A coalition of students and professors in Alabama has appealed a state law that bans DEI initiatives and bars endorsement of certain "divisive concepts" in public education. The law, effective October 2024, restricts state-funded programs and forbids instructors from encouraging guilt tied to identity. A federal judge allowed the law to remain in place while plaintiffs argue its vague language chills academic freedom and invites frivolous complaints. Plaintiffs point to real-world effects since 2025, including closed student groups, faculty leaves and altered curricula.
Alabama Professors and Students Appeal State Ban on DEI Programs, Citing Vague Restrictions
FILE - The Autherine Lucy Clock Tower at the Malone Hood Plaza stands in front of Foster Auditorium on the University of Alabama campus in Tuscaloosa, Ala., June 16, 2019. (AP Photo/Bill Sikes, File)
A coalition of students and faculty from public universities across Alabama has asked a federal appeals court to block a state law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at public institutions and prohibits what Republican lawmakers call “divisive concepts” tied to race, religion and gender.
What the Law Does
The Alabama statute, which took effect in October 2024, bars public K–12 schools and universities from using state funds for programs or curricula that the state determines "endorse" specified divisive concepts. It also prohibits instructors from "encouraging" people to feel guilt, anguish or other emotions on the basis of race, religion or gender identity.
Court Ruling and the Appeal
U.S. District Judge David Proctor declined to enjoin the law, ruling that a professor’s claim of academic freedom does not automatically override a public university’s authority to set classroom content. He emphasized that the law "does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus or, for that matter, even from the classroom," and noted it allows discussion so long as instruction is presented "in an objective manner without endorsement."
Judge David Proctor: "The statute ... expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts."
The plaintiffs — a mix of students and professors represented by the Legal Defense Fund — have appealed, asking a higher court to block enforcement while the case proceeds. They argue the law is vague about what constitutes "endorsement," leaving faculty exposed to baseless complaints and chilling robust classroom discussion and research-based teaching.
Campus Effects Reported Since 2025
Plaintiffs say the law and related federal guidance have already had concrete effects: student affinity groups have folded, some professors have been placed on administrative leave, Black student publications have suspended operations, and course curricula have been altered. Antonio Ingram, a lawyer with the Legal Defense Fund, warned that the law could make public institutions "mouthpieces of the state" if left unchecked.
Dana Patton, a plaintiff and political science instructor at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, said the law’s vagueness forced her to remove materials from a long-standing honors-course syllabus after five students complained that the curriculum conflicted with the statute.
Antonio Ingram, Legal Defense Fund: "Truth becomes what the state says versus what independent researchers and theorists and academics have spent decades crafting."
Patton said she tries to present a wide range of viewpoints in her courses but now feels constrained: "It's just safer to not teach certain things and to avoid potential repercussions or complaints being filed," she said.
The appeal will test how courts balance state authority over public education with academic freedom and free-speech protections for faculty and students.
