Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Did Gov. DeSantis Get the ‘Stop Woke Act’ Wrong?
When I saw that the court’s Judge Walker rejected key parts of the “Stop Woke Act”(Individual Freedom Act) in Florida, I assumed that he was just another Leftist judge attacking the Conservative legislation. But then I saw that he was responding to a lawsuit brought by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) on behalf of a faculty member, a student, and a student group. FIRE is a highly regarded organization that champions free speech. You can review their lawsuit here. FIRE stated that the act was unconstitutional in that it disallowed free speech on public college campuses.
Judge Walker’s blistering criticism referred to the work of George Orwell:
‘In this case, the State of Florida lays the cornerstone of its own Ministry of Truth under the guise of the Individual Freedom Act, declaring which viewpoints shall be orthodox and which shall be verboten in its university classrooms,’ Walker wrote.
‘[T]he First Amendment does not permit the State of Florida to muzzle its university professors, impose its own orthodoxy of viewpoints, and cast us all into the dark,’ Walker concluded.
The legislation was intended to bring a halt to curricula that ignored or defied traditional teaching of values and subjects, since universities were condemning traditional education and providing Marxist and socialist content to students. The judge, in his objection, said that the state could provide educational curriculum, but explained that there is no precedent for the State of Florida’s assertion that the state “has an unfettered right to prohibit professors from expressing viewpoints with which it disagrees.”
It’s important to note FIRE’s position in this lawsuit:
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….
For those of us who believe the university has corrupted education by distorting content and attacking traditional viewpoints, this ruling creates a few dilemmas:
- How do we return our universities to teaching an appropriate curriculum?
- How do we limit the propaganda being taught without violating the constitution?
- Is there a way to ensure that at least a balanced curriculum is offered to students?
- Was the writing of the “Stop Woke” Act insufficient to meet the state’s agenda?
Is this ruling a message that the universities can’t be stopped in their march to destroy the foundations of the United States?
You can read the “Stop Woke Act” here.
Published in Education
I remember one of my professors once drifted off from teaching the course he was supposed to teach and started talking about his romantic life, how this woman he fell in love with had broken up with him and how he tried to convince her to continue the relationship. Later, after I graduated, I learned that this professor was fired.
So, clearly a professor can be fired for failing to do a good job in teaching his students. It’s just a question of who makes that determination.
I’m not sure how to answer your question except to link the Stop Woke Act text which you already did in the OP.
The bill is explicitly grounded in antidiscrimination law. Maybe we can start the other way – how is it inconsistent with the anti-discrimination amendments?
Or, maybe we can discuss it by discussing hypotheticals.
Would it be ok under current accepted antidiscrimination law to subject a black individual – as a condition of passing an examination – to instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe, by virtue of his or her “blackness” that he is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously?
I think NC has taken the funding route and cut some off in state schools that have transgressed. NCState? And its no show classes for athletes?
But you couldn’t teach hatred of blacks, women, atheists, gays, etc. in a state school. That would be prohibited speech. When you flip it around, it becomes clear that FIRE’s objection is not really neutral after all.
How is that more direct? It hides both action and the motivation for the action.
To a limited and not yet quantified extent potential students are acting and withdrawing and/or not applying or just not going. Enrollment is down in colleges since Covid and the exposure of how awful any given school could be toward its customers. Men are finding there is nothing worth buying at many (Aside from STEM) Schools and just not going. The TitleIX mis-use has become much more public as well.
You must be a recent graduate.
Speech in a university is like speech with a publisher, if the publisher does not like the way an author is representing him, the publisher can suppress a piece or choose to no longer publish that author. For a private college, government guidance in the area of speech beyond what is required to manage accreditation can be readily seen as interference with the college’s speech writes. A public institution has an obligation to manage these issues more prudently, although at the risk of doing so more politically. And there is a tug of war between state governors, trustees, administrators, faculties, and student groups to influence what the policies will be and how they are implemented.
But that is my cracker barrel opinion, I bet Dr. Richard Epstein could do an authoritative ten hours on this off the cuff.
Send your kids to Hillsdale.
I don’t think the Stop Woke Act limits free speech in the classroom. On the contrary, it explicitly prohibits compelling specific speech/beliefs. It also explicitly does not prohibit discussing those concepts (as long as they are not compelled).
The credentialing issue is so strong now that it’s very hard for parents to say to a child: that degree product is not worth the price tag. Pick another path. They are convinced that their child will be a failure. And – without the ability to do screening or aptitude testing for various non-technical jobs, credentials are all most employers have. Sadly a BA doesn’t guarantee that an individual will be able to write a coherent report or business letter. Or present themselves in a businesslike manner. Or even want to go into an office on time every day.
I graduated in 1988.
I always thought universities ought to be where looney theories can be talked about and debated. OTOH, the K-12 curricula should be free of lunacy. The state does have a say in the K-12 public school curricula, but it had better be with parental approval. If not? There is school choice, including private and parochial schools . . .
It’s one thing to talk about and debate controversial ideas, including looney theories. It’s quite another to say that any student who expressed disagreement with a looney theory should be flunked.
Banning or compelling speech is not a sign of cultural strength or confidence, in fact the opposite. And it never works, does it?
I don’t think government should ban or compel speech. I do think that government should prevent a professor or a university from banning or compelling speech. Let’s have a free exchange of ideas.
It’s possible to take these to task, especially via investigating for viewpoint discrimination.
It is also possible to push harder on first amendment free association and to make force accreditation boards to be more conservative in its estimation.
If accrediting boards are private and using their exclusivity to strong arm government school policy, then government has a right to get involved there.
I think that’s the right approach, even when the ideas I like don’t win the argument. And that’s the heart of it.
The Stop Woke Act does neither.
And how many lawsuits for wrongful terminations you want to fight.
Hmm.
But does that mean that in a history class, a student could not be flunked if they turn in a math test instead of a history test?
I think this is the text of the act. From the beginning of which::
I’ve bolded some stuff, but frankly it seems mostly gobbledygook with some definite ‘you can’t encourage people to think in a certain way’ stuff. This time it’s anti-woke, but once you normalise this what’s to stop the wheel from turning and similar laws against promoting conservative povs being passed?
Failing a student is part of a professor’s freedom of expression?
Yes! And you’re right about Richard Epstein, too!
There are Professors who fail students for their beliefs no matter how well-written the paper is.
You’re adding the “can’t encourage people to think in a certain way” part. That’s not in the bill.
Follow the link and read the whole thing.
You cut it by exposing it for the evil it is and cut funding.
Lefties do the hiring.
Free exchange of ideas doesn’t happen.
Here’s the part that I think Zafar is referring to:
and then it clearly talks about the Woke agenda. At the end of the listing, it includes students.