When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (Republican) signed House Bill 7’s “Stop WOKE Act” into law in April, he said the bill would make public school students and their parents “oppressive without your consent.” Freedom from the imposition of ideological ideology. ”
The Stop Wake Act blocks on-the-job training and classroom instruction in public schools, colleges and universities that “endorses, promotes, facilitates, educates, and enforces” beliefs in “diversifying concepts.” “Thing. This law allows conservative states to limit the teaching of critical race theory (which highlights systemic racism in the United States) and other “critiques” related to race and gender identity. It’s just one of a rapidly growing number of “educational hush orders” recently imposed by members of Congress. of US society and history. ”
But Florida’s arguments defending the Stop Wake Act against multiple legal challenges go further. In response to allegations that the law “violates the First Amendment and is constitutionally vague and racist,” state attorneys argued that state college curricula and in-class instruction were “governmental discourse.” ‘ and ‘not an educator’s speech’. ‘ themselves. They argue that “there is no right to claim academic freedom” and that the Florida government “simply chose to regulate its own speech.”
Florida’s claim, if accepted by the courts, poses an existential threat to public schools that could destroy the commitment to free and open inquiry that has made American universities preeminent around the world. It is by no means certain that the courts will not favor Florida.
In defending the law’s constitutionality, Florida cited the 2006 US Supreme Court decision Garcetti v. Ceballos., A case involving the Los Angeles District Attorney’s right to reprimand a deputy district attorney for criticizing his superior’s actions. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that “when an official speaks in accordance with his official duty,” the First Amendment “does not disassociate an official’s communication from the discipline of the employer.”
Notably in his dissenting opinion, Justice David Suter argued that the decision would “jeopardize First Amendment protections of academic freedom in public colleges where teachers necessarily speak and write in accordance with their official duties.” It is possible to do so,” he warned. Nor did his five-majority judges choose to “determine whether the analysis we conduct today applies equally to cases involving speech related to scholarship or education.” did.
Since 2006, federal courts have disagreed on whether exceptions to academic freedom exist. In a series of decisions, the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals concluded that Garcetti does not apply in the academic context of public universities. But in 2007, in Hong v. Grant, a district court judge ruled that the University of California “is entitled to liberty if it limits what an employee may say in accordance with his job and professional responsibilities.” made a judgment. And he noted in 2011 that the Capehart v. Hahs judge “courts have consistently ruled that even public university faculty members’ statements are not protected when made in accordance with their professional duties.” .
As the “Stop Woke Act” makes its way through the courts, it’s imperative to understand what’s at stake.
As Justice Suter noted, before the Garcetti case, the Supreme Court held that universities occupy “a special niche in our constitutional tradition” and that academic freedom is “simply a matter of concern for teachers concerned.” , but of ‘transcendental value’ ‘for all of us’. ”
Under the guise of preventing indoctrination by revoking the right of faculty to academic freedom, the Stop Woke Act whitewashes or erases American history in favor of government-enforced indoctrination. For example, state education policies “dating back to the 19th century” are often “[ed] Or, Florida’s penal code, until declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1964, allowed unmarried interracial couples to “customarily live in the same room and spend the night together.” Or, in 2022, a judge announced that Florida’s restrictions on mail ballots and drop-boxes would disproportionately affect black voters. Did you withdraw?
Who decides whether this information is “objective” or adherents to an “oppressive ideology”? Who decides whether it made anyone feel uncomfortable or guilty? Are you a student? parents? Tallahassee politician? judgement? Are decisions made by majority vote?
How can we prevent Florida and other states from banning teachers from speaking out that state officials dislike?
Existing case law covers a wide range of subjects that have already led to repression efforts, including misuse of grants, treatment of experimental animals, overreliance on teaching assistants, and faculty criticism of hospital practices and patient safety issues. is shown. The public institution, the University of Florida, tried to ban faculty members from testifying in court against voting rights restrictions favored by Governor DeSantis.
Proponents of the Stop Woke Act should remember that if the political winds turn, the law could be used to suppress their preferred speech. At the very least, enforcing the law will damage Florida’s public universities’ reputations and make it harder to attract the best faculty and students.
As the American Association of University Professors recently pointed out, academic freedom is essential to the quest for knowledge. For decades, faculty members have been primarily responsible for determining what and how to teach. Subject to professional standards and peer review, of course. And academic freedom has played a major role in dominating American universities on nearly every list of the world’s best institutions of higher learning.
If House Bill 7 wins, we all lose.
David Wippman is the president of Hamilton College.
Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is co-author (with Isaac Kramnick). “Cornell: A History, 1940-2015.”
Comments
Post a Comment