Case 4:22-cv-00324-MW-MAF Document 44 Filed 11/17/22 Page 118 of 139
Defendants cite the Florida Board of Education’s “useful, albeit obvious, description of the distinction between discussion and endorsement.” ECF No. 52 at 36, in Case No.: 4:22cv304-MW/MAF. The quoted rule suggests that “teachers serve as facilitators for student discussion and do not share their personal views or attempt to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 6A-1.0941424(3)(c)).[1] But this quoted language suggests that teachers should avoid persuading students “to a particular point of view,” either by approving of particular viewpoints or by criticizing those
- ↑ Defendants do not cite the full rule. Rule 6A-1.0941424(3)(c) provides in full, “Efficient and faithful teaching further means that any discussion is appropriate for the age and maturity level of the students, and teachers serve as facilitators for student discussion and do not share their personal views or attempt to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point of view that is inconsistent with the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards and the Benchmarks for Excellent Student Thinking (B.E.S.T.) Standards.” It thus defines “efficient and faithful teaching” to include refraining from sharing personal views or persuading students to points of view that are inconsistent with state standards applicable to public K-12 schools. See § 1003.42(2), Fla. Stat. (2022).
classroom.” See ECF No. 19-12, in Case No.: 4:22cv324-MW/MAF (January 26, 2022, House Judiciary Committee Hearing). Thus, Representative Avila’s definition of “objective” hinges upon the subjective response of the professor’s students. Such a standard can hardly be considered objective in any sense of the word. Indeed, it makes it impossible for a professor to know for certain what speech violates the IFA. To put it plainly, Representative Avila’s view of the IFA offers a heckler’s veto to the professor’s students. His understanding of “objectivity” would force professors to walk on eggshells when discussing certain topics to avoid upsetting the most sensitive or unreasonable student in class. How, under such a standard, would a professor be able to discuss topics like discrimination, racism, or even the civil rights movement and know beforehand which viewpoints are allowed if a student like Richard Spencer, or any other white supremacist, was enrolled in their course? See, e.g., National Policy Institute’s Richard Spencer speaking engagement confirmed for Oct 19 at UF, University of Florida Media Advisory, https://news.ufl.edu/for-media/media-advisories/archive/2017/10/national-policy-institutes-richard-spencer-speech-confirmed-for-oc.html (last visited Nov. 2, 2022) (noting that “UF leadership has denounced Spencer’s white supremacist rhetoric”).
118
