Seventh Circuit rules Indiana’s ‘intellectual diversity’ law doesn’t harm professors

A 2024 Indiana bill required professors to "expose students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks," which a group of professors said violated the First Amendment.CHICAGO (CN) — A Seventh Circuit panel on Thursday determined that an Indiana higher education law doesn’t infringe public university professors’ First Amendment rights.A 2024 Indiana bill added a provision to the state’s education code entitled “The Protection of Free Inquiry, Free Expression, and Intellectual Diversity,” which requires public university professors to “expose students to scholarly works from a variety of political or ideological frameworks." Professors who refuse to comply risk losing tenure or, in some cases, termination.But U.S. Circuit Judge Joshua Kolar wrote of the four Indiana public university professors, “The record does not show a credible threat of enforcement or an objectively reasonable chilling effect on their speech. We cannot discern how the act or policies compel the professors to self-censor as they did, or how the act or policies create a credible threat of enforcement.”The professors, two from Indiana University and two from Purdue University, argued before a three-judge panel in February that the statute forced them to significantly alter their curricula. They maintained that the law runs afoul to their First Amendment right to free speech. They maintained in February that the new law is a Catch-22.Kolar, a Joe Biden appointee, noted incidents cited by the professors where one taught a book they would otherwise have avoided or another faced complaints by students. Neither faced discipline when they either stopped teaching the book or the university looked into the complaints.“To be sure, the professors assert a fear that their uncensored speech might incur punishment under their reading of the act and policies. But this fear by itself ‘is insufficient to create standing’ under Article III.”U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young previously determined the law had a chilling effect, but ultimately ruled that the professors lacked adequate standing to bring the case forward because the law applies to the universities’ trustees, not the professors.While the panel agreed the professors could not establish standing, it diverged from the lower court by determining the professors don’t lack standing simply because the statute applies to them indirectly.“The act mandates that universities adopt certain policies that in turn must be applied to the professors when they seek promotion or when a university reviews their performance,” Kolar wrote. “Here, the state cannot insulate itself from constitutional claims by acting through a proxy, especially when that proxy is itself an arm of the state.”Ronald Reagan appointee-U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook fully agreed with the rest of the panel’s opinion, but went a step further. He wrote in his concurring opinion that he did not see how plaintiffs advanced their First Amendment argument.“Plaintiffs suppose that professors hold rights against universities about what shall be taught,” Easterbrook wrote. “Yet academic freedom belongs to the university.”Easterbrook maintained that because the public universities are a part of the state of Indiana, like other governments, they have a right to convey their own messages.“To enjoy this right the university must have teachers who will present the course of instruction it specifies,” he continued. “Professors’ speech in class has not been regulated; it has been hired.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads