Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
I used specific examples in post 84; some of what the professors allege they are scared to teach for fear of repercussion is true, and I cited a specific example, and some is clearly not banned, which I also cited a specific example of. I am not sure how this very specific statement with examples could be construed as saying it wouldn't ban any of the material cited.
I am more than open to an argument that one of the 8 specific things it bans advocacy of (not discussion, 79-83, but advocacy) - but nobody can explain which or how they do make bad policy. Which one do you think is bad policy? If some of them are, it should be very easy and we don't have to keep dodging every question.
|
This Court finds that by endorsing Critical Race Theory and assigning articles
supporting various forms of race consciousness (or the perils of ignoring race),
Professor Austin arguably promotes or compels belief in concepts three, four, six,
and eight. See §§ 1000.05(4)(a)3., 4., 6., and 8., Fla. Stat. (2022); Regulation
10.005(1)(a)3., 4., 6., and 8. Professor Austin’s declarations establish that (1) she
would teach several classes where Critical Race Theory and various forms of race
consciousness are arguably promoted but for the IFA; (2) this proposed speech is
arguably proscribed as promotion of or compulsion to believe in the third, fourth,
sixth, and eighth concepts under the IFA and Regulation 10.005; and (3) Regulation
10.005’s framework creates a credible threat of enforcement from UF and the
members of the Board of Governors. Accordingly, Professor Austin has
demonstrated that it would be reasonable for her to self-censor, conferring an injury
for purposes of standing as to the third, fourth, sixth, and eighth concepts.
If this analysis of the text is right, then I think it's bad policy. If even one concept bans what this Professor is doing, it's bad policy. This is the clearest one that jumped out at me. I'll study it again in more detail later and add to this.