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
Sure, but it says “compels”. I dont see the problem, especially if the alternative is continuing to allow them go compel the Woke nonsense.
I’m confused. What do you think compel means?
It says:
Which seems quite broad.
Technically this wouldn’t affect their speech. But it would require to them to self-fund, and likely do a twitter on their product and staffing.
Good idea.
I always thought many of the approaches some conservatives want which specify what to be taught would have this problem.
I have always thought that the “Equal Protection Clause” should be applied to teaching in public schools and publicly funded universities and colleges ( which is almost all) where students should be exposed to all reasonably legal points of view as best as is reasonably possible, with some exceptions for explicitly sexual content for the very young, and frankly I don’t understand how the courts have not ruled that way. It is in the Constitution damn it!
Everytime I talk about this, some attorney will say ” well the courts have ruled” that this part of the 14th amendment somehow doesn’t apply, except I don’t think there are any exceptions, asterisks or excuses embodied in that amendment which allow indoctrination of only one point of view, and which will over time indoctrination a wide swath of the public to only one political point of view which of course seems to have happened. All points of view are to be protected under the law. Pure and simple.
And of course it is almost commonplace that “the courts” these days have ruled in so many grotesquely unconstitutional ways on so many issues that to try to cite past rulings as an excuse and the defining point of view is just utter nonsense.
Now I’m confused. To compel means to force or require. It does not mean to encourage to think a certain way. What is wrong with not compelling some very specific things as laid out in the law?
But what’s not broad is what they say you cannot compel. You cannot compel racism. You cannot compel people to say they’re racist whether they think they are or not. That seems consistent with longstanding constitutional protections.
What I wonder is: On what theory would this law not be consistent with the original meaning of the First Amendment?
You also cannot espouse, promote, advance or inculcate.
I’m honestly curious as to whether any students have actually been compelled to say they’re racist even if they don’t think they are.
What would be the point?
Seems like it starts happening in a lot of elementary schools, these days.
Power. Control. Money.
I’d love a link, I’d love some proof.
Some of the things I have heard of is that the teachers tells all of the white students that they are oppressors and then tells all of the black students that they are the oppressed.
It’s an extension of the idea that white people have “white privilege,” teaching racial essentialism.
Is this actually happening in our schools? If not, why is there so much opposition to guidelines saying that you can’t teach race essentialism to students in a taxpayer funded school?
Has this happened to any students that you know?
What is racial essentialism? Is it actually taught to any students?
What do these guidelines actually say? The text of this law basically put a passle of viewpoints about racism in America off limits. Are those racial essentialism? It seems an awful lot like a projection based on sensitivities.
Your point is well taken, Unsk. Freedom of speech is protected. Period.
I guess I misread your intention, Ed. We’re on the same page.
You assume that the Left requires logic and reason in its teaching. They insist that everyone, children and adults, admit they are racist. It’s built into the cake–or into the system, if you will.
Here’s one:
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2398213/public-schools-teach-white-systemic-racism/
You can google lots of other examples.
The way most American universities handle admissions by making it harder for Asians to get into their university and easier for Blacks to get into their university is also part of this.
Recently the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Harvard vs Asians for Fair Admissions.
The Left just doesn’t believe in treating people as human beings instead of members of a racial group.
By the way, Judge Walker was nominated by Barack Obama.
Susan, I read the article and it didn’t claim students were forced to say they were racist. What am I missing?
Are they being taught that they, as white students, are responsible for the oppression of blacks? In other words, are schools teaching students that they are responsible for a racial collective?
Zafar, I’m really disappointed in this kind of remark. Let’s see: the kids are taught they are racist, they are born racist, that they are oppressors of the worst kind, and carry other terrible attributes–just because they are white. I’m not going to research whether they are specifically taught to call themselves oppressors. You can do that yourself. But I would suggest that this kind of indoctrination breeds self-hate, division, and is actually responsible for perpetuating racism. I’m satisfied that kind of education is sufficiently horrible.
I think there is a difference between teaching about racism and teaching racism.
My first impression was that the judge got right. After taking a closer look, I think he went overboard. Here is the specific language that the judge struck down:
Nowhere in the language does the bill prohibit academics from espousing the woke agenda principles. It merely prohibits them from forcing students to listen to their woke drivel.
It is baffling that the judge also struck down 1000.05(4)(b) which specifically permits discussion of the concepts
Or stating flat out what is being taught is absolutely true . . .
As soon as tax dollars get involved things just get complicated.
… as a condition of employment, membership,4
certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an5
examination.
So, in other words, compel.
I blame Abe Lincoln who got all this public University thing going with his land grant colleges. Add the idea that the federal government should fund public state universities via research grants and student grants and loans and then regulate the smitherines out of those Universities based on the federal portion of funding those Universties, and you have the toxic brew of wokism.
The judge’s ruling in this case is pure cant. Sort of like Democrats filling public school libraries with pornography and then screaming bloody murder about book banning and burning when Republicans try to remove them. Why should public universities be allowed to indoctrinate a pernicious and evil and completely bogus ideology using public money from taxpayers who are egregiously harmed by that indoctrination, with utter impunity? Like teaching 1619 as history and egregiously misleading and indoctrinating students. That’s like allowing a surgeon to deliberately kill a patient on the operating table.
Is advocating treason a crime? Is advocating the overthrow of the Constitution a crime? Is demonstrating in the Capitol a crime? Then teaching Marxism should be a crime. Teaching 1619 as history should be a crime. Forcing atheism on students should be a crime. Teaching gender fluidity as biology should be a crime. Teaching racism, as mandated by government under Biden, to be required by Universities, should be a crime.
DeSantis and Florida have it exactly right. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If Florida voters empower Republicans to run the State, who are Ricochetti to second guess those voters? Public universities have no charter to teach nonsense, particularly nonsense that has no other purpose than to pursue an Alinskyite disruption and destruction of liberty and civil society. Florida and DeSantis are light years ahead of most of the rest of the country. That Ricochetti excruciate over this is much more a comment on Ricochetti than on Florida or DeSantis.
Assuming that this is focused on state schools (versus private schools) the solution isn’t censorship, but simply stop the public funding of institutions that don’t reflect the values of the general citizenry.
And a state legislature doesn’t have to stop there. State colleges were created and established by state charters. Those can be withdrawn and those state schools closed. After all, with population starting to decline, the number of students attending colleges is starting to decline. You definitely don’t need as many of them. Some private schools are begining to close. And there’s a problem with too many jobs that require degrees that don’t really need them to do the job.
Quit beating around the bush. Close at least some of the state schools. De-fund some of them. For that matter, stop subsidizing private schools (which seems to happen at the federal level).
Thanks so much, Nanocelt!! I couldn’t agree more.