A bill that would have — or display — in their classrooms has hit a dead end.

The Utah House on Monday narrowly voted down , a bill that would have banned teachers from “endorsing, promoting or disparaging” certain beliefs or viewpoints, including religious or political beliefs and sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill sponsored by Rep. Jeff Stenquist, R-Draper, faltered on a vote, with several Republicans joining Democrats in opposition.

It’s the end of the line for the legislation — at least this year. Stenquist told Utah News Dispatch in a text message Monday that he likely won’t seek to resurrect it during the remaining four days of the 2024 legislative session that’s set to end before midnight Friday.

However, Stenquist said he’ll continue to work on it perhaps for 2025.

The vote came after the bill was altered on the House floor earlier Monday morning, when Rep. Neil Walter, R-St. George, successfully changed the bill to strip out language that also would have regulated teachers’ “social beliefs” — one of the bill’s terms that teacher advocates worried was too broad and vague.

“I’m concerned ‘social belief’ could (mean) anything they might believe,” Walter said.

He argued regulating “social beliefs” could create a chilling effect in classrooms, worried it could make teachers fear “inadvertently running afoul” of the law and therefore cause them to be “very careful, too careful” in some contexts.

“For example, I think we would all acknowledge and agree … that (Adolf) Hitler was an evil man,” Walter said, “but there could be people who were taught or feel that they have a social belief that he is not. We wouldn’t want to put a teacher … in a classroom in jeopardy for saying something that might persuade (a student) to reconsider their views.”

The bill would have would required teachers to tread carefully as to not sway a student to change their beliefs.

Walter’s version also would have allowed teachers to display “personal photographs” in general rather than only photographs of their family members.

Stenquist asked the House not to adopt Walter’s version, arguing that it would open a “big loophole” in the intent of the bill with regard to displaying photographs. He also worried removing “social beliefs” from the bill would allow scenarios where teachers could talk about “certain ideologies and world views that maybe don’t fit neatly in a political bucket or religious bucket.”

Stenquist started working on the legislation about a year ago, after some parents and gender identity with young students outside of curriculum. However, Stenquist has said his bill isn’t meant to regulate certain viewpoints, but rather ensure teachers remain politically and socially “neutral” in the classroom.

“Parents want to know” teachers aren’t pushing “other types of worldviews or ideologies” onto students that some parents “may not be comfortable with,” Stenquist said. “And that applies to all parents, regardless of what end of the political spectrum you may fall.”

Stenquist acknowledged concerns swirling around the bill over regulating what teachers can and can’t say, but he argued his bill would address a “perception out there that our students are being pushed toward particular ideologies.”

“This really is about giving our students a space to focus on curriculum and focus on learning without the classroom becoming a forum in the other social discussions and divisiveness that’s happening in society at large,” Stenquist said. “Let’s just allow the classroom to be free of political social ideologies and activism.”

Democrats including Rep. Joel Briscoe, D-Salt Lake City, a former high school teacher, argued against the bill, questioning how teachers should navigate its restrictions while also trying to encourage students to think critically.

“I’m telling you, this bill will scare teachers,” Briscoe said.

He pointed to a , a nonprofit research organization, that found two-thirds of U.S. K-12 public school teachers are limiting their own instruction about political and social issues in the classroom.

“It doesn’t matter whether their state has passed a law saying they can’t do it. They’re just afraid. They’re scared as teachers,” Briscoe said, raising his voice on the House floor.

He added he doesn’t think Stenquist or the bill’s supporters are trying to scare teachers. “I think they’re good people who have good intentions,” Briscoe said, but he argued the bill will have that effect. “I don’t think that’s what’s best for our children in our classrooms.”

Walter said he’s also concerned about “unintentionally sterilizing a classroom,” but given the Utah State Board of Education already has a rule about political statements, he said removing “social beliefs” from the bill would address his concerns.

After Walter changed the bill, the House put the legislaton on hold until later Monday afternoon, when Stenquist unsuccessfully tried to pass it out to the Senate.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@utahnewsdispatch.com. Follow Utah News Dispatch on and .

It started as what critics call a “” bill last year, but has since evolved into broader legislation to control what teachers can and can’t say — or display — in their classrooms. 

With , Rep. Jeff Stenquist, R-Draper, wants to ban teachers from “endorsing, promoting or disparaging” certain beliefs or viewpoints, including religious or political beliefs and sexual orientation or gender identity.

Stenquist started working on the bill about a year ago, after some parents expressed concerns about a teacher talking about pronouns and gender identity with young students.

Stenquist said he’s trying to address a “perception problem” with teachers and “get political and ideological fights … out of the classroom.” He said his goal is to “reassure parents that students are not being exposed to some political or ideological ideal that they may not agree with,” regardless of political or social leanings.

But the bill’s opponents — including the Utah Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah — argue it’s too vague and would create a “chilling effect” on teachers, leaving them at risk over what they can or can’t say to their students without punishment.

Despite those concerns, the bill narrowly cleared its first legislative hurdle Monday. It advanced out of the House Education Committee with a split, 6-5 vote. Its next stop: the House floor.

What does the bill do?

HB303 would prohibit school employees or officials from using their position, “through instruction, materials or a display of symbols, images or language” to support, promote or criticize certain beliefs. It also bans them from inviting, suggesting or encouraging students to “reconsider or change” the students’ beliefs.

Those beliefs, as listed in the bill, include:

• Religious, denominational, sectarian, agnostic, or atheistic beliefs or viewpoints
• Political or social beliefs or viewpoints
• Viewpoints regarding sexual orientation or gender identity

The bill would, however, allow teachers to wear religious clothing, including jewelry such as a rosary, or other “accessories that are central to the individual’s sincerely held religious belief.” It would also allow them to display “personal photographs” of their family members.

It would also allow teachers to discuss “an age-appropriate topic” or display an “age-appropriate image or symbol” as long as it’s part of an approved curriculum.

Stenquist said the bill would require Utah school districts to implement a more “standardized policy around neutrality” across the state.

The debate

While drafting the bill, Stenquist worked with Megan Kallas, a parent and one of Stenquist’s constituents, who came to him to prevent “inappropriate conversations” that she said her first grade daughter’s teacher was having with some students outside of curriculum dealing with topics of gender identity, gender fluidity and pronouns.

Frustrated that school and district officials didn’t address the issue because there was no “policy on the books to say this is inappropriate,” Kallas said she turned to Stenquist. Since then, she said he’s crafted a bill to implement a “fair and neutral policy that protects all students and creates in the classroom an environment of learning versus an environment of ideologies being passed around from teacher to student without parental consent.”

Kallas and other supporters told the committee HB303 is aimed at ensuring teacher “professionalism” and fostering a learning environment free from political pressures or ideologies.

But Sara Jones, director of government relations for the Utah Education Association, a union that lobbies on behalf of teachers, urged lawmakers to oppose the bill, expressing concerns about ambiguous language.

For example, Jones noted the bill’s language allows teachers to display personal photographs in their classrooms or offices.

“But can those photographs include a family standing in front of a place of worship, or a family member holding a sign at a rally at the Capitol, or a same-sex couple holding a Pride flag, or would those types of personal photographs actually be interpreted as promoting religious, political (beliefs) or sexual orientation?” she questioned.

Jones also wondered how teachers are supposed to avoid “inviting” a student to change their political viewpoints while teaching topics such as U.S. government or history. “It implies classroom instruction, which includes careful analysis, discussion, deliberation of facts, should never include a student then considering how that information might change their viewpoint or their opinion,” she said.

“Ambiguous language is a hazard for educators who won’t know how the statute applies to them, and may end up facing disciplinary or licensure actions,” Jones said.

Two students spoke in favor of the bill. One from Springville High School said she believes there shouldn’t be “gay pride” flags in the classroom, and that some of her teachers have “placed biases into what they’ve been teaching.”

“When I go to school, I want to be able to be taught how to think and not what to think,” she said.

Another student, from Maple Mountain High School, also spoke against allowing “symbols” she didn’t agree with in classrooms and “teachers that would tell us things that I didn’t want to believe in, but I felt that if I disagreed I wasn’t welcome.”

“School needs to be a place of learning and it needs to be a safe place and it was not that for me,” she said. “We need to prevent different beliefs from making other people uncomfortable.”

Representatives for conservative groups including Utah Parents United spoke in favor of the bill, arguing it would ensure “balanced, unbiased and neutral content” in classrooms.

But Zee Kilpack, who identified themself as a transgender person, spoke against the bill, arguing it discourages the mere discussion of the existence of LGBTQ+ people, who’ve historically had a hard enough time feeling welcome.

“Obviously, we live in Utah. We live in a place where a lot of parents don’t support LGBTQ+ ideology. And yet, queer kids exist anyway,” they said. “School was one of the few places where I could see people that were queer.”

Kilpack also argued HB303 would not “prepare kids for the future,” from colleges to workplaces “that will have all of these ideologies expressed.” They also worried it would restrict LGBTQ+ teachers from posting pictures with their partners, “where that can be a nonpolitical statement of them just existing.”

Rep. Dan Johnson, R-Logan, asked Stenquist if the bill would “cause teachers to feel like they’re monitored so much that they can’t say anything anymore.” Stenquist acknowledged “this will be somewhat of a paradigm shift for some teachers,” but only those that “may feel like part of their job is to endorse some particular worldview.”

“But I think the vast majority of teachers will probably not be affected by this,” Stenquist said, describing the “best teachers” as those that “students don’t know what their political viewpoints are. And I think that’s the goal that we need to get to.”

To questions about how to define a “social belief” or concerns that the bill’s language is too vague, Stenquist said it’s difficult to define “neutrality” in state code, but he welcomed anyone to offer “better language” to make it clearer than the current bill. It may not be “perfect,” he said, but he urged lawmakers not to “make perfect the enemy of good.”

Rep. Carol Spackman Moss, D-Holladay, who has worked as an educator, argued against the bill, worried it will especially impact teachers of history, social studies, literature and other subjects that can cover controversial topics. She said it suggests “teachers aren’t trained and aren’t professional enough,” while there are already school policies and procedures in place that address unprofessionalism.

Rep. Kera Birkeland, R-Morgan, vehemently argued in favor of the bill, saying it doesn’t “target” any single group.

“I get really tired of hearing that we’re targeting people,” said Birkeland, who this year sponsored a in government-owned bathrooms and other facilities while also expanding unisex and single stall facilities. “We try to show kindness and compassion and then we’re told, ‘But you’re rejecting them.’ We’re not.”

Birkeland said the “majority of people do not care who you love, they want to let you love who you love and be who you are. But when we try to run bills to create balance, and the first thing we throw out is, ‘This targets one community,’ we send a message to these kids that they’re being targeted, and they’re not.”

“We want everyone — everyone — to walk in that class and feel like they belong, and that has to do with coming in and being spoken to with respect and dignity,” Birkeland said. “That’s why this bill’s before us, so that every kid — no matter their identity, no matter their beliefs — walks in and knows that they are respected, and will be treated with dignity.”

But one of Birkeland’s Republican colleagues, Rep. Neil Water, R-St. George, opposed the bill, saying he’s worried about its unintended consequences — along with legislation the Utah Legislature has already passed this year to in public entities.

“I’m concerned about sterilizing our classrooms,” he said.

House Majority Whip Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, also supported the bill, first thanking students who spoke in support of the bill. “They showed bravery in an increasingly political school environment.”

“This bill refocuses our classrooms to basic academic learning and provides a professionalism standard that will support all students,” Lisonbee said. “It is vital that we provide these standards and the expectation of learning and exploring different ideas in a neutral environment.”

Utahn Jacob Hancey spoke against the bill, arguing against restricting teachers from expressing their viewpoints to help foster realistic, healthy debates.

Hancey said he “never saw eye-to-eye on anything political” with one of his high school teachers, “but our discussions were wonderful. We became friends until the day he died.”

“Every day we’d have arguments … I learned so much more from him and the respect that he showed me by giving me this chance to form my opinions and really refine them,” Hancey said, urging lawmakers not to support the bill.

“Because I think those conflicts are a chance for students to grow.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@utahnewsdispatch.com. Follow Utah News Dispatch on and .

A bill that would open up librarians to felony charges for showing obscene material to minors will head to the House of Delegates for consideration.

On Monday, bill sponsor  Del. Brandon Steele, R-Raleigh, called for support of his legislation in a fiery speech, in which he said libraries were “the sanctuary for pedophilia” where people needed to be held accountable for exposing children to obscene content.

“I’m voting to protect children from being groomed and targeted by pedophiles and get rid of the sanctuary that was set up in our code 25 years ago,” Steele said to members of the House .

He continued, “If it’s a crime in the parking lot, it’s a crime in the building — period. I hope the chilling effect chills the pedophiles. We’re not going to create a safe space for them.”

Libraries are currently exempt from state law that bans displaying or disseminating obscene materials to minors.

The legislation, , had stalled for a few weeks after a in late January, where some people in support of the bill read outloud graphic sexual material they said was found in school libraries. Those opposing the legislation, including several librarians, said the bill would open libraries to potential costly prosecution.

The Judiciary Committee took it up again and passed it through with a 21-3 vote.

The committee’s three Democrat members voted against the bill, citing concerns over censorship and the measure’s failure to define obscene. They said its broad definition could lead to community members challenging the display of the Bible or the “The Diary of Anne Frank.”

“While this bill doesn’t technically ban books, the impact of the bill is to remove books from our shelves,” said Del. Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia.

Hansen also pointed out the potential cost to librarians, some of whom are employed by schools.

An attorney for the Legislature told lawmakers that the librarians would be on the hook for their own legal fees.

Librarians could face a $25,000 fine or five years in prison under the state’s obscenity regarding minors.

Megan Tarbett, president of the West Virginia Library Association, told lawmakers during a lengthy bill debate that the state’s 171 public libraries already had a system in place to decide what types of books are appropriate to display. There is a separate system for patrons, including parents, to challenge the inclusion of a book in the library.

Around 50 books had been challenged, Tarbett estimated.

“A handful of library systems have had multiple challenges to their collections, but it is not widespread,” she said. “5.2 million items were borrowed from libraries last year. Out of 1.2 million library books borrowed last year, the vast majority were checked out on a parent’s card — not the children’s card.”

In response, Del. Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, said, “We learned here today that there’s a challenge process that’s being followed.

“This bill has been sitting here for years. Nothing crazy has happened, we’ve just run out of bills to use for political purposes. The bill probably isn’t going to do a whole lot, but it’s going to have some librarians fear they got locked up.”

Del. J.B. Akers, R-Kanawha, questioned if the library’s screening system was adequate. He presented a photocopied page from “Gender Queer,” a book that Tarbett said was typically shelved in the adult graphic novel section of the library.

Akers asked Tarbett to describe what was displayed.

“I do believe it is a sexual act,” she responded.

Akers, a parent, said he was in full support of the legislation, which he said wasn’t aimed at banning books. “We’re saying don’t put this in the school library. These are graphic, sexual novels,” he explained.

Tarbett also warned lawmakers that the bill could lead to staffing challenges as librarians could fear prosecution. The state’s universities don’t offer a degree in library sciences, so the libraries rely on out-of-state applicants to fill jobs.

The bill will need to be taken up by the full House by Feb. 25.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. West Virginia Watch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Leann Ray for questions: info@westvirginiawatch.com. Follow West Virginia Watch on and .

Wisconsin’s Kenosha Unified School District removed four books from school libraries this year, joining a nationwide debate about removing books from schools. The books, which focused on LGBTQ topics and characters, were purged for having “pornographic material,” one school board member explained on social media. While their removal satisfied some residents, others worry about the effects on vulnerable kids.

On Sept. 8, Kenosha Unified School District School Board member Eric Meadows posted on Facebook about the book removals.

“A few weeks ago, several parents in the community looked into reportedly explicit books in our libraries,” Meadows said in the post. “See my previous post about this. Since then, a national spotlight has shined on this same topic. A number of graphic books were identified as being in some of our schools through numerous open records requests from several people. The following books have been removed from our libraries, not because of the LGBT nature of them, but because of overtly explicit and obscene pictures and descriptions.”

The post identifies the books as This Book is Gay, Gender Queer, Let’s Talk About It, and All Boys Aren’t Blue. “I am opposed to exposing children to any pornographic material in school, whether LGBT or heterosexual. Neither belong in public schools,” Meadows wrote in his post. “I will work towards clarifying our policy to ensure this doesn’t happen again. I will receive a lot of anger from some in the community just for writing this. I don’t care. My first priority will be to protect the innocence of our children.”

Meadows accused the Wisconsin Examiner of bias when reached for comment. He added that the district “removed a few books because they were sexually explicit. Those books are widely available to purchase and at the public library. … I stand by my Facebook post.”

The Kenosha Unified School District didn’t respond to requests for comment.

When she heard about the removals, Kenosha resident Amanda Becker said she was “left disappointed on a few different levels. I was disappointed that it was specifically LGBTQ+ content that was being targeted. And I was disappointed that this was happening at all.”

“It’s a form of censorship and I don’t agree with it,” Becker added.

Barb Farrar, director of the Southeast Wisconsin LGBT Center, said the fallout for students from removing books shouldn’t be downplayed. “As an LGBT person, any time people are talking about taking away your freedom to read literature for young people, it’s really hurtful,” Farrar told Wisconsin Examiner. To help educate community members and defeat stigma, the Center runs its own LGBTQ book club. “It’s always by learning that you truly understand what some else’s experience is,” she continued. Taking the books away from students “is depriving them of access to being able to broaden their understanding and appreciation of others, as well as potentially their own identities.”

Becker’s daughter, Ruby, who recently graduated from high school in Kenosha, remembers what it was like to come out to her classmates “Harry Styles, the pop artist, actually helped me come out at one of his concerts,” she says. “Pretty public coming-out my senior year, but even before that people kind of knew.” Prior to attending the KUSD during her high school years, Becker went to a Catholic school. “The change in my surroundings definitely helped me to come to terms with that part of myself.” She says, “If I didn’t change schools, I don’t know who I’d be today.” Becker added, “It was just nice finding people like me, or people who are also queer but are either non-binary, trans, just other queer experiences.”

Despite finding people like her, Becker also encountered students who bullied LGBTQ students. Becker fears that things could change for students still attending Kenosha schools. She recalled conversations about banning flags and banners at school including Black Lives Matter flags, LGBTQ flags, and other banners. Becker recalled that, “teachers were always kind of told to stay away from ‘controversial topics which, I don’t know, my identity is not controversial, but whatever.”

Farrar recalled attending annual school board meetings, where she noticed a strong anti-LGBTQ contingent among the attendees. There, Farrar told Wisconsin Examiner, “some people were referencing banning books… trying to interject that into the meeting.”

“Everything started to get a lot more aggressive,” Becker says of school board meetings since the pandemic, “where people weren’t necessarily talking to each other, but more so talking at each other and kind of screaming, to where the winner was whose voice was heard the loudest.” At  county budget hearings, a vocal group organized to cut education funding. “So I think that the book thing is just the next item on the list,” says Becker.

Becker read Gender Queer and This Book Is Gay. “I thought it was good,” she says. “It was a coming-of-age story about a child discovering their gender identity. And I picked it up because my older daughter has some friends that fall into the various areas of the LGBTQ+ spectrum.” It took time for Becker herself to understand LGBTQ issues, and reading the book was part of that journey. “I wanted to be able to understand it better, and I wanted to support my child and her friends.” Farrar also read some of the books during the Center’s book club, and found them to be “phenomenal.” She said, “all of those books” are useful for students trying to figure themselves out.

Farrar says she has heard children repeating things they heard at home, bullying LGBTQ classmates. “We’ve had examples of young children saying really hurtful things like LGBTQ students shouldn’t exist, or they shouldn’t be allowed to live,” said Farrar. “I mean just really, really hateful things.”

“It’s very targeted, and it feels organized, and very political at this time,” says Farrar.

Policies banning and restricting books in schools have grown across Wisconsin since 2020. This week reports, the school district of Menomonee Falls removed more than 33 books from the high school library including titles on the Advanced Placement English Literature reading list, including The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut and The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison, because they were deemed “too sexually explicit” for students.

Last year, on a list of books furnished to Republican lawmakers by concerned parents. The books largely covered LGBTQ topics, but some also touched on racial inequality and discrimination. In an email to now Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona), one parent described having seen books which she felt taught “our kids to hate cops and their white skin” in elementary school classrooms.

James used the list to approach libraries within his legislative district to see whether the books were available. A nearly identical list . There, as books on the list were removed from shelves, a new policy of reporting a student’s library checkouts to parents took effect. The shift slashed the district’s student privacy policy for book checkouts, allowing only parents to opt out. Meanwhile, James and other Republican lawmakers explored ways of exposing librarians and teachers who provide certain books in class to felony charges. In May, those efforts were . This Book Is Gay by Juno Dawson, one of the books removed from the KUSD, also appeared on both of those lists.

Farrar is deeply concerned by policies like Elmbrook’s, which could “out” children to their parents. “Just because they’re interested in a book doesn’t mean anything about their identity, and that’s a complete lack of children’s privacy,” said Farrar. “So we over-emphasize parents’ rights, we really need to start thinking about the rights of young people to explore, and to have privacy to do that.”

While Amanda Becker is prepared to support her children, she’s aware that not all of KUSD’s students have a parent in their corner. “There’s kids out there that don’t, and that’s why I feel that I need to say something,” she told Wisconsin Examiner. “That and, you know, you give in on books and freedom to read and what’s the next thing that’s going to happen? It has the potential to have a domino effect.”

Ruby Becker tells current students to “find community with your peers. Try and find a teacher who you can trust, and be 100% yourself around.”

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com. Follow Wisconsin Examiner on and .

Sara Engels is a rising junior at the New College of Florida studying political psychology. She wants to take a class called “Health, Culture, and Societies” this fall but it might not be available under the atmosphere of conservative orthodoxy the DeSantis administration is imposing on public university and college campuses.

The class, you see, addresses the different health outcomes people realize based on their race, class, gender, or ethnicity. That seems to be forbidden under a new state law banning instruction touching on identity politics, systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege.

Carlton Leffler is the equivalent of a senior at the public honors academy taking urban studies and Chinese classes. The first field entails many of the same topics as Engels’ health class; as for Chinese, the law would appear to limit discussion of pivotal historical material about Mao Tse Tung, his “Little Red Book” and the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

Engles and Leffler both are plaintiffs in a new legal challenge to SB 226, one of the anti-“woke” laws that the Republican-dominated Florida Legislature has approved for Gov. Ron DeSantis. All of the plaintiffs, including a third student and two professors, are affiliated with New College but the law applies to public higher education throughout the state.

“The student plaintiffs are adults capable of determining for themselves whether the viewpoints advanced by their various instructors … have merit,” the , filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee, reads.

“In order to know whether the viewpoints advanced by their professors have merit, the student plaintiffs must first have an opportunity to encounter them; that is, they must be permitted to listen to the professors’ instruction in class,” it says.

“The professor plaintiffs are willing speakers and the student plaintiffs are willing listeners. They desire to engage in academic discussion concerning topics prohibited by SB 266.”

Organizing the case is another plaintiff, NCF Freedom, which describes itself as “an independent organization founded to protect and promote the academic mission of New College.”

Sweeping changes

, passed earlier this year, made sweeping changes to higher education governance in Florida, including bans on diversity initiatives or application of critical race theory. The measure also specified that university presidents have the last word on personnel matters, abrogating the contract’s arbitration language.

It followed passage of the “,” or “Individual Freedom,” Act in 2022 to restrict conversations about race and gender in schools and workplaces. A federal judge nearly one year ago.

New College is a public, small honors institution located in Sarasota. As the lawsuit points out, “Historically, New College has had a reputation for welcoming LGBTQ+ students and unconventional individuals of every sort. The landing page for the College’s website proclaims that it is a ‘Community of Free Thinkers, Risk Takers and Trailblazers.’”

The document cites campus organizations including “New College Feral Pigeons;” the “Indigenous Student Union;” and “Queery” — “an organization which ‘serves to maintain New College as a safe place for LGBTQ+ identified individuals and their allies to socialize and engage with the larger community.’”

By contrast, DeSantis hopes to convert the Sarasota campus to “,” referring to the private Christian Hillsdale College in Michigan. He got rid of the sitting board members and including Christopher Rufo, who was behind the anti-CRT (critical race theory) movement. The governor’s board and Corcoran are even promoting as a draw for more conservatively aligned students.

Named as defendants are Manny Diaz Jr., state commissioner of education and a member of the university system’s Board of Governors; Brian Lamb, chairman of the Board of Governors; Eric Silagy, vice chairman of the governors; the 11 remaining governors; the New College Board of Trustees and its members; and Richard Corcoran, interim president of New College.

Academic threat

SB 266 threatens academic fields including gender studies, history, art, English, sociology, and more to the extent they inquire into this country’s complicated political and social histories, the complaint alleges.

“The elimination or curtailment of many AOCs [areas of concentration] or majors directly affects the rights of current and future faculty and students, including the plaintiffs bringing this action. Faculty and students at colleges and universities throughout Florida face the same censorship and the same injury to their rights of free speech and academic inquiry,” the complaint reads.

It adds: “Given its unique status as an honor college, dedicated to the liberal arts and attracting free thinkers from around the nation, New College is uniquely vulnerable to the censorship and pall of orthodoxy imposed by SB 266.”

Furthermore, NCFF risks reprisal against itself and its members because of its support for social justice and diversity, the complaint adds.

The document alleges viewpoint-based discrimination against protected speech in violation of the First Amendment; and that the law is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourth Amendment, in that it fails to sufficiently specify what behavior will draw punishment.

‘Categorical ban on speech’

Additionally, the law is overbroad in that its “categorical ban on speech … is not sensitive to specific speech in context and is not supported by legislative findings of fact which might serve to either justify or narrow the broad scope of the censorship scheme. SB 266 has a strong likelihood of deterring speech which is not properly subject to the law including discussion of almost all controversial historical, political and social topics, many of which are vital to the unimpeded flow of ideas in a free society.”

The complaint also targets new restrictions on tenure protection for faculty, arguing the law will chill free inquiry plus classroom instruction and debate between students in class.

The United Faculty of Florida, which represents university faculty, filed a on Aug. 4 in state circuit court in Leon County over .

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Diane Rado for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com. Follow Florida Phoenix on and .

Late Thursday, Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a preliminary injunction in a suit challenging the employer portion of Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act, suspending enforcement of the law in the workplace. The Obama-nominated judge wrote in his Honeyfund v. DeSantis : 

“In the popular television series Stranger Things, the ‘upside down’ describes a parallel dimension containing a distorted version of our world. Recently, Florida has seemed like a First Amendment upside down. Normally, the First Amendment bars the state from burdening speech, while private actors may burden speech freely. But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently bars private actors from burdening speech, while the state may burden speech freely.”

A separate lawsuit filed Thursday morning challenges the portion of the law that applies to colleges and universities.

A federal lawsuit filed Thursday charges that a Florida law designed to “fight back against woke indoctrination” by limiting classroom discussions of race and gender violates the constitutional free speech rights of college students and professors.

Florida’s Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees (Stop W.O.K.E.) Act took effect July 1. It prohibits workplaces and schools from requiring training or instruction that may make some people feel they bear “personal responsibility” for historic wrongdoings because of their race, gender or national origin.

But Jerry Edwards, staff attorney with the ACLU of Florida, one of the legal organizations behind the case, said the law unconstitutionally censors the free expression of higher education students and educators.

“The Stop W.O.K.E. Act is a shameful result of propaganda and fearmongering,” he said in a statement. “A free state does not seek to curtail the inalienable right to free expression in its college and university classrooms.”

The Florida Department of Education did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Florida is one of 17 states that have sought to restrict how educators cover topics related to race and gender, according to a . 

However, it’s the only state that applies its censorship law to higher education, said Leah Watson, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Racial Justice Program.

“There is a longstanding history in the Supreme Court and courts across our country of recognizing the freedom of professors, lecturers and educators in higher education to determine what to teach and how to teach it,” she told ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ. 

Seven Florida professors and one undergraduate are named as plaintiffs, represented by the national ACLU, ACLU of Florida, NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the law firm of Ballard Spahr. The suit names the state university system’s board of governors and several other officials as defendants. It requests an injunction seeking an immediate halt to enforcement of the bill in colleges and universities.

Plaintiff Russell Almond is an associate professor teaching statistics at Florida State University and covers how to use race as a variable in empirical research. Provisions in the Stop W.O.K.E. Act that prohibit educators from presenting “colorblind” ideologies as racist put his teachings in jeopardy, the lawsuit charges.

Another professor, Dana Thompson Dorsey, will teach a course in “Critical Race Studies: Research, Policy and Praxis” at the University of South Florida this school year. She fears that explaining how racism is embedded in American institutions — a central aspect of the scholarly framework — could put her in violation of the law. While the Sunshine State does not explicitly ban Critical Race Theory, Gov. Ron DeSantis’s office has said the law is intended to .

“In Florida, we will not let the far-left woke agenda take over our schools and workplaces. There is no place for indoctrination or discrimination in Florida,” DeSantis said after he signed the bill into law in April.

The act forces many educators to present foundational principles of their disciplines in a “false light,” presenting them as “disputed when it’s honestly not,” said Watson. 

Plaintiff Johana Dauphin, a senior at Florida State University, worries that she will be ill prepared for graduate school if the law interferes with her professors’ ability to convey key understandings that students in other states receive.

“I fear that this law will cause my professors to avoid discussing race and gender altogether, which will result in my perspective and lived experience as a Black, female student being effectively minimized and erased in the classroom,” said Dauphin. “As a student, I deserve to see myself and the issues that impact me — including issues around race and gender — reflected in my classroom discussions.”

Thursday’s filing marks the third lawsuit the ACLU has brought against a statewide censorship law. Similar cases in Oklahoma and have yet to be decided.

A previous legal challenge seeking to prevent the Stop W.O.K.E. Act from taking effect was dismissed by a federal judge in June. Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker clarified in a 23-page order that he was not “determining whether the challenged regulations are constitutional, morally correct or good policy.” Rather, the four plaintiffs — two professors, a student and a diversity, equity and inclusion consultant — .

Other lawsuits challenging the Florida law remain undecided. At an early August hearing, Walker appeared to arguments leveled against the state by several businesses, including a Ben & Jerry’s franchise. The federal judge emphasized the vagueness of a particular section that labels training discriminatory if it causes an employee to believe a person 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.”

“Apparently, I’m a person of below-average intelligence, because I have no idea what that means,” said Walker.

John Ohlendorf, an attorney representing the state, defended the provisions: “The state of Florida has a compelling interest in preventing employers from forcing employees to listen to speech that suggests one race is inherently superior to another.”

The case brought Thursday is “framed differently” than prior challenges, Watson said. It has yet to be assigned, but it’s possible Walker could be the one to review it. Should that happen, the ACLU hopes for a speedy ruling, as he has moved in a matter of weeks on previous decisions around the bill. 

“We’re confident the Stop W.O.K.E. Act unconstitutionally infringes upon academic freedom and students’ right to learn,” said Watson. “I’m not able to comment predicting what the court may say.”