The landscape of academic freedom in Florida has been significantly altered following a recent federal court decision. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has maintained a block on a portion of Florida’s ‘Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (WOKE) Act,’ which sought to limit certain discussions in public university classrooms.
This ruling has ignited a fierce debate over the boundaries of state control and the principles of free speech in educational institutions. The case, brought forth by a coalition of university professors and supported by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, challenges the state’s authority to dictate what can be taught in higher education.
The Court’s Decision and Its Implications
A three-judge panel on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling that Florida’s attempt to control the speech of its employees, including college professors, was an overreach of state power. Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee, authored the opinion, which was joined by Judge Charles Wilson, a Clinton appointee.
Grant’s opinion emphasized that the state’s actions represented a breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in places recognized as centers of inquiry. The ruling underscored that hearing an idea one disagrees with is not discrimination but an opportunity for intellectual growth.
The decision prevents Florida from enforcing parts of the ‘Stop WOKE’ Act, which was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2026. The act aimed to prevent professors from endorsing certain precepts of critical race theory, including eight specific tenets. For instance, the law banned instruction that caused students to feel guilt or psychological distress due to past actions of other members of the same race.
The Debate Over Academic Freedom
Supporters of the law argued that it was necessary to halt teachings that supported racial discrimination. However, opponents contended that the law was an attempt to suppress candid discussions about historic racial issues such as slavery and the Jim Crow era.
Other parts of the law sought to ban workplace training on racial, gender, and sexual orientation issues, but these provisions have already been struck down by federal courts. The ruling has sparked a broader conversation about the role of state governments in shaping educational content and the limits of state power in academic settings.
The Dissenting Opinion
Judge Barbara Lagoa, also a Trump appointee, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the state had the right to restrict the speech of professors in the classroom. Lagoa asserted that the First Amendment protects all viewpoints but does not compel the state to endorse all viewpoints. She argued that the state should have the authority to decide what is endorsed by its professors in its own classrooms.
Before her appointment to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Lagoa served on the Florida supreme court as an appointee of Governor DeSantis. Her dissent highlights the ongoing tension between state control and academic freedom in Florida.
The majority opinion, however, argued that while courts should not police curriculum, they must intervene when the government unduly restricts speech. Judge Grant stated that the First Amendment protects against the government forbidding what it perceives as heresy, emphasizing the importance of free expression in educational settings.
As the debate continues, the state of Florida may request the court to rehear the case or petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. This case could set a precedent for future discussions on academic freedom and state control in educational institutions.
