On August 14, 2025, a federal judge issued a decision that has sent ripples through the academic and civil rights communities in Alabama and beyond. U.S. District Judge David Proctor declined to block Alabama’s controversial law, known as SB 129, which bans diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in public schools and restricts the teaching of what lawmakers have labeled “divisive concepts” related to race and gender. The law, which took effect on October 1, 2025, has become a focal point in the national debate over academic freedom, free speech, and the role of public education in addressing social issues.
SB 129’s reach is sweeping. According to Nexstar Media, the law prohibits public schools, including colleges and K-12 institutions, from funding or sponsoring any DEI program. DEI efforts are defined as programs, training, or events where attendance is based on “race, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation.” The law goes further, banning schools from requiring students to agree with or affirm eight so-called “divisive concepts.” These include the idea that individuals are inherently responsible for actions committed by others of the same race or sex, or that people are inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive based on their personal characteristics.
The measure was signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey last year, as part of a broader trend among Republican lawmakers nationwide to target DEI programs on college campuses. But the Alabama law also contains carve-outs: it explicitly allows for the teaching or discussion of these divisive concepts “in an objective manner and without endorsement as part of a larger course of academic instruction.”
The law’s critics, however, argue that these carve-outs are cold comfort. Earlier this year, six professors and students at the University of Alabama filed a lawsuit, claiming that SB 129 violates the First Amendment by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on what educators can teach. They also argued that the law is so ambiguous that it undermines due process, leaving instructors and students uncertain about what is actually prohibited. According to PEN America, the language could even bar public colleges from activities like creating programming specifically for international students or recognizing a Black student union.
University of Alabama social work professor Cassandra Simon voiced her confusion in court documents, stating, “I do not know what it means to discuss a divisive concept ‘in an objective manner’ and ‘without endorsement.’ There is robust empirical evidence of implicit bias, white privilege, and the absence of a colorblind meritocracy. I am unable to determine whether continuing to present these scholarly findings, and assigning readings on these subjects, would violate SB 129.” Simon’s concerns were not merely theoretical. One of her class assignments, which asked students to select and advocate for a social issue, was abruptly canceled. The university’s dean of social work intervened, worried that the assignment might compel students to affirm one of the banned divisive concepts. In response, Simon’s students organized a sit-in to protest SB 129, only to be told the assignment was off limits.
Other faculty members echoed similar worries. One plaintiff expressed concern over teaching topics such as structural racism, employment discrimination, and health disparities by race. Another raised the specter of being unable to adequately cover the history of eugenics. The anxiety was so palpable that, according to Nexstar Media, professors began reducing coverage of the Black Power movement, Black Lives Matter, and white nationalist movements in their courses. The university, for its part, shuttered designated spaces for the Black Student Union and a resource center for LGBTQ+ students, moves that plaintiffs say disproportionately harm Black and LGBTQ+ students.
Despite these concerns, Judge Proctor was unmoved by the plaintiffs’ arguments for a preliminary injunction. In his 146-page ruling, he wrote that the plaintiffs had not met the high legal bar required for such a remedy, which he described as “extraordinary and drastic.” Proctor emphasized that academic freedom does not override a university’s decisions about classroom instruction. He cited an appeals court case that found public colleges could “reasonably control the content of its curriculum, particularly that content imparted during class time.”
Addressing the ambiguity argument, Proctor wrote, “Importantly, SB 129 does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus or, for that matter, even from the classroom. To the contrary, it 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.” He offered an example: a professor could not “indoctrinate” students to believe that racial health disparities were the fault of one race, but could discuss the role of racism in health disparities if presented as theory or empirical evidence, framed objectively.
Proctor also dismissed Governor Ivey as a defendant, ruling that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries weren’t directly traceable to her. The civil lawsuit will proceed, but for now, the law remains in effect.
The reaction among faculty and civil liberties advocates was swift and pointed. Dana Patton, a University of Alabama professor and plaintiff in the case, said in a statement, “SB129 created a culture of fear that has severely hindered the ability of professors to provide comprehensive instruction in our areas of expertise. The law infringes on our academic freedom and our duty to students to provide a truthful and comprehensive education.”
Legal experts also weighed in. Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, criticized the decision as dangerous and at odds with decades of Supreme Court precedent. “Academic freedom protects the search for knowledge and truth from political pressure. That’s the whole point,” Creeley wrote. “Faculty are hired to share and hone their expertise in a given field of study, not to read from a government script.”
Supporters of SB 129, including state lawmakers, have argued that the law is necessary to ensure that public education remains neutral and does not compel students to accept controversial viewpoints. Alabama state Senator Will Barfoot, who sponsored the legislation, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
As the legal battle continues, the chilling effect described by educators appears likely to persist. Professors are left navigating a legal gray area, unsure how to balance the requirements of their disciplines with the restrictions of the law. Students, meanwhile, are caught in the crossfire—potentially deprived of the kind of robust, honest dialogue that higher education has long promised.
For now, SB 129 stands as both a symbol and a test case: a symbol of the growing national divide over how America reckons with its history and diversity, and a test case for the limits of academic freedom in the face of legislative intervention.