State can enforce DEI general education course ban while litigation plays out
The state of Florida may enforce a law eliminating general education courses that teach 'identity politics' at Florida's institutions of higher education pending resolution of a lawsuit filed by professors, a federal judge has ruled.
In January, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida filed suit on the professors' behalf alleging that SB 266, a 2023 law limiting general education course classifications and funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, harmed the professors' academic ambitions. General education courses are required for students to graduate.
Days after a preliminary injunction hearing in Tallahassee in front of U.S. District Chief Judge Mark Walker, he ruled Wednesday that the professors had not established theywould suffer any harm.
'Viewpoint-discriminatory' higher education law heard for preliminary injunction
'This ruling is disappointing, but also offers a clearer path forward to prove this law is unconstitutional,' said Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida in a news release. 'The law is a blatant effort to control the content of higher education, muzzle Florida's scholars, and erase perspectives the state finds politically inconvenient. We remain committed to fighting alongside faculty, students, and the broader academic community until this undemocratic law is struck down.'
Among the plaintiffs is University of Florida political science professor Sharon Austin, who complains she was denied funding to present at a 2024 conference hosted by Diversity Abroad, which the school had paid for her to present at in 2023. The school specifically cited SB 266 in refusing to pay for her to appear subsequently, the suit alleges.
'As for Plaintiff Austin, her declaration demonstrates that she has already suffered a denial of state funding to attend conferences in 2024. However, to obtain prospective relief, she must demonstrate an unambiguous intention to seek funding to attend conferences at a reasonably foreseeable time in the future. That she has not done,' Walker wrote.
Professors who have had their courses removed from general education requirements, or fear it may happen, say their injury is chilled speech and potential repercussions in post-tenure review.
'To the extent these Plaintiffs claim their classroom speech associated with courses for which they have no stated plans to teach at a reasonably foreseeable time in the future will be chilled, such a hypothetical future chill is both too remote and speculative to amount to a cognizable injury in fact,' Walker wrote.
The plaintiffs allege viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment; that the law is over-broad; and that it violates Florida's Campus Free Expression Act.
State University System Chancellor Ray Rodrigues said in January that the law has helped address a Gallup poll that found 'political agendas' as Americans' Number One reason they have lost confidence in higher education.
Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. said the law helps students who can be 'overwhelmed by the number of courses that are out there,' and that students can take whatever classes they wish, 'but the easier we can make it for them when it comes to general education and making sure that they're getting what they need there I think is very important.'
Walker did not rule on merits of the underlying case and the ACLU said it will continue its challenge.
'Plaintiffs' evidence does not demonstrate that any Plaintiff faces an imminent injury — namely, chilled speech — that is traceable to any Defendant's enforcement of the general education requirements,' Walker wrote.
'For what it's worth, Plaintiffs' existential concerns about the survival of their academic departments and the future viability of their areas of expertise in the state of Florida are certainly understandable. However, these concerns, as described at length in Plaintiffs' declarations, do not give rise to a concrete, imminent, and non-speculative injury in fact sufficient to permit Plaintiffs to seek a preliminary injunction against Defendants' enforcement of the general education requirements.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dissenting FCC Commissioner: Paramount Chose 'Capitulation Over Courage' In Dealing With Trump
Though the Federal Communications Commission approved the Skydance-Paramount merger Thursday, one commissioner is speaking out against what she says has been an 'erosion of our First Amendment protections.' 'After months of cowardly capitulation to this Administration, Paramount finally got what it wanted. Unfortunately, it is the American public who will ultimately pay the price for its actions,' commissioner Anna M. Gomez said. More from The Hollywood Reporter Paramount Co-CEO Chris McCarthy Set to Exit After Skydance Merger Paramount-Skydance Merger Approved by FCC, Clearing Way for $8 Billion Deal Close 'South Park' Lives: Paramount Inks New Deal With Creators, Library Moving to Paramount+ Gomez notes that the transfer of Paramount's broadcast licenses to Skydance was approved by a vote of 2-1 at the FCC, which is led by Brendan Carr, and that she had dissented. She pointed to the 'unprecedented' moves taken by the FCC to help broker the deal, which she notes include the elimination of DEI programs and putting controls on newsroom decisions at CBS, including agreeing to appoint an ombudsman that will report directly to the president of CBS News and 'who will receive and evaluate any complaints of bias or other concerns.' On July 1, Paramount agreed to a $16 million deal to resolve a lawsuit filed by President Trump against 60 Minutes over an interview conducted with Kamala Harris. The settlement was largely seen as paving the way for the merger with Skydance. Trump has also said that he anticipates receiving at least $20 million in advertising, public service announcements or similar programming from Skydance as part of a settlement. 'In an unprecedented move, this once-independent FCC used its vast power to pressure Paramount to broker a private legal settlement and further erode press freedom. Once again, this agency is undermining legitimate efforts to combat discrimination and expand opportunity by overstepping its authority and intervening in employment matters reserved for other government entities with proper jurisdiction on these issues. Even more alarming, it is now imposing never-before-seen controls over newsroom decisions and editorial judgment, in direct violation of the First Amendment and the law,' Gomez wrote. 'After the FCC buried the outcome of backroom negotiations with other regulated entities, like Verizon and T-Mobile, I urged for us to bring the Paramount proceeding into the light. I've long believed the public has a right to know how Paramount's capitulation evidences an erosion of our First Amendment protections, and I'm pleased that FCC leadership ultimately agreed to my call for every Commissioner to vote on this transaction. Granting approval behind closed doors, under the cover of bureaucratic process, would have been an inappropriate way to shield this Administration's coordinated campaign to censor speech, control narratives, and silence dissent,' she continued. 'Despite this regrettable outcome, this Administration is not done with its assault on the First Amendment. In fact, it may only be beginning. The Paramount payout and this reckless approval have emboldened those who believe the government can—and should—abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage. It is a dark chapter in a long and growing record of abuse that threatens press freedom in this country. But such violations endure only when institutions choose capitulation over courage. It is time for companies, journalists, and citizens alike to stand up and speak out, because unchecked and unquestioned power has no rightful place in America,' Gomez wrote. Best of The Hollywood Reporter How the Warner Brothers Got Their Film Business Started Meet the World Builders: Hollywood's Top Physical Production Executives of 2023 Men in Blazers, Hollywood's Favorite Soccer Podcast, Aims for a Global Empire
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'This Is a Dangerous Thing': Why One FCC Commissioner Is Sounding the Alarm on Paramount's Deal
When the FCC approved the Paramount-Skydance merger Thursday, one commissioner blasted the decision, calling it an act of 'cowardly capitulation' on behalf of Paramount and warning that this could lead to a further 'erosion of our First Amendment protections.' The commissioner, Anna M. Gomez, is one of three leaders at the FCC, in addition to Chairman Brendan Carr and fellow commissioner Olivia Trusty, and is the only Democrat on the commission. She was a Biden nominee and appointed to the post in 2023. More from The Hollywood Reporter Dissenting FCC Commissioner: Paramount Chose "Capitulation Over Courage" In Dealing With Trump Paramount-Skydance Merger Approved by FCC, Clearing Way for $8 Billion Deal Close 'South Park' Lives: Paramount Inks New Deal With Creators, Library Moving to Paramount+ The commissioners voted 2-1 Thursday to approve the Paramount-Skydance deal, with Gomez dissenting and condemning the 'unprecedented moves' by the 'once-independent FCC' used to broker the deal, including the elimination of DEI programs and putting controls on newsroom decisions at CBS, including agreeing to appoint an ombudsman to evaluate complaints of bias. Her dissenting vote was largely related to those issues, rather than the merger itself, as well as Paramount's $16 million settlement to resolve the lawsuit filed by President Trump against 60 Minutes, which was largely seen as paving the way for the merger with Skydance. 'The Paramount payout and this reckless approval have emboldened those who believe the government can—and should—abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage. It is a dark chapter in a long and growing record of abuse that threatens press freedom in this country. But such violations endure only when institutions choose capitulation over courage. It is time for companies, journalists, and citizens alike to stand up and speak out, because unchecked and unquestioned power has no rightful place in America,' Gomez wrote in her initial statement. Gomez, who has also been raising the alarm across the country in what she's calling a 'First Amendment tour,' spoke with The Hollywood Reporter Friday about what's been happening at the FCC and what she's urging the public to do. In your statement, you say you moved this from what you call a backroom deal to a full commission vote. Can you talk about why you pushed for the full commission vote? What the commission has been doing with these transactions is adopting them at the bureau level, so they're not done with a full commission vote. And what's happening is these companies are being pressured to agree to alter their practices in order to get approval of a transaction, and these practices that they're being pressured on are completely unrelated to the transaction themselves. When we approve a transaction, a license transfer, which is what was at issue with Paramount we determine whether it is in the public interest. We look at the benefits and we look at the harms caused by the transaction. Very often, if there are harms that are transaction specific, the parties will seek to mitigate the commission's concerns by committing to certain actions. In this case, and in other cases, what we have seen is the commission is demanding, not through votes, but through backroom deals, companies to give up, for example, any diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Now those are completely unrelated to any harms by the transaction, and in this case, they committed to basically imposing controls over newsroom decisions and editorial decisions, again, completely unrelated to the harms and benefits of the transaction. So the benefit of pulling this up to the commission level and having it as a vote is you take it from being a backroom deal to something more transparent. Something that the commission itself has to determine is, is this really in the public interest? Is the commission going to stand on the side of the First Amendment, or is it going to itself capitulate to this administration's demands related to controlling the media and diversity, equity and inclusion practices, which are, in and of themselves, also First Amendment protected practices? Can you characterize the conversations you were having with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and Commissioner Olivia Trusty about this deal? The commissioners all talked about the importance of bringing this up to the commission level, and they all agreed. We always talk about transactions, but I don't want to share private conversations. What kinds of other deals could this set a precedent for? We have seen that the commission has demanded other parties to transactions before the commission to also capitulate on, for example, eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs. For example, the commission approved the Verizon-Frontier transaction, which was a $20 billion transaction after a backroom deal in which Verizon agreed to eliminate its diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Same with T-Mobile. So what this does is it opens the door for future abuse on any company coming before the FCC for regulatory approval. This is a dangerous thing. We cannot allow this perversion of our authority to continue. You've asked for companies, journalists and citizens to stand up and speak out about this. What does that look like in your mind? I have been working to shine a light on the abuses of this administration and the erosion of our First Amendment freedoms. I think that anyone who can shine a light and push back is helping protect our democracy. What do you see the FCC's role in that moving forward? What I would like to see is the FCC go back to its core mission and stop interfering with the freedom of the press and the First Amendment rights of all of us. I've been on this First Amendment tour where I am raising my concerns and educating the public about the importance of the First Amendment and protecting our freedoms. And I would hope that people would demand accountability from those in power and push companies to find their courage to stand up for their rights and all of our rights and protect our democracy as they're doing so. Can you talk more about what you see as the repercussions of this merger approval? What I'm concerned is that what we are seeing is corporate parents capitulating in a cowardly way in order to advance their commercial interests. I am hopeful that will not happen. I think courage breeds courage. We've seen examples where parties will push back, and when they do so, it helps others to also gain that courage. All of these attacks are not grounded in anything other than abuse of authority. The facts, the law and the truth are behind us. All it takes is for enough people and entities to push back. Best of The Hollywood Reporter How the Warner Brothers Got Their Film Business Started Meet the World Builders: Hollywood's Top Physical Production Executives of 2023 Men in Blazers, Hollywood's Favorite Soccer Podcast, Aims for a Global Empire
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Columbia's $200M payout: Letters to the Editor — July 26, 2025
The Issue: Columbia University's $220 settlement agreement with the Trump administration. Columbia University's sudden remorse for its failure to protect Jewish students and faculty members on campus is akin to a known felon who feigns sorrow when caught committing a criminal act ('The Ivy League schooled,' July 24). Only when President Trump's administration threatened to withhold grant support and hold its leadership accountable did Columbia express regret. Remaining silent while antisemites were given free rein on campus speaks volumes. As Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel noted: 'Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.' S.P. Hersh Lawrence It was certainly encouraging to read about the agreement reached by the Trump administration and Columbia University. However, until the true source of this rot is removed, I fear it will be of limited success. There are many ideologically committed members of Columbia University's administration, teaching and admissions bureaucracy who will continue to spread their vile messages of hate. These people must be removed as well, tenured or not. John Mancuso Naples, Fla. While Columbia University announced that scores of students have been disciplined, and even expelled, we know of no professors who have been punished. It makes no sense to punish students while radical professors — the source of their antisemitism — remain employed at Columbia to indoctrinate future students. Seymour Cohen Manhattan Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Shai Davidai is spot on when he says that the $200 million crackdown on Columbia University is just a start ('Hate Abates?' July 24). The real villains here are Columbia University's radical professors, who manipulated and encouraged their clueless student-puppets into braying antisemitism and anti-American propaganda. Sadly, most of these faculty members will holler about the First Amendment, as they hide behind their tenure. Going forward, Columbia University needs a program to specifically address this hateful ideology when it occurs among its professors and instructors. Frank Olivieri North Ft. Myers, Fla. It appears that Columbia University has finally gotten the courage to discipline anti-Israel students who created chaos and harassed Jewish students mercilessly. Maybe Jewish students at Columbia can have some peace this coming semester, although that is highly doubtful if Zohran Mamdani becomes mayor. J.J. Levine Miami Beach, Fla. The Issue: The city Department of Education's failing 'restorative justice' discipline policies. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters New York City always thinks throwing more money at the problem is the answer (' 'Restorative' Nonsense,' Editorial, July 25). Kids put in timeout for serious school incidents take it as a joke, and the disruption caused by their selfish behavior only hurts the students who want an education. The Department of Education needs to impose stricter consequences for those students who disrupt classroom learning. Joseph Valente Staten Island Since the 1960s, we've seen discipline worsen in our public schools, due to the acceptance of liberal policies. It is long past time to begin a no-toleration policy for poor behavior. Right now, parents must consent before their child is placed in a special-education class. With proper documentation, this must change. Ed Greenspan Brooklyn Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
