Court Challenge to Alabama's Controversial DEI Law Gains Momentum

Mon Dec 15 2025 22:32:31 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

Student and faculty groups in Alabama are contesting a new law that bans diversity initiatives in public education, citing concerns over academic freedom and vague definitions of 'divisive concepts.'

A coalition of students and professors from Alabama's public universities is appealing to halt a recent law prohibiting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Critics argue the law constrains academic freedom and is poorly defined, posing risks to educational content. U.S. District Judge David Proctor upheld the law, prompting concerns from educators about self-censorship and the potential for propaganda in higher education.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A group of students and professors at public universities across Alabama are asking an appeals court to halt a state law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools and prohibits the endorsement of what Republican lawmakers dubbed “divisive concepts” related to race and gender.

The Alabama measure, which took effect in October 2024, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses.

The law forbids public schools and universities from using state funds for programs or curricula endorsing “divisive concepts” relating to race, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation, while restricting instructors from encouraging students to feel guilt based on these identities.

U.S. District Judge David Proctor upheld the law, asserting that a professor's academic freedom does not supersede a public university's authority over instructional content. He emphasized that the law does not entirely ban discussions on these topics, provided they are delivered objectively without endorsement.

The appeal comes on the heels of a July mandate from the Department of Justice that outlines similar required changes for public school campuses nationwide. By 2025, numerous student affinity groups closed, professors faced suspensions, Blacks students publications folded, and curricula underwent significant modifications.

Antonio Ingram, a lawyer from the Legal Defense Fund representing the plaintiffs, states that the vagueness of the law creates a burden of risk for professors, potentially leading to unjust investigations and stifling their ability to present established research.

“Truth becomes what the state says versus what independent researchers and theorists and academics have spent decades crafting,” Ingram remarked. He urged that maintaining the law could turn universities into state-run channels for propaganda, undermining accurate, evidence-based education.

Professor Dana Patton of the University of Alabama shared her personal experiences, explaining how the law has pushed her to modify her long-standing curriculum. Despite her efforts to represent a spectrum of viewpoints in her teachings, she has felt the need to censor her content to avoid conflicts with the law.

“It’s just safer to not teach certain things and to avoid potential repercussions or complaints being filed,” she disclosed, reflecting broader concerns among educators about the implications of this legislation on academic freedom and classroom dialogue.