Alabama’s SB129 and the Battle for Free Speech
In October of 2024, Alabama passed Senate Bill 129 (SB129), a pervasive legislative measure that seeks to curb discussions of race, gender, and inequality in public universities under the pretense of preventing “divisive concepts.” At an initial glance, the bill’s language indicates a commitment to fostering unity and preventing discrimination. In practice, though, it is a blatant attack against academic freedom and free expression. This passage of SB129 has fueled a firestorm, with the Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU of Alabama filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of Alabama’s educators, students, and the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP. As a result of their preliminary injunction, they argued that because SB129 infringes on the constitutional right to free speech and due process, it is a direct violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. For Alabama, this law exists at a politically fraught junction, where freedom of expression and political control are at an unstable balance. At its core, SB129 is more than a political maneuver. The law’s ambiguous language establishes frightening implications, the most direct discouraging educators from discussing topics considering race, gender, and inequality, for fear of legal repercussions. Without clear guidelines on enforcement, educators and students are forced to confront and wade through a murky legal landscape.
The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, a protection that extends to academic institutions, seeking to ensure that educators and students can explore any and all ideas without government intervention or censorship. SB129 directly breaches this protected principle by specifically restricting certain viewpoints in public education. From implicit bias research to color-blind meritocracy practices, any kind of classroom conversation considering race, gender, or inequality could face the risk of being deemed unlawful under SB129’s broad prohibitions. This law does not seek neutrality; rather, it silences organic debate and perspectives that look to challenge a dominant ideological framework. The precedent here is dangerous–one in which the government dictates what is and what is not permissible discourse. SB129 actively hollows out the intellectual scholarship and debate demanded by higher education institutions. Legislative censorship of this kind hinders our safeguarded marketplace of ideas, a fundamental component of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Beyond its clear violation of the First Amendment, SB129 also crudely runs astray of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections. The law’s deliberately vague language makes it virtually impossible for educators and students to determine what constitutes a violation, leaving them frequently vulnerable to arbitrary enforcement and legal punishment. It remains unclear, for instance, whether discussing key historical events such as the civil rights movement or LGBTQIA+ rights could trigger legal repercussions under SB129. The law fails to define what constitutes a “divisive concept” or a “diversity, equity, and inclusion program,” fostering a culture of fear and self-censorship in Alabama’s classroom spaces. Such legal ambiguity violates due process by depriving individuals of adequate information regarding what kind of conduct is and is not prohibited. SB129 essentially constructs an educational minefield in which every classroom discussion bears the potential for punitive action.
SB129 does not exist as unique legislation; rather, it is part of a broader conservative political strategy orchestrated to disrupt progressive discourse and curtail academic freedom in the name of “preventing discrimination.” We can see this broader trend through emerging legislative efforts across the country, most notably Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” and the “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” law. Florida’s Stop WOKE Act (House Bill 7), similar to SB129, prohibits discussions that challenge conversations surrounding race and gender. The act prohibits educational instruction that implies that individuals retain blame for historical injustices based on their race, sex, or national origin. Seeking to suppress critical conversations about systemic inequality in the United States, the Stop WOKE Act, like SB129, imposes ideological conformity in the sphere of public education. Further, Florida’s House Bill 1557, commonly referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” law, similarly restricts classroom discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity, especially in early education. Much like SB129’s fundamental violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, the “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” law’s ambiguous phrasing creates mass uncertainty, only allowing discussions when deemed “age-appropriate.” Together, these two laws represented a concerted, intentional effort to reverse progress on social justice issues by regulating academic discourse. Alabama’s SB129 exists as the newest installment in this larger, all-encompassing conservative campaign
SB129 is riddled with constitutional violations, and the courts need to act to block its enforcement. Allowing such a law to continue to stand will not only harm Alabama’s education system but will set a dangerous precedent for academic censorship in higher institutions across the nation. Protected under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has a history of defending the right to academic freedom, evident in landmark cases like Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which reaffirmed the right that educational institutions must remain safeguarders of free thought and academic expression. Alabama’s SB129 assails this precedent, actively destroying any practice of these constitutional protections.
SB129 is more than simply a misguided piece of legislation. It is an outright attack on academic freedom, designed in a way to suppress marginalized voices and nurture a culture of fear in educators and students. Through stifling discussions on race, gender, and inequality, the Alabama law looks to assert a sanitized, politically motivated version of history at the expense of intellectual rigor, truth, and pursuit. The courts must push to intervene and block SB129’s enforcement and reaffirm the constitutional rights of Alabama’s higher institutions. If the government fails to do so, we should expect further legislative attacks on free speech, not only in Alabama but nationwide. As education continues to be at the top of the Supreme Court’s political docket, it is imperative that we defend the fundamental principles of academic freedom, ensuring that universities exist as a place for open inquiry, instead of instruments of ideological suppression.
Bibliography
[1] ACLU of Alabama. “SB129 - Anti-DEI.” ACLU of Alabama. https://www.aclualabama.org/en/legislation/sb129-anti-dei.
[2] Alabama State Legislature. Senate Bill 129. Regular Session 2024.
[3] Bell, Stuart R. “A Message from the President: UA Update on Alabama Act 2024-34, Senate Bill 129.” University of Alabama. July 23, 2024. https://president.ua.edu/news/a-message-from-the-president-ua-update-on-alabama-act-2024-34-senate-bill-129/.
[4] Florida Legislature. House Bill 7: Individual Freedom Act. Regular Session 2022.
[5] Florida Legislature. House Bill 1557: Parental Rights in Education Act. Regular Session 2022.
[6] “Guidance for Compliance with Federal Law (SB129).” University of Alabama at Birmingham. https://www.uab.edu/compliance/areas-of-focus/emerging-laws-regulations-policies/guidance-for-compliance-with-federal-law-sb129.
[7] U.S. Constitution, amend. I.
[8] U.S. Constitution, amend. XIV.