The UA chapter of the NAACP hosted a discussion on what recent Alabama legislation means for students on Thursday.
Lawyers from the Legal Defense Fund spoke on the lawsuit filed against the UA System Board of Trustees and Gov. Kay Ivey for the system’s enforcement of Alabama’s Senate Bill 129, and faculty members, staff and students expressed their grievances with the law.
“SB129 is a law that impacts a lot of students and professors on different First Amendment and 14th Amendment issues, and it basically censors professors in terms of what they can and can’t teach, which also impacts what students can and can’t learn,” said Loreal Hawk, a lawyer for LDF. “LDF has partnered with the ACLU of Alabama and the NAACP to bring our lawsuit called Simon v. Ivey.”
Simon v. Ivey was filed Jan. 14, with UA professors, UAB students, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP listed as plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asked the court to immediately halt the implementation of the law.
“If our motion is granted, then we can go back to a restoration of how things were before SB129,” Hawk said, adding that funding and program cuts resulting from the bill should be returned until the suit is settled.
The lawsuit argues that the law is unconstitutionally vague and has been arbitrarily enforced, sparking fear in instructors who worry about being fired for teaching classes they have taught for years.
The lawyers explained how they believe the vague wording of the bill is impacting people in education.
“One of the things that we’re also challenging the lawsuit as is vague, because it’s very unclear how they’re applying what the language of SB129 says, versus how it’s actually impacting students on the ground,” Hawk said.
The ambiguity in SB129 makes schools compelled to cut more funding and programs than is actually required by the bill, Ingram said.
“When the schools don’t know how to interpret it, they over comply, because they’re afraid of penalties,” said Antonio Ingram, senior counsel for the LDF.
Ingram explained that the origin of the “divisive concepts” in the law is an executive order that President Donald Trump issued in 2020, which was rescinded by former President Joe Biden. Among other restrictions in the law, SB129 limits teaching of “divisive concepts.”
Similar laws in many states have been challenged and the plaintiffs have won, so Ingram is hopeful that Simon v. Ivey will be successful.
“There have been challenges in Florida, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and every place where this has been challenged, the plaintiffs have won,” Ingram said. “These laws are vague, they’re discriminatory, and so we can’t predict what will happen in Alabama, but we’re hopeful that we could get relief here.”
