Court Prevents Florida from Enforcing Ban on CRT Teaching in Colleges

A Federal Appeals Court Blocks Part of Florida’s CRT Law

A federal appeals court recently put a stop to parts of a Florida law aimed at limiting critical race theory (CRT) in public universities. This decision, announced on Tuesday, connects back to the Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees Act (also known as the Stop Woke Act), which was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022. While the law restricts CRT in both workplaces and public universities, this ruling focuses specifically on higher education institutions.

In a split decision of 2-1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declared that certain provisions of the law regarding CRT at public universities were unconstitutional. This ruling was influenced by lawsuits from professors, students, and various groups alleging that the law effectively amounts to censorship. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) are among the plaintiffs.

Judge Britt Grant, who was appointed by Trump, stated that Florida’s rule represents a significant exercise of power to eliminate unpopular ideas from discussion at a place recognized for inquiry: the classroom. Along with the majority, Judge Charles R. Wilson, appointed by Clinton, endorsed this perspective.

Judge Grant emphasized that the new rule contradicts the Supreme Court’s ongoing affirmation of academic freedom. If the First Amendment establishes any protective barriers in university classrooms, this law seems to overstep those boundaries.

As noted by some, critical race theory is often characterized as a Marxist ideology, which posits that various societal structures are fundamentally rooted in a racial hierarchy, placing white individuals above others. In light of the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement, many Republicans and conservatives are actively opposing the perceived spread of CRT within major institutions, especially in education.

On the other hand, Judge Barbara Lagoa, another Trump appointee, dissented. She contended that Florida has a legitimate role in governing state-driven educational guidance. Lagoa pointed out that the plaintiffs are state employees, and their discussions took place during state-sponsored classes for credit at public universities. The majority determined that states could impose restrictions on academic speech if related to valid educational concerns, whereas Lagoa suggested these criteria create impractical standards.

She added, “The First Amendment protects all perspectives in public discourse, albeit it does not require state backing for every viewpoint.” Lagoa went on to argue that if the government can wield a compelling interest in fighting racism within private institutions, Florida should similarly hold that interest in its own classrooms.

Both FIRE and ACLU welcomed the court’s decision. FIRE’s Senior Counsel, Greg H. Grubel, remarked on the importance of the ruling, noting that it ensures universities remain spaces for discussion of controversial subjects, even when they clash with political opinions.