California’s publicly funded community college system is facing a lawsuit alleging that its diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility rules violate professors’ First Amendment rights by compelling them to engage in speech with which they disagree.
The lawsuit was filed Thursday by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in California District Court against California Community Colleges, which oversees more than 54,000 professors teaching 1.8 million students and is by some measures the largest higher-education system in the U.S.
The “California Community Colleges’ new diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility rules force professors to endorse the government’s view on politically charged questions regarding diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility,” the lawsuit reads.
Such rules “mandate viewpoint conformity, compel professors to teach and preach the State’s perspective on DEIA, impose a prior restraint on the sharing of contrary views, and subject professors to an array of overbroad, vague, and arbitrary requirements,” the lawsuit continues.
The complaint was filed on behalf of six academics, including Reedley College professor Bill Blanken.
“I’m a professor of chemistry. How am I supposed to incorporate DEI into my classroom instruction?” Blanken asks in a testimonial released by FIRE. “What’s the ‘anti-racist’ perspective on the atomic mass of boron?”
An official glossary of terms published by California Community Colleges includes a definition of anti-racism which suggests that people “that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial” and claims that “color-blindness” is responsible for perpetuating “existing racial inequities and denies systemic racism.”
Educators, FIRE asserts, could be found to be in violation of these foundational DEI principles for asserting that their class is based on merit.
“Merit protects White privilege under the guise of standards … and as highlighted by anti-affirmative action forces,” the glossary reads.
“Whether it’s states forcing professors to teach DEI concepts or states forcing them not to teach concepts that lawmakers deem ‘woke,’ the government can’t tell university professors what views they are or aren’t allowed to debate in the classroom,” another FIRE attorney, Jessie Appleby, said in a press release.
Loren Palsaard, an English professor at Madera Community College and a co-plaintiff, voiced his concern that mandated DEI instruction undermines academic freedom. “Hearing uncomfortable ideas is not ‘curricular trauma,’ and teaching all sides of an issue is not ‘weaponizing’ academic freedom,” the English professor told the organization. “That’s just called ‘education.’”
“California Community Colleges’ DEIA Rules requires professors to endorse contested DEI concepts like ‘intersectionality’ and ‘anti-racism,'” Daniel Ortner, one of the FIRE attorneys overseeing the case, told National Review. “These are some of the most contentious issues of debate in our country, and the state can’t stop the debate and force professors to teach and preach its preferred view. Colleges must remain places for vigorous debate on these important topics. FIRE is suing to stop California from violating the First Amendment and trampling on academic freedom.”
A similar suit was filed in early July by another First Amendment organization, the Institute for Free Speech, on behalf of Bakersfield College history professor Daymon Johnson. Johnson’s alleged transgressions include selecting books critical of Howard Zinn for his course syllabus.
“Almost everything Professor Johnson teaches violates the new DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility) requirements — not just by failing to advance the DEIA and anti-racist ideologies, but also by criticizing them,” legal filings from the case assert.
However, the college has pushed back, insisting that Johnson’s case is baseless. “We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and Kern Community College District plans to vigorously defend itself,” a spokesperson told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Johnson “has not — and cannot — present evidence to show that the regulations in any way impose an immediate threat of harm to him or have directly impaired his ability to express himself freely,” California Community Colleges argued in legal documents shared with NR.