Academic Freedom Under Scrutiny: Legal and Educational Implications of Florida's Higher Education Reforms

I. Introduction

This article examines the legal and educational implications of recent legislative efforts by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to reshape higher education in the state. Through an analysis of key legislation, including the Stop W.O.K.E Act and Senate Bill 266 (SB 266), this research explores the broad implications of politically motivated higher education reforms on academic freedom, curriculum design, and institutional governance. Florida’s higher education system underwent a significant transformation during Governor Ron DeSantis’ second term, which was marked by a series of legislative interventions targeting perceived ideological biases in state universities. This paper critically examines these reforms' legal mechanisms and potential constitutional implications, which impact 12 universities and over 400,000 students in the State University System. It argues that under existing precedent, the topics prohibited by Stop W.O.K.E. and the restrictions on faculty autonomy through SB 266 contradict precedent and inhibit First Amendment rights and institutional governance.

II. Legislative Framework

A. Background on Higher Education Policy

Although SB 266 and the Stop W.O.K.E Act are the most sweeping pieces of legislation prohibiting broad swaths of topics and classes within Florida universities, DeSantis’s focus on higher education is not limited to SB 266 and Stop W.O.K.E. This section will describe some other higher education overhauls which DeSantis has spearheaded or supported during his tenure as Governor of Florida. In 2023 DeSantis signed Florida HB 999, SB 266’s House companion bill, into law, aiming to outlaw critical theory and remove diversity statements for use in university admissions and hiring [1]. HB 999 additionally prohibits state spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

HB 999 also set aside $3 million for the Hamilton College at UF, now known as the Hamilton Center, a college dedicated to teaching the history of Western civilization and philosophy[2]. The bill enumerates the Center’s purpose as, “to support teaching and research concerning the ideas, traditions, and texts that form the foundations of Western and American civilization [3].

The nonprofit Council on Public University Reform initially proposed the Hamilton Center and hired a former DeSantis chief of staff to lobby for its funding [4]. Further developing the rift between the humanities and legislation, in 2024, Florida’s public universities removed sociology as a core course option and replaced it with a “factual history course” after policymakers called it “woke” and “brazenly political” [5].

DeSantis's efforts continued at Sarasota's New College of Florida (NCF). Founded in the 1950s to provide an alternative education, NCF was traditionally viewed as a welcoming environment for those seeking a non-conventional liberal arts education, particularly within the LGBTQ+ community [6]. However, in early 2023, Governor DeSantis restructured the college, eliminating the college’s former administration and appointing conservative allies to the Board of Governors. This included Christopher Rufo, a prominent conservative activist and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute [7]. During DeSantis’s overhaul, Richard Cochran was brought in as President and swiftly dismissed as the Chief Diversity Officer. After receiving $15 million in state funding the university abolished the gender studies major and substantially changed the humanities curriculum [8].

B. The Stop “WOKE” Act

The Stop “WOKE” Act, formally titled the “Individual Freedom Act”, represents a pivotal piece of legislation designed to address what proponents characterize as ideological overreach in academic settings [9]. It prohibits instructors from teaching that individuals are “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.” It also prohibits teaching that people are privileged or oppressed based on race, gender, or national origin; or that a person “bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress” over past actions committed by members of the same race, gender, or national origin [10]. It presumes that racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination are purely individual failings and that college students should not be taught that injustices have a structural basis.

C. Senate Bill 266

SB266 introduced more specific restrictions, most notably:

1. Mandating the exclusion of identity politics from humanities courses
2. Materials from the “Western Canon” must be included in humanities courses.

To adhere to the law, Florida’s flagship public university, the University of Florida, formed a General Education Review Committee to evaluate the syllabi and approve or remove its general education distinction. In the 2024 spring semester, UF audited all syllabi to ensure compliance. On October 3, the Board of Trustees released the results of the General Education Committee. Of 1,181 active General Education courses, the committee determined that 702 were “not in compliance,” and removed their distinctions. Among those removed were The American Civil War and Reconstruction, Women in the Modern U.S., History of the Second World War, Religion and Society, and Religion and Violence.

III. Empirical Context and Contradictions

At the onset of his focus on higher education in 2021, Governor Ron DeSantis mandated the annual surveying of over 2 million students, faculty, and staff to identify potential political biases or anti-conservative sentiment [11]. Florida paused the law indefinitely after the 2022 survey was completed. Although the student responses were not statistically significant due to a low response rate, the faculty results opposed DeSantis’s claims of woke-ness invading academia. A majority of faculty described themselves as moderate, and a higher portion claimed to be conservative as opposed to liberal [12]. Yet, despite the results, DeSantis continued with his legislation and comments, insisting “wokeness” was the state’s primary enemy [13].

IV. Constitutional and Academic Freedom Implications

1. First Amendment protections for academic speech

First Amendment protections for academic speech have been a subject of significant legal debate. In landmark cases, such as Sweezy v. New Hampshire [14], and Keyishian v. Board of Regents [15], the Supreme Court established the foundation for constitutional protection of academic freedom. These cases emphasize the crucial role of free inquiry and expression and educational institutions, with the Court stating in Keyishian that academic freedom is “a special concern of the First Amendment” [16]. These cases establish that public universities, as state entities, cannot impose ideological orthodoxy or suppress lawful expression.

However, the scope of First Amendment protection for academic speech is not absolute. As government entities, public universities are subject to First Amendment restrictions and cannot infringe on individual freedom of speech. Consequently, they can still place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech to ensure it does not disrupt the ordinary university activities. For example, policies must avoid targeting specific ideologies, as seen in Healy v. James [17], which barred public institutions from denying recognition to student groups based on their viewpoints. Administrations may regulate speech that incites violence, constitutes harassment, or disrupts the campus.

Indiana’s attempt to classify professors' classroom speech as “state speech” and thus unprotected sparked a backlash [18]. Legal scholars cited Keyishian’s rejection of the “pall of orthodoxy” over academia [19]. However, courts have consistently rejected this argument by re-forming faculty rights to academic freedom [20]. While the First Amendment does not bind private universities, federal proposals require them to disclose speech policies annually [21]. Justice Frankfurter noted in Sweezy that universities must remain “factories of knowledge” rather than “conformity machines” [22].

More recently, tensions between free speech and academic freedom were regulated through Meriwether v. Hartop. In 2016, a university professor refused to address a transgender student by their chosen pronoun, claiming to do so would violate his religious beliefs. Upon administrative discipline, the professor sued the school under a free speech claim [23]. The Sixth Circuit ruled in his favor, determining that the issue qualified as a “matter of public concern” due to the social relevance of debates on transgenderism, and therefore the professor’s speech was protected under the First Amendment [24].

Under the Meriwether decision, university administration cannot regulate faculty’s speech in the classroom, as it is protected under the First Amendment. When applied to the Florida university system, the topics prohibited by the Stop W.O.K.E Act should, in practice, be unenforceable. The law starkly opposes this precedent, preventing professors from exercising the free speech protected under the First Amendment.

This precedent, in which comments on “matters of public concern” are protected, could be used in Florida faculty’s favor to argue that their speech about critical race theory, identity politics, and so on, qualify as “matters of public opinion” given their high publicity, ironically driven in part by the onset of these laws [25].

2. Institutional autonomy in curriculum design

Legal conflicts between the academic freedom of professors and state legislation regulation of that freedom are concentrated mainly in 1950s and '60s cases. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges and Universities define the standard of academic freedom for professors in a 1940 statement, which reads:

Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment [26].

The First Amendment, although relevant, does not offer sweeping protections for public university faculty; the Supreme Court provides no clear guidance on the limits of academic freedom. However, previous cases regarding academic freedom provide some precedent, though it’s not all-encapsulating. The 1967 New York case Keyishian v. Board of Regents outlawed the use of “loyalty oaths” for professors, who were compelled to sign statements indicating they were not and had never been Communists [27].

Sweezy v. New Hampshire heard the arguments of a professor who was jailed for refusing to testify about a speech he had given at a university. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the former, determining that the professor’s First Amendment rights in his position overruled his alleged “subversive” associations [28]. The concurring opinion, written by Justice Frankfurter, cited, “the grave harm resulting from governmental intrusion into the intellectual life of a university.”

The Supreme Court also heard Shelton v. Tucker, in which an Arkansas statute required teachers in public schools and colleges to disclose any extracurricular associations they held within the last five years [29]. The Court ruled in favor of the teachers, determining that the statute infringed upon their 14th Amendment rights—specifically the due process clause—protecting them from state-sponsored invasion.

Demers v. Austin established a different precedent. After publicly criticizing Washington State University, where he was tenured, Prof. David Demers argued that the administration’s alleged unnecessary internal audit and biased performance rankings were a First Amendment violation [30]. The court disagreed, stating the professor’s comments connected directly to his job; his remarks were not that of a private citizen, but in his role as a faculty member, and therefore, his speech was not protected by the First Amendment. An appeal ended in the same result; however, the U.S Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit eventually remanded and modified its opinion, stating that Demers’ remarks fell under “potentially protected speech” [31]. Demers and the other aforementioned cases provide a hazy precedent for the rights of university faculty; do professors have protected speech in the classroom and intellectual control over course design?

In the face of STOP W.O.K.E and SB 266, professors cite the issue of self-censorship as the most immediate concern; many describe the fear of violating the law despite their rights. Avoiding legal battles is an effective deterrent to mentioning the topics listed in the law [32].

Legally, the precedent above provides a hazy background for faculty members wanting to assert their autonomy in course design. Beyond dismissal from the institution due to violating the law, faculty are also subject to post-tenure review in a provision of SB 266. In effect, at UF, 2.2% of reviews were marked as “unsatisfactory” [33]. So, discerning the law's legality is met with significant obstacles to the material conditions of any potential plaintiff. However, Demers presents an interesting precedent that could be used in favor of professors. To restrict entire swaths of potential course material, notably in specific disciplines, as Stop W.O.K.E and SB 266 do, the professors are being subject not just to restrictions on particular remarks or criticism, as Demers had, but entire blocks of knowledge which could arguably intrude on the private intellectual life of professors. In this way, then, a legal challenge to the Florida laws could align with an argument like Sweezy.

3. The appropriate balance between legislative oversight and academic freedom

The relationship between legislative oversight and academic freedom in Florida’s higher education system has become increasingly contentious. The fundamental tension is balancing the states' legitimate interest in overseeing public institutions while preserving the essential academic freedom that enables universities to fulfill their mission of advancing knowledge and fostering critical thinking.

Proponents of recent measures that significantly impact curriculum content, hiring practices and institutional governance, argue that these measures ensure transparency, fiscal responsibility, and alignment with Florida’s values. However, critics contend that such detailed legislative descriptions risk undermining the fundamental principles of academic inquiry and institutional autonomy that historically characterize American higher education. Faculty members have had to forgo presenting their research at academic conferences due to discriminatory funding restrictions, which could potentially harm Florida universities, its research output, and its reputation. Furthermore, the vague language in some laws is forcing educators to self-censor, potentially depriving students of comprehensive education and stifling open dialogue [34]. This restrictive academic environment could lead to a brain drain, with faculty and students leaving Florida institutions or choosing not to come in the first place. This could result in a talent exodus and diminish the state's education and research quality. The ongoing legal actions against these laws, such as the federal lawsuit filed by Florida educators against S.B. 266, indicate a contentious future for higher education policy in the state, potentially creating uncertainty and instability in the higher education system.

The perception and reality of Florida’s universities as institutions with limited academic freedom could harm national and international reputation, potentially affecting rankings, research, collaborations, and student recruitment. The transformation of education in the state, replacing expertise with politically motivated curricula, could negatively impact the overall quality of education. If the appropriate balance between legislative oversight and academic freedom is not maintained, Florida’s higher education system risks becoming less competitive, diverse, and capable of producing well-rounded graduates. The long-term consequences could extend beyond the education sector and affect Florida’s economy, innovation, capacity, and cultural vibrancy.

The Stop W.O.K.E Act's content-based restrictions go far beyond the "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions" that courts have found constitutional, instead imposing viewpoint-based prohibitions that target specific theories and concepts [35]. Under established First Amendment jurisprudence, such content-based restrictions must survive strict scrutiny, requiring the state to demonstrate a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. The Act's broad prohibitions on teaching concepts central to multiple academic disciplines fail this test, as its sweeping restrictions are neither narrowly tailored nor connected to a compelling state interest that couldn't be addressed through less restrictive means.

Unlike the loyalty oaths struck down in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, which required explicit statements of allegiance, the Stop W.O.K.E Act creates an implicit loyalty test for faculty by requiring adherence to state-approved narratives about structural inequalities. This represents an increasing intrusion of government control and oversight into academia–from demanding explicit political statements to mandating specific pedagogical approaches. The Act effectively transforms teaching structural racism from protected academic discourse into forbidden speech, despite the Court's clear guidance in Keyishian that universities must remain spaces where established doctrine can be challenged and where the "marketplace of ideas" determines validity, not government decree [36].

The Act's content restrictions create a paradox when viewed alongside *Meriwether v. Hartop'*s protection of speech on "matters of public concern” [37]. By legislatively targeting concepts like "privilege" and "unconscious bias" for suppression, Florida has ironically elevated these topics to matters of public concern, the very category afforded heightened First Amendment protection in Meriwether v. Hartop. This creates an untenable legal contradiction that the same topics that courts have recognized as deserving robust protection due to their public relevance are precisely those the Act seeks to restrict. This establishes an arbitrary distinction that fails constitutional scrutiny for viewpoint neutrality.

VI. Future Significance

These Florida-based initiatives represent a strategic alignment with broader national conservative educational reform efforts, extending well beyond state boundaries [38]. Similar legislation has emerged in 30 states [39], while organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute [40] and Heritage Foundation [41] have provided intellectual frameworks mirroring Florida's approach. This national coordination is further evidenced by proposed federal legislation conditioning institutional funding on ideological metrics, prominent Republican figures framing universities as sites requiring ideological intervention, and coordinated rhetoric describing academia as captured by progressive ideologies. The consequences of Florida's reforms will likely establish significant precedents for higher education governance nationwide. As legal challenges progress through federal courts, judicial rulings will clarify constitutional boundaries between legislative oversight and academic freedom, potentially affecting institutions across all states. Furthermore, Florida's approach may serve as a legislative template for other conservative-led states, fundamentally altering state-university relationships, reshaping academic disciplines to accommodate political pressures, and potentially triggering shifts in enrollment patterns, philanthropic support, and public perception of higher education's core purpose and value in American society. The constitutional analysis of the Stop W.O.K.E Act will likely influence how courts evaluate similar legislation in other states, thus establishing a national precedent rejecting content-based restrictions on academic speech that impose government-approved orthodoxy over university classrooms.

VII. Conclusion

Governor DeSantis’ higher education reforms represent a profound and potentially transformative approach to managing academic institutions. While ostensibly aimed at promoting intellectual diversity, these legislative interventions risk compromising the fundamental principles of scholarly inquiry and free intellectual exploration. The long-term implications of such legislative approaches extend beyond Florida, potentially serving as a model for educational reform and other conservative-led states. Continued scholarly examination and judicial scrutiny will be critical and understanding the broader ramifications of these unprecedented educational policy interventions.

Bibliography

[1] CS/CS/HB 999: Postsecondary Educational Institutions, 2023 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2023).

[2] Bailly, Sophia & Gary, Alissa. “Hamilton Center Emphasizing Apolitical Position Following Controversial Foundation,” The Independent Fla. Alligator, Dec. 4, 2023, https://www.alligator.org/article/2023/12/hamilton-center-emphasizing-apolitical-position-following-controversial-foundation.

[3] CS/CS/CS/SB 266: Higher Education, 2023 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2023).

[4] Quinn, Ryan. “The Curious Rise of a Conservative—or Civic-Minded?—Center at the University of Florida,” July 23, 2024. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/shared-governance/2024/07/23/curious-rise-conservative-or-civic-minded-uf.

[5] Hartocollis, Anemona. "Florida Universities Move to Eliminate Sociology as a Core Course Option," The New York Times, January 24, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/24/us/florida-universities-sociology.html.

[6] Staff. “Anatomy of a political takeover at Florida public college,” AP News, March 30, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/desantis-new-college-florida-woke-timeline-5a5bcd78230ddd2a1adb8021fea8a755.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Mazzei, Patricia. “Sports Are In, Gender Studies Are Out at College Targeted by DeSantis,” September 23, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/us/new-college-florida-desantis.html.

[9] CS/HB 7, Individual Freedom, 2022 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2022).

[10] Fla. S. Comm. on Education, Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement for CS/HB 7 (2022), https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2022/html/2809.

[11] McDonald, Sandra. "Florida suspends campus political surveys championed by DeSantis," Tampa Bay Times, September 13, 2023, https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2023/09/13/florida-desantis-college-surveys-intellectual-freedom-political-ideology-suspends/.

[12] Allen, Carissa. "New surveys of Florida colleges fail to support concerns of anti-conservative sentiment," WUSF Public Media, October 14, 2022, https://www.wusf.org/politics-issues/2022-10-14/new-surveys-florida-colleges-fail-support-concerns-anti-conservative-sentiment.

[13] Goldberg, Michelle. “Ron DeSantis vs. the ‘Woke Mind Virus’,” The New York Times, May 25, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/opinion/ron-desantis-woke-mind-virus.html.

[14] Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957).

[15] Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).

[16] Ibid.

[17] Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972).

[18] Quinn, Ryan. "Indiana Says Professors Lack First Amendment Rights," Inside Higher Ed, August 14, 2024, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/08/14/indiana-says-professors-lack-first-amendment-rights.

[19] Heins, Marjorie. "The 'Pall of Orthodoxy' Over the Classroom: Lessons from the Great Keyishian Case," History of Education Quarterly 58, no. 1 (February 2018): 94-125, https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2018.18.

[20] Miller, Vanessa. "59 years: Commemorating the academic freedom legacy of Sweezy v. New Hampshire," Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, June 17, 2016, https://www.thefire.org/news/59-years-commemorating-academic-freedom-legacy-sweezy-v-new-hampshire.

[21] Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, "Private Universities," FIRE, accessed February 12, 2025, https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/private-universities.

[22] 354 U.S. 234, 263 (1957).

[23] Meriwether v. Hartop, No. 20-3289, 2021 WL 1165710 (6th Cir. Mar. 26, 2021).

[24] Ibid.

[25] Brian Kisida, Gary Ritter, Jennifer Gontram, J. Cameron Anglum, Heidi H. Erickson, Darnell Leatherwood, Matthew H. Lee, Bridging the Divide over Critical Race Theory in America’s Classrooms, EDUCATION NEXT (Apr. 2, 2025), https://www.educationnext.org/bridging-the-divide-over-critical-race-theory-americas-classrooms-debate-woke-instruction/.

[26] “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.” AAUP, December 13, 2024. https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure.

[27] Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).

[28] 354 U.S. 234 (1957).

[29] Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960).

[30] Demers v. Austin, 729 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2013).

[31] Eubem, Donna. "Academic Freedom of Professors and Institutions," May, 2022, https://www.aaup.org/issues/academic-freedom/professors-and-institutions.

[32] Harris, Peyton. “‘A Political Weapon’: UF Community Left Divided on How to Navigate Florida’s New 'Stop Woke’ Act.” The Independent Florida Alligator, August 29, 2022, https://www.alligator.org/article/2022/08/hb-7.

[33] Wang, Timothy. “UF law professor challenges state constitutionality of tenure changes,” The Independent Florida Alligator, August 5, 2024, https://www.alligator.org/article/2024/08/uf-law-professor-challenges-state-constitutionality-of-tenure-changes.

[34] ACLU. “Florida Educators File Federal Lawsuit to Challenge Florida’s S.B. 266, Defending Academic Freedom and Free Speech.” ACLU Florida, January 16, 2025.

[35] U.S. Congress. Freedom of Speech: An Overview (2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47986.

[36] 385 U.S. 589 (1967).

[37] Meriwether v. Hartop, No. 20-3289, 2021 WL 1165710 (6th Cir. Mar. 26, 2021).

[38] "Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Legislation to Strengthen Florida's Position Nationally," Florida Governor's Office, 2023, https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2023/governor-ron-desantis-signs-legislation-strengthen-floridas-position-national.

[39] Pidluzny, Jonathan, and Matthew Lobel. "30 State Higher Education Policy Priorities of the America First Agenda." America First Policy Institute, November 2, 2023. https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/30-state-higher-education-policy-priorities-of-the-america-first-agenda.

[40] Akers, Beth. "A Conservative Vision for Higher Education Reform," American Enterprise Institute, Feb 24, 2025. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/a-conservative-vision-for-higher-education-reform/.

[41] Burke, Lindsey, and Matthew Ladner. "Closing the Racial Achievement Gap: Learning from Florida's Reforms." The Heritage Foundation, September 17, 2010. https://www.heritage.org/education/report/closing-the-racial-achievement-gap-learning-floridas-reforms.