Alabama officials seek to dismiss lawsuit challenging state DEI ban

Alabama officials have filed motions seeking to dismiss a lawsuit challenging SB 129, a law that limits diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in public universities and the teaching of so-called “divisive concepts.”

The Alabama Attorney General’s office and members of the University of Alabama (UA) Board of Trustees argue that the University of Alabama professors and University of Alabama Birmingham students suing to overturn the law lack standing and that their claims fail to establish any constitutional violations.

The plaintiffs, who also include the Alabama NAACP, allege that SB 129, sponsored by Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that the law discriminates against minority students and faculty by restricting funding for student groups and eliminating campus spaces designed to support minority students.

The attorney general’s office claims plaintiffs “fail to show how each and every provision of the Act harms them,” arguing that plaintiffs “fail to include sufficient allegations to ‘nudge their claim across the line from conceivable to plausible.’”

The Board of Trustees stated in a separate motion that the law does not prevent discussions on race but prohibits faculty from requiring students to adopt specific perspectives.

“As it relates to the classroom, SB 129 states that professors may not ‘direct or compel’ students ‘to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere’ to one of eight ‘divisive concepts’ defined in the statute,” the motion states.

The law, which took effect last October, bars public universities from funding DEI programs and prevents discussions of concepts lawmakers deem divisive. It includes prohibitions against “compelling” students to believe that any race is inherently superior or that people are responsible for historical injustices committed by others of the same race.

UAB students, UA professors sue Alabama over state law banning DEI programs

Ahead of SB 129’s enforcement, universities across the state shuttered or rebranded DEI offices and closed dedicated campus spaces for its Black Student Union and LGBTQ+ resource center.

Plaintiffs argued that the law’s impact disproportionately affects minority students by restricting funding for student organizations such as the University of Alabama NAACP chapter. Attorneys for the board argued that the plaintiffs’ allegations “do not involve any claim that Black students were treated differently from other students.”

“Plaintiffs instead rely on the precarious assumption that coursework related to diversity benefits Black students ‘in particular,’ because of their race,” the motion further states.

Professor Cassandra Simon, one of the plaintiffs, stated in the lawsuit that she fears discussing racial issues because students have previously expressed feelings of guilt or complicity after watching material on the Civil Rights Movement. Lawyers for the state argue that this does not constitute a First Amendment violation, even if Simon has already faced threats of termination for teaching a class on systemic inequality.

The motion stated that “even construing these allegations as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Professor Simon’s fear is not objectively reasonable,” saying that simply showing material related to the Civil Rights Movement does not “direct or compel” students to accept the concept or “penalize or discriminate” when students aren’t in agreement. 

“Professor Simon does not have standing to challenge any provision of the Act based on such conduct. The same is true of the other Professors’ allegations regarding their subjective fears that teaching ‘about’ topics could violate the Act,” the motion states.

The defense also pushed back against claims that SB 129 is too vague, arguing that the law is clearly defined.

“Though Plaintiffs may not like its terms, the act is readily understood,” the motion states.

Plaintiffs have until April 18 to respond to the state’s motion.