State seeks expanded control over classroom speech in ‘Stop WOKE Act’ appeal • Florida Phoenix

The state of Florida is free to prohibit college professors from criticizing the governor in class, an attorney argued on behalf of the state during an appeals court hearing on the Stop WOKE law – adding that these teachers are free to seek work elsewhere if they do not. it is not like a curriculum controlled by the legislature.

Academic freedom and allowing government to insert itself into the classroom were the focal points of a panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, comprised of Justices Charles Wilson, appointed by the former President Bill Clinton; and Britt Grant and Barbara Lagoa; both appointed by former President Donald Trump.

That response came from state representative Charles Cooper during oral arguments Friday.

“Yes, because in the classroom, the professor’s speech is the government’s speech, and the government can restrict professors on a content basis and prevent them from offering views contrary to…,” Cooper said before until one of the judges interrupts him. .

The panel asked Cooper if the state was OK with Florida students learning entirely different sets of facts than those in states with different policies.

“That’s the genius of federalism, your honor,” Cooper said. “These are state institutions and the states themselves make decisions about the content of courses taught in their schools, and that includes viewpoints, your honor.”

If teachers can’t comply with state orders, Cooper said, they can look for states “more favorable to their views.”

Cooper insisted that the state has ultimate authority to decide course content.

“There is no case – they cited none and we found none – that holds that individual professors have the academic freedom right to override and contradict course content choices of their university and certainly not those in the state legislature,” Cooper said.

The law

The appeal in two challenges to the Stop WOKE Act (formerly the Personal Liberty Act) focuses on higher education professors who felt the law restricted their freedom of expression. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the law in 2022, prohibiting schools or businesses from offering views on certain topics related to race, color, national origin or gender.

Some of the prohibited views include the following:

• “A person, because of their race, color, national origin, or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. »
• “A person’s moral character or status, whether privileged or oppressed, is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, nationality, origin, or sex. »
• And that “merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity and racial color blindness are racist or sexist, or have been created by members of a race, color, of a particular national origin or gender to oppress members of another race, color, national origin or gender.

Ability to learn

Plaintiff LeRoy Pernell, a professor at Florida A&M University Law School, argued in a written statement that the law implicates society’s ability to “learn, discuss and develop tools to fight the complex issue of racism in our country without being gagged by those who would dictate that only state-approved thinking can be promoted.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Ballard Spahr law firm represent the university plaintiffs. The proceedings in court on Friday were Leah Watson of the ACLU of Florida and Greg Greubel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

A federal trial court ruled in August 2022 that the state of Florida was attempting to impose its position on the existence of systemic racism and sexism in the workplace and in public schools, in violation of the law. First and Fourteenth Amendments.

“You can’t censor your way to freedom”

Greubel argued on behalf of Adriana Novoa, a history professor at the University of South Florida, that “one cannot censor one’s path to freedom.”

“It’s much more concerning to give the state legislature the power to redefine objectivity, to tell students what they should believe,” Greubel said.

“The only way you’re going to get to one of these terrible hypotheses that the state puts forward that people will teach – that the Holocaust never happened, or any other type of conspiracy theory – is if the State gets the power to do so; if the state says, “Here’s the conspiracy theory and don’t debate it, don’t talk about it, just accept our version of the truth.” “This is something we have never allowed the government to do, particularly in the area of ​​higher education.”

Students go to college expecting free debate, Greubel added.

“We don’t think it’s necessary to coddle the minds of our students,” Greubel said. “We assume that our students should engage in very rigorous debate with each other. »

The ACLU’s Watson insisted that teachers have First Amendment rights in the classroom, even if they are not unlimited.

“They are balanced, on a case-by-case basis, with the university’s interest in effective teaching,” Watson said. “The university, as I mentioned, must adhere to non-discriminatory academic standards. The main thing is that they meet academic standards. They must fulfill the mission of the university. What they can’t do is suppress views.

She added: “It is very rare for the legislature to go this far into the classroom, but when it has happened, the (U.S.) Supreme Court has been clear about the parameters of academic freedom. »

Cooper admitted that the law would be unconstitutional if applied to private colleges. The key, he continued, is to find a balance between the interests of civil servants and those of the state. Professors are state employees and therefore are limited in their speech by what the state imposes on them, he said.

The restrictions only apply in class and to conversations outside of class if they are related to teaching, he said.

The purpose of the law is “solely to suppress disfavored views,” Watson argued. “And that’s important, because the classroom is particularly the marketplace of ideas. This is where you will debate, criticize and discuss conflicting points of view.