Judge Rules in Favor of Community College Diversity Policies
A recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff has brought to light the contentious issue surrounding diversity and equity policies in California’s community colleges. The case, filed on behalf of professors at State Center Community College District in Fresno, sought to challenge the enforcement of diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion (DEIA) principles within the California Community Colleges system.
The plaintiffs, led by English professor Loren Palsgaard and chemistry professor Bill Blanken, raised concerns that these policies infringed on their academic freedom and free speech rights. Palsgaard highlighted his reluctance to assign Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” while Blanken expressed fears of potential repercussions for not mentioning the races of historical figures like Marie Curie or Robert Boyle.
In a surprising turn of events, Judge Sherriff dismissed the case, citing a lack of evidence that the professors faced a credible threat of enforcement of the regulations against them. This decision has sparked discussions among legal experts, free-speech advocates, and the academic community at large.
The Background of the Case
The controversy surrounding the California Community Colleges’ diversity and equity policies stems from the 2022 adoption of regulations by the board of governors. These regulations mandated that all 73 local districts evaluate their employees, including faculty, on their ability to engage effectively with a diverse student population. With over 70% of California’s 2.1 million community college students identifying as non-white, the push for greater inclusivity was seen as a step towards improving student outcomes.
The State Center Community College District, where the plaintiffs were based, had already complied with these regulations by incorporating them into a faculty union contract. However, the professors argued that the evaluation criteria, specifically focusing on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility principles, posed a threat to their academic freedom and right to express dissenting viewpoints.
Expert Insights and Legal Analysis
Daniel Ortner, the plaintiffs’ attorney from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), expressed his intention to review the judge’s decision and consult with his clients. Ortner’s involvement underscores the broader implications of this case on free speech advocacy and academic freedom within the higher education landscape.
Judge Sherriff’s ruling shed light on the legal intricacies surrounding the case. He emphasized that the concerns raised by the professors stemmed largely from non-binding recommendations and guidelines from the Chancellor’s Office, rather than explicit contractual obligations. Moreover, Sherriff clarified that decisions regarding faculty employment, such as hiring, evaluations, and terminations, fell under the jurisdiction of the local districts, not the statewide regulations.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Academic Freedom
As the legal battle over diversity and equity policies in California’s community colleges continues, the implications for academic freedom and free speech remain at the forefront of the debate. With similar cases emerging in other districts, such as the lawsuit brought by history professor Daymon Johnson at Bakersfield College, the broader academic community is closely monitoring the outcomes and potential precedents set by these legal challenges.
In conclusion, the dismissal of the case by Judge Sherriff marks a crucial moment in the ongoing dialogue surrounding diversity, equity, and free speech in higher education. While the specific implications for the plaintiffs at State Center Community College District are yet to be fully realized, the broader impact on academic freedom and institutional policies is a matter of significant interest and debate in the academic and legal spheres alike.
