, and in what context? Please provide citations.
Put up or STFU.
Not Yogi's Dad, but I found the claim hard to believe, too.
However, it does like it is assigned reading in at least some context in high school history courses.
To start with, there is the Zinn Education Project, an organization dedicated to the teaching of the People's History as a textbook in history classes. They provide testimonials from people that claim to be teachers that are teaching the book in their classes, using the ZEP provided lesson plans. They claim that "tens of thousands" of teachers use the book, and that hundreds of thousands of teachers have use their lesson plans. Take that last one with a huge serving of skepticism, as they switch between "use" and "download" regularly.
Politifact (hardly a friend of the right) did an article on a Santorum claim that it was "the most popular history textbook in US highschools", and quoted several education professionals that said that while anecdotal evidence showed that it was assigned so, there were no known studies to show it was the most popular.
The Philadelphia Inquirer had an article from 2013 supported an effort to get the textbook into schools, and a later article (2014) celebrated it.
The ZEP website has a post about providing copies to at least 700 middle- and high-schools, after a state legislator proposed a bill to ban the book from public schools. It also cites similar events and donations for Indiana and Arizona.
On the occasion of selling the one millionth copy in 2003, The Chronicle of Higher Education celebrated that the book "continues to be assigned in countless college and high-school courses" but did not expand upon that statement.
The New York Times published an op-ed by Eric Foner heavily criticizing the book, and suggesting that schools using it were misleading their students. The LA Times obituary describe the book as used in "thousands" of schools. A bunch of other obits I found said similar things.
Now, these are traditional media newspaper reports, so take them with a grain of salt.
I don't know how often the book is assigned in US public schools, nor do I know the context. But it does seem like it is assigned in a significant number secondary schools, as a history reading.
Teaching it is fine. Teaching only it would be a problem.
So yeah your evidence is not that damming.
Yeah, my thought exactly. Having People's History as the class textbook would be terrible. Assigning individual readings from there, and contrasting them with the class textbook or with some right wing counterpart of People's History, would be perfectly legitimate.
As a work of history, it's pretty trash. I don't think it should be read as a secondary school history textbook, any more than anything from Bob Jones University Press should be used as a history textbook - and I don't think that mixing them together makes it better.
If you're talking about using them in university to teach history majors how to extract useful information from biased and dishonest sources, both of those could be useful, I agree. But I don't think many high school students have either the skill or the interest in doing that.
As a work of history, it shows how history is the study of narrative, not just facts. Events hit different when told from a different point of view.
That's a valuable lesson, even in high school.
As to calling it trash history, that's rather a stretch. It's not accurate nowadays, but it wasn't like made up nonsense when it came out, even if it does make you unhappy.
It was made up nonsense when it came out. It claims things that are flat out wrong, and not minor ones. It deliberately leaves out well known facts and events in order to push an ideology. Trying to pretend that it does a service to the reader in all this by exposing them to the meta-narrative is dishonest. It pretends to teach history, not identification and analysis of biased and deceptive material.
It is, was, and always will be trash history. You can hold it up as an example of propaganda, if you want - but that's not a history textbook, and should not be in history classes.
I've never read anything from that book, so I don't know much about it. I would guess that a lot of the people that criticize it haven't either, and just reflexively dislike it because it is known to be 'liberal'.
"The People's History", liberal?
It's a classic "context matters" problem with Yogis_Dad's assertion. I don't actually doubt that some high schoolers read it, maybe even as part of a class. So-frackin'-what? Without more, that's a pretty useless assertion.
I was assigned Karl Marx as reading in a college course. Love it it or hate it, it's hard to deny that it's a work that has had a significant impact on western history. I'm pretty confident some high schoolers read Marx; kinderkids ... notsomuch. So a blanket assertion that Marx is "assigned in the K-12 curriculum" would also be a pretty useless assertion.
I also read Zinn's PHofUS while in college. Mainly because someone had placed it on the toilet tank. It was pretty amusing a few pages at a time, when one is stuck on the can for an extended period. Reading it means I'm aware of its existence and alternates takes and inevitable biases, not that I agree with it. Trying to extrapolate "education has a liberal bias!!1!" because I read PHofUS while in college would also be a pretty useless assertion.
Using it as a history textbook is something that I find distasteful, just like that Bob Jones University history 'textbook' that described the slave trade as "black immigration".
In a philosophy class, Marx is good reading. Or in a government class, or in a history class, even. In a high school economics class, though, it is out of place. Similarly, you can find places where teaching Zinn is appropriate - but I don't think high school history is the right place.
While you're right that without context, you can't deliver any judgement - and any wide-sweeping judgement of the US's 15,000 school districts is hard to do to begin with - it is my opinion that using books that deliberately and knowingly present falsehoods as "history" in order to push a specific ideology are not appropriate for use in public K-12 education. "Leftist bias" is irrelevant; the falsehood is the problem.
Bob Jones' book is meant to be the only source.
The intro to The People's History talks about it as one perspective that's been neglected among many. It does not claim to be the One True Truth.
I don't think you've read it at all.
You are basically writing a high school course that doesn't exist to get angry at it, and argue to ban a book from it.
Bad show.
No, I initially posted to answer the question of whether or not the book was ever assigned reading as a history textbook in K-12 education. And I found out that yes, it was.
Incidentally, how do you know that the Bob Jones textbook was meant to be used alone? Can you cite the title of the textbook I was referring to? Or are you just making up stuff about a book you've never seen?
As for reading Zinn, I haven't touched it since the 1980s, and never read it all then. Are there new revised editions where Zinn doesn't pretend that he's describing historical events and people? Or maybe at the end he reveals it was all a trick on the reader? Because when he starts by describing other historians as careful liars, and claims that his book will reveal the concealed history, then yes, Zinn was claiming to present the Truth. He was certainly pretending that was he claimed happened actually did, and in the manner he presented, although he often misrepresented source material, ignored contradicting material, or flat out lied about what sources were saying.
The man was not subtle about his intention to push Soviet and Communist propaganda, either in that book or elsewhere.
Also - no where have I "written a high school course" to do anything with. I have no idea where you get that idea. Perhaps you are, once again, mistaking me for some other poster? Or perhaps the strawmen in your head? You often have that problem.
The conservative outrage at this ruling will just increase its political value for DeSantis. This wasn't good governance, as you appear to affirm, but naked partisan politics.
Judge Mark Walker, an appointee of the traitorous Barack Hussein Obama, has also gone to war with Florida for its sensible voting integrity laws. He's also pro-transgender and he thinks black criminals and other leftist types have a right to riot. He's a despicable piece of shit.
Imagine thinking Dylann Roof is "largely correct" and then having the nerve to call someone else a "despicable piece of shit."
Unless you live in some compound in Idaho or lie about who you are to your friends, coworkers, and families, the vast majority of people you interact with in day-to-day life believe this about you, but they happen to be correct.
If the taxpayers of a state cannot control the instructional content of a publicly-funded institution of learning, their only alternative is to disband the institution. Is that what the “free speech” advocates really want to happen? If free speech matters, Floridians who do not want to support communists in public universities must be permitted to deduct from their payments the portion that these universities represent of the taxpayers’ obligations, and the universities' budgets correspondingly reduced.
Notice that the ruling only applied to university professors? Ask yourself what might be different about a university versus, say, a public middle school.
Communists, if they really exist in any significant numbers in Florida's universities, have the same right to their political ideology as Republicans, Libertarians, and Democrats. Your position seems to be that if Floridian tax-payers didn't want Republicans in public universities that they should have the power to ban them.
Sorry, but the First Amendment protects communists and nazis. Floridians who don't want to support communists in public universities should investigate the possibility of emigrating to a totalitarian country where communists are banned.
Maybe the bigger issue is not what is being taught but what is not being taught. Back when I was just a lad my junior high school classes were things like Algebra, English, General Science, and the like. I spent my spare time on projects for the science fair. In high school it was more Algebra, Trig, and Calculus; not to mention Advanced English and Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. Some students not in the college prep path were taking things like auto mechanics and drafting and spend half a day actually working in local businesses related to their class work. While I realize some schools still have classes like this there are also a lot of what I call fluff classes that are often a waste of time once one leaves public schools. Maybe more important is the fact that achievement in subjects like English, math, and science have dropped significantly since I was in high school.
Point is we are not graduating a significant number of high school students who are functionally illiterate and can't do simple arithmetic, but have been exposed to questionable subject matter about what are basically social science questions with no agreement as to their correctness.
C'mon (Man!) that's your future Surgeons/Cardiologists/Airline Pilots you're talking about! Haven't you heard? Robots do the Surgery, Heart Cath's, Fly the planes, humans are just there to watch!
Point is we are not graduating a significant number of high school students who are functionally illiterate and can’t do simple arithmetic, but have been exposed to questionable subject matter about what are basically social science questions with no agreement as to their correctness.
You've been told that, but it's not actually true, unless you're only counting the effects of Covid:
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=38
Reading comprehension is your friend. The link you posted is data at the national level while my post was about shit eating dem run cities that often times spend more per pupil than the majority of schools nation wide.
Here is a fairly recent link indicating a significant number of graduating students are functionally illiterate.
https://phdessay.com/can-illiterate-students-graduate-from-high-school/
My poo-loving friend,
You talked about trends, and then linked to some unvalidated website positing an analysis of a particular moment in time.
Not the same thesis.
Those of us who significantly raised the average grade in high school are sorely missed indeed.
Since I was in high school, the exams used to measure curriculum and teaching success have changed at least once if not several times. I'm not sure the scores for my years in K-12 could be easily compared to today's.
Being a good student was enough to get you bullied when I was a kid. I don't see any evidence that has changed. Perhaps any drops in scores has less to do with the curriculum, teachers, or administrators and more to do with the low value we attribute to intelligence in American society. Imagine a world where student achievements in scholastic work get the same approval as student athletes.
One university in Florida that I worked for has an entire hallway devoted to its football stars, their scores and achievements on the field, and a professional football helmet located next to each that went on to play professionally. They have no equivalent "hall of fame" for their best and brightest students. What does that say about what we value in education the most?
Shawn, if I've learned anything since I was in school half a century ago it's that smart kids getting bullied is evidence of envy not disdain.
"The First Amendment protects university professors' in-class speech."
So, a professor could spend 100% of the class time joking or reading from comic books and there is nothing anyone can do about it?
Or teach from a sociology textbook in an engineering class and there is nothing anyone can do about it?
Sure, Bob. Because the 1st Amendment can protect you from not doing your job, too.
Law forbids non-germane expression of certain opinions, I gave two examples of other non-germane expressions.
What the law does, at least outside of Florida, is to permit, but not require, administrators to tell faculty who spend non-trivial amounts of time on non-germane matters to stick to their knitting. Some judgment is required, though. While a dean could, in theory, tell a teacher who spends 30 seconds of class time talking about the school's sports teams to STFU and teach chemistry, that would be ill-advised. Legal, but ill-advised
Only at a public institution. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities.
Quite a difference between that and talking about something DeSantis doesn't want to hear.
And no, parents don't get to control the syllabus of a college course.
Well, the vast majority of college students are adults themselves and their parent's don't even get to see their grades.
The law that was struck down is basically the same as many discrimination laws as they are enforced. If we agree that people have a right to work where they are not demeaned for being [____], then this law isn't really that much different, other than the means.
Do expressed opinions like "A woman's place is in the home." get 1A protections if they are expressed in the workplace? If opinions like "white silence equals violence" get that sort of protection, then . . . .
The Professor is of course correct, and it is nice that he won. But he is like Don Quixote. The purpose of state universities as far as the public is concerned is entertainment, particularly football. The is particularly true in Alabama. The former football coach even got elected to the US Senate despite clearly having little clue about most issues.
The issue is much bigger than a single professor getting retribution. The issue is that athletics drives decision making at most universities and costs huge amounts of money. It it absolutely terrible and I don't see a fix for it.
Chuckie boy you really need to get up to speed on things. While I am no fan of Tuberville he clearly is more aware of the issues than the libturd who was just elected to the Senate from PA. At least Tuberville can speak with out help from others.
Not disagreeing that college athletics have huge costs but you seem to ignore the fact that those costs are paid by private peeps. The university does not pick up the tab for football teams, private boosters do. In fact the football team provides revenue for multiple other expenses at schools including scholarships for all manner of students not involved in athletics. Football teams are revenue centers not cost centers.
If you want to be taken seriously, drop the 'libturd.'
sure thing libturd
The difference between this law and an assault on freedom of speech is that the speech of teachers is not free; it has been paid for by taxpayers.
Suppose a university paid a teacher to teach calculus but instead she taught her students basket weaving as a way to 'feel intersectional continuity.' They'd fire her.
If a community can fire police for racist statements on social media made off the job, they can surely spell out what they want taught in schools and what they don't want taught.
From the OP:
To defend its position, Florida argued that faculty members speak on behalf of the government, which can "prohibit the expression of certain viewpoints." The state also agreed that its theory meant that if Florida's government changed hands, it "could prohibit … instruction on American exceptionalism because it alienates people of color and minorities because it suggests … that American doesn't have a darker side that needs to be qualified." As FIRE pointed out, that argument is at odds with every federal appellate court to have considered the question….
My very first thought was, “I bet I know which judge it was.” I was correct. Good ole quotable, celebrity-wannabe, Democrat judge Mark Walker, notable for his overlong, overwrought opinions which tend to get reversed by the Eleventh Circuit. He obviously sees himself as the scourge of Gov. DeSantis (and Gov. Scott before him). Every forum shopper knows if you want to get a Florida statute or executive action enjoined, you want Mark Walker on the bench.
I thought the reasoning that if Florida wins then a future administration can shut down the teaching of America as exceptional to be persuasive, in which case Walker is also the scourge of the "woke mob."
A future administration might indeed hypothetically do that or any number of things like abolish public universities altogether. But that doesn’t mean the Constitution is implicated. Those are political decisions, and if the voters don't like them, they have a remedy at the ballot box.
Private employees, including those at private universities, obviously, have no Constitutional protection from having employers regulate their work-related speech. In fact, even a public employee can be sanctioned for work-related speech. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
So, under the novel theory that the First Amendment protects “academic freedom”, the only beneficiaries of that particular Constitutional protection would be public university professors. Now perhaps the university professors who write 99% of law reviews are persuaded that university professors are so essential and special as to deserve this unique Constitutional status, but I think it’s a bit of a stretch. If you had to guess, where do you think a majority of the current Supreme Court would fall on the issue?
I suspect SCOTUS will side with the professors, likely across the ideological spectrum. Alito would be the one who might think otherwise, perhaps Thomas and Breyer might have too.
I, on the other hand, would predict a 6-3 vote on ideological grounds upholding the law. Roberts and Thomas were, after all, in the 5-justice majority in Ceballos holding that public employees could be disciplined for speech related to their professional duties. I very much doubt they would hold the Constitution creates an exception to the general rule solely for college professors.
But, as we are just guessing, I guess we will see.
In response to various comments against the ruling:
It’s true that government usually can restrict the speech of employees in their job duties, but lower courts have held that in universities, academic freedom trumps that doctrine, and so this ruling does not extend to K-12. As to teaching the wrong subject, I suspect academic freedom requires viewpoint neutrality but not content neutrality. So, teaching basket weaving in Calc is out, but teaching that America is great or horrible in history is protected. As to viewpoint restrictions such as bans on teaching creationism, the Establishment Clause as a separate matter prohibits it even if in universities, Freedom of Speech protects it.
Thanks for getting direct to the point, Josh.
It’s true that government usually can restrict the speech of employees in their job duties, but lower courts have held that in universities, academic freedom trumps that doctrine
So, where in the First Amendment is this distinction made between teaching in K!2 schools and in universities ? And where is "academic freedom" awarded its privilege as against any other category of government employment ?
I'll let Eugene explain it.
Josh R, do you think there are there any institutions that offer college credit for a creationism course? Sincere ?
Any, yes. Most of them are probably divinity schools. 😉 Many, no. Accreditation standards would tend to discourage that for any university hoping to compete on a national scale for a more general student population.
I see. It's just based on a Court of Appeal precedent, dating back to the ancient mists of .... 2011.
And as for textual reference to the First Amendment, zip.
University lecturers can tell their government employers to go forth and multiply. Firefighters, not so much.
Judges pulling stuff from their rear ends again.
The text protects the "freedom of speech." That's hopelessly vague.
Actually the text says :
Congress shall make no law …….abridging the freedom of speech
“abridging” is quite a strong concept – it refers to any kind of pruning at all. And as with any “vague” concept, it’s possible still to ask the question “is X within the concept ?” without having to provide a comprehensive inventory of the contents of the concept.
Moreover, to the extent that the words “freedom of speech” are vague, they are not more or less vague according to whose speech is in question. There’s no way to get from worrying about the meaning of “freedom of speech” to a conclusion that a Professor’s speech is more protected than a firefighter’s. That’s just policy preference not text.
In fact there’s a fairly strainghtforward textual justification for a distinction between laws abridging the freedom of speech, and the government abridging the freedom of speech of employees by mere instruction qua employer. The text says “Congress shall make no law”. It doesn’t say “The government shall give no instruction to its employees”
I am not entirely clear on the textual argument for incorporating the 1st Amendment against the states but as I understand it, the text that is supposed to do the job is :
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
The first bit again refers to “law” not to instructing employees.
The second bit is not restricted to laws, so it might conceivably be argued to cover instructing employees as well as passing and enforcing laws.
But “academic freedom” is conspicuous by its absence. No special privileges are permitted for State University Professors, over and above what frefighters get. There is definitely text on that :
“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “
The court in Eugene's link countered
I'm not sure I agree, but I am persuaded the argument meets the threshold of plausible consistency with the text of the First Amendment.
While most students have the ability to pick and choose which classes they take (both in high school and college) some classes are required. While it use to be that required classes were subjects like English and math with maybe a smattering of survey classes in different subjects in lots of schools now a days students are required to take things like whiteness is bad or other bull shit stuff the student, the student's parent (who is footing the bill), or both may well object to.
I have to wonder if forcing a student to attend a class where they are taught their race (and by implication them) are guilty of being bad actors is not similar to forcing (as happened in the past) students and teachers to pledge allegiance to the flag or even sign loyalty oaths; something courts have ruled against.
If you think you shouldn't teach injustices of the past because students who share the skin colour of those chiefly responsible will feel guilty, then you basically don't want anyone to teach history. Do you think Germany shouldn't teach German students about WWII?
That isn't the problem, and by now you know that quite well. The problem is teaching those who share that skin color, and nothing else, that they SHOULD feel guilty about things other long dead people did.
While it use to be that required classes were subjects like English and math with maybe a smattering of survey classes in different subjects in lots of schools now a days students are required to take things like whiteness is bad or other bull shit.
I know you feel it to be true, but that doesn't mean it is true. Unless as Nige pointed out you broaden what whitness is bad class means to the point of covering all of history.
"We don't teach that being white means you're evil."
"Well, good, because we just passed a state law prohibiting you from teaching that."
"How dare you!"
Read the OP, Brett. It isn't talking about teaching whiteness is evil.
I know you *want* it to be true very badly, but that doesn't mean it is.
Maybe you need to read the Stop Woke Act. It’s linked to in the OP.
“760.10 Unlawful employment practices.— (8)(a) Subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin under this section:
1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.
2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
3. An individual’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin.
5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
7. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.
(b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts.”
In fact, I nailed it. Item 2 literally prohibits teaching people that they're evil on account of their race.
And this outrages you!
3. An individual’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
White privilege is real. This prohibits teaching that it is real but does not prohibit teaching that it is false.
See? They really ARE unrepentant racists. And object to this law exactly because it DOES prohibit forcing everyone to listen to, and pretend to agree with their bigotry as a condition of employment, or getting an education, or certifications necessary to pursuing their livelihood.
They really ARE the exact evil this law was crafted to fight, and proud to be that evil.
You've pulled this a number of times.
You link the law, ask what's wrong, people tell you want's wrong, and you insist the law won't be interpreted like that.
And then you do it again.
You can't take any input on this issue; you're a closed system.
The law is right there for everybody to read, Sarcastr0. In fairly clear English, too. This "Who are you going to believe, me or that lying statute text?" approach of yours is pretty futile.
This law defines a list of actions that are remarkably odious to anybody with a functioning sense of right and wrong. And the left objects because they want to commit those acts.
You people want to literally teach racist doctrines that the KKK would be happy with if they were pointed in the opposite direction, and your consciences are so warped that you're outraged anyone objects.
Sarc you really missed my point in the OP. There is some history that is non controversial; like Columbus sailed in 1492. On the other hand there is a great deal of controversy about just where Columbus landed in the New World and most historians agree that since his original log has been lost and we only have hand scribed copies of copies absent new information this controversy may never be solved. In fact a lot of history is far from set in stone.
One of my favorite historical books is a translation of Thucydides' Peloponnesian War. I was discussing it with a girl I knew who bashed Thucydides for his account of how Athens acted with duplicity in dealing with Sparta and I had to point out that Thucydides was a general in the Athenian Army and while loyal to Athens was simply recounting what happened, kinda like in law an admission against interest.
Point is that a lot of revisionist history is much more like an admission for interest as opposed to an admission against interests. Plenty of legit historians have bashed the 1619 project for obvious historical inaccuracies and the same goes for a lot of other revisionist history projects.
Perhaps your biggest failure is not admitting that the current public education system is failing to teach a lot of stuff it needs to be taught; basic reading, writing, and math. Until that happens I see little need to teach stuff there is a lack of agreement on. Not to mention the bullshit about math being racist and expecting students to get the right answers on a math test is racist.
Funny, I don't see anything in the OP about teaching whites are evil. nor in your post.
No, I didn't miss the point of the OP. It says don't ban books and don't mandate teachers' speech. You disagree. Because you're so partisan authoritarianism looks like good scholarship to you.
You're declaring some history factual and some subjective. Which is itself an arbitrary judgement! Calling the stuff you don't like revisionist history doesn't hold a lot of water from someone who calls people libturds and rants about shit eating dem run cities.
Guess what: You're not fit to just anything about facts. You're too biased to do anything but yell about the turds. Don't try to put on a calm face; we all know who you are.
You’re declaring some history factual and some subjective. Which is itself an arbitrary judgement!
I have to disagree here. Solid lines can be drawn between what is factual and what is subjective. That which is subjective depends significantly on a person’s values, goals, tastes, and other aspects of their point of view. Carl Sagan described facts as those things for which it would be perverse to withhold our provisional assent to its truth. (going from memory, so no quotation marks) Facts are thus those things that are verified by independent and qualified observers. (A qualified observer would be someone trained and experienced using particular measurement equipment and techniques, for instance. A measurement recorded by someone that has never used spectrometer before would not be reliable enough to be considered as fact.)
In history, facts are the documents and artifacts we have available to study. Analysis of those facts that can be done with objectivity would be part of the factual realm as well. It would only be when people start to talk about what we should take away from history as lessons, what moral judgements to make about the past, or how to deal with problems in the present and future that things become subjective.
History can be objectively revised as new information is learned or new analysis reveals information not previously known or considered. History is “revised” in this way constantly. “Revisionist” history as a pejorative is wrong on the facts and analyzes facts without objectivity in order to draw conclusions that fit a an agenda. Especially when that agenda is to come up with different moral judgements about the past than those generally accepted.
Looking into scholarly discussions of historical revisionism, some things that I would have thought fit that term in its pejorative use are more often referred to as “historical negationism,” “denialism” or “pseudohistory.” The Lost Cause narrative and Holocaust denial, for instance.
"Funny, I don’t see anything in the OP about teaching whites are evil."
Linked to in the OP: "2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously."
It's right there, it's been pointed out to you. Your claims that it's not there are getting pretty tiresome.
Perhaps your biggest failure is not admitting that the current public education system is failing to teach a lot of stuff it needs to be taught; basic reading, writing, and math.
Science and social studies (history, economics, government aka civics) become increasingly important as core academic disciplines as children get older. I would say that they are equally important by the time they reach high school. After all, they need to learn how to apply all of that reading, writing, and math to things of a practical nature.
Until that happens I see little need to teach stuff there is a lack of agreement on.
Who is disagreeing with what? Your Columbus example doesn't illustrate what you want very well. Learning how confident historians can be in events in the past and past cultures is part of learning history.
Not to mention the bullshit about math being racist and expecting students to get the right answers on a math test is racist.
This is a frequent bogeyman, but I am doubtful that whatever is happening that is the seed for these things is really something to worry about.
"Math is racist" and 'it is racist to expect students to get the right answers' - I would expect that what is really being discussed here is disparities in learning outcomes between different groups of students. Then, trying to figure out to what extent those observed gaps are due to disparities in resources available at school and outside of school for children in those different groups. And, to what extent those gaps are due to how math is taught and how skill and knowledge are assessed. That would all be important to know and understand in order to teach math better to all students. It would also be important not to dismiss conclusions that might make some people uncomfortable when based on evidence.
I haven't read much about this one way or the other, but I wouldn't put much stock into it as a real controversy when it is only being pointed at by people with a political agenda.
I'm trying to figure out what the Florida GOP's principles are regarding Free Speech.
On the one hand, it is arguing that Florida's public universities can control what their professors say in the classroom because they are the employers.
On the other hand, they are arguing that private businesses that run social media platforms cannot control what their users say on the platforms that they own.
And yet those defending private businesses would scream purple about businesses growing so large to control the media, which is their product. How much more insidious than just a large business controlling its one product domain!
If it were 10 years ago, that is. Or in a year or two, for twitter and facebook, that is.
Yes, markets are good for some things and not for others.
Education is something we've decided is better seen as a public good.
One clue that the right wingers who want to end public schools are off on an ideological frolic is to check where else in the world education is just another service to buy. Basically Africa, though not for lack of desire.
"Education is something we’ve decided is better seen as a public good."
While that may have been true in the past it is obviously changing. Plenty of parents/tax payers have showed up at school board meetings or objected to Bidens student loan forgiveness EO and made their displeasure known. There has also been a long standing complaint that public education is wasting way more money than it should.
In earlier times public education was seen much like the system in Cuba where students were taught basic reading, writing, and math skills and not much more. Today it has changed so much that it has lost a significant amount of favor.
Obviously! GTFO with your hot takes, dude. America likes public schools.
Right wing radio telling partisan poisoned parents (and non-parents) to show up at school board meetings is not a sign of grassroots support for much.
Bottom line - the right deciding to hate something isn't proof that thing is bad.
The product of a social media platform is the users. Specifically, their attention is. The customers are advertisers that want the attention of those users. That is often misunderstood about the nature of those businesses.
In fact, this is why Musk is shifting Twitter to a subscription model, with his $8 blue check: So that the users can be the customers, not the product.
I doubt that will work, though. How many people would be willing to spend that kind of money for Twitter? The $8 for the check was essentially for a ‘premium’ account. They’d get verification and some other tools and features, I believe. But the vast majority of users would still be free.
That’s more of a content creator model like YouTube , then. People with the check would be there to draw in the rest of the users. However, YouTube pays content creators, not the other way around.
Musk’s moves since he took over seem very poorly thought through to me. I wonder if he really understands what made Twitter successful in the first place. Of course, I don’t use Twitter, so I don’t really understand that myself.
I've never used it myself, either. I'm not much for short format. I might give it a try if he goes forward with his financial proposals, though; I found Paypal useful before they got uppity and started dictating what I could spend my money on.
I'd compare Musk's early moves on purchasing Twitter to somebody talking down a would be suicide bomber. There were too many people in a position to crash the entire platform, and probably willing to if they didn't like what was happening. He had to tie down that deadman switch before he could do anything more.
With the lockout that happened last night, I think he may have wrested away that switch, and now be in a position to start making substantive changes without worrying too much about a woke employee deliberately wiping backups or something of that sort.
"On the one hand, it is arguing that Florida’s public universities can control what their professors say in the classroom because they are the employers.
On the other hand, they are arguing that private businesses that run social media platforms cannot control what their users say on the platforms that they own."
I'd guess that it's something like, "Your customers aren't your employees."?
Admittedly, the truth of this proposition would be somewhat more evident if the users were paying for the service in dollars rather than submitting to seeing advertisements. The advertising and monetizing privacy violations business model allows you to pretend that the users of FB or Twitter are analogous to employees, working hard to provide the real customer, the advertisers, product: Themselves.
But the difference between the phone company dictating what its operators can say to customers while on the job, and it attempting to dictate what people making calls to each other are allowed to say, does not seem obscure to most people.
“Government-run K-12 schools”
CWAA.
It occurs to me that the next step after being told that he who pays the piper doesn't call the tune, is deciding to stop paying the piper. But I don't expect to reach that step, because this ruling is probably going to be overturned.
Well, the Higher Ed Act still hasn't been reauthorized -- it expired in 2008 and has just been extended -- and there is nothing requiring the GOP/MAGA House to continue to do so.
All of the Federal financial aid, including the student loans, comes from the HEA so it would be truly interesting if the piper stopped getting paid.
An interesting official statistic that may be accurate -- of those who graduated from a Massachusetts high school in 2010 and went to college, 9% were still in college 11 years later, i.e. fall of 2021.
They're pretty much against education itself.
Hey, remember what happens to any professor who promotes natural families or views that undermine AGW?
Says the "party of science" member who won't allow discussions of how races have different average IQs.
He was a retired Princeton prof who literally wrote the organic chem textbook. Lots of them walking around looking for jobs.
"He makes us work too hard" should not be construed as a negative evaluation. It's another sign of the degradation of higher education.
You mean bad professors?
Creationism, natural families, undermining AGW and Racial Science. Throw in phrenology and you’ve got the makings of a conservative faculty.
You can have that discussion. No problem. But it would be a discussion on why the IQ test is deeply flawed and doesn't actually measure what people claim it does. That's certainly a discussion that would make some white people uncomfortable and would be banned by the "Stop WOKE" act.
Looks like the wrong group was contingent.
Is there nothing democracy can't overlord?
Why does the political left refuse to allow discussion of how there likely is an intelligence deficit with the African population?
Just like how math is "flawed" because blacks under achieve.
Or meritocracy. Or being successful in life. Or intact families. Or running a business. Or living in clean neighborhoods. Or not committing violent crimes.
Etc.
Maybe because the people suggesting this discussion happen are also some of the biggest losers and morons on the planet?
Because it's a dumb discussion that doesn't account for the fact that "the African population" encompasses a ridiculous amount of genetic diversity.
It's like saying "the African population" is really good at sprinting and distance running. But the African sub group that sprints well is completely different from the group that runs marathons well. Does it make sense to claim that the average black person is a good sprinter and distance runner?
A far better explanation for this gap in measured intelligence? The socioeconomic factors that are applied to the black population as a whole. But certain folks prefer the genetic explanation because the policy implications of the socioeconomic explanation are completely different from what you can get away with if you claim it's genetic.
Man I'm getting old, what happened to "The Bible" of Organic, Morrison and Boyd???(still have mine, doesn't matter what edition)
Morrison & Boyd soon became the dominant required text in the field, a mainstay for generations of second-year college chemistry students, and a model emulated by other textbooks. Through its six editions, it sold more than two million copies worldwide, making it by far the best-selling organic chemistry textbook ever, as well as one of the best-selling college textbooks on any subject.
In 2001, the journal of the American Chemical Society, Chemistry, cited Morrison & Boyd as one of the 24 "Great Books of Chemistry" of all time, alongside pioneering works dating back 500 years. As the editors wrote, "Do any chemists (or pre-med students) who graduated in the last 40 years not tremble just a bit when they hear the phrase ‘Morrison and Boyd’?"
Nope. Not every race can be good at everything (except maybe Hispanics, who can be of any race, which explains it)
Thanks for proving my point.
Yes. Because it provides an alternate explanation for black dysfunction. The left claims that dysfunction is due to white racism. It's clearly not.
That not every race can be good at everything?? You're welcome.
I was a big fan of Kemp & Vellaccio - I still have mine as well.
Dan Kemp had a great tie collection, I don’t recall him repeating wearing one during 2 semester's worth of lectures.
It's an empirical fact that a biologically intact natural family produces the best outcomes for children. No other configuration does.
But that hurts the gays feelings, so we have to sacrifice children's lives so gays don't have hurt feelings.
That's one face of the genuine evil of the Democrat religion.
Maybe it is not so much a matter of 'don't want taught' as don't want to be forced to pay for what is being taught; or even being forced to pay for anything being taught.
When high schools dem run cities are graduating functional illiterates and colleges are graduating students who borrowed money tax payers get stuck paying back because those student can only get jobs wearing paper hats and asking 'do you want fries with that?' it is easy to understand why taxpayers want a say in what their money is used to teach.
Aw C'mon (Man!) "Corn-Pop" didn't have a Dad and look how he turned out, getting chain whipped by Senescent-Joe. And I'm sure Pete and Chaz Booty-Judge's store bought pets, I mean, Chill-un won't have any problems at all, especially with all that "Paternity" leave time he took to "Take Care" of them...
Coming out against adoption and letting orphans live in the sewers is a bold move.
'Races' aren't 'good' at anything. Weird how that fierce conservative individualism vanishes in the face of some good old blood and soil rhetoric.