Alabama Attorney General Supports Lawsuit on Education Practices
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has aligned with a coalition of 17 states backing the South Carolina Department of Education in a civil rights lawsuit concerning the teaching of race and gender issues.
This lawsuit was initiated in January against South Carolina’s education superintendent, Ellen Weaver, and two local school districts. The plaintiffs include the South Carolina NAACP Conference, several students from South Carolina, Dr. Ibram X. Kendi, and school librarians.
The plaintiffs argue that a budget provision passed by the state legislature last year undermines educational guidelines by imposing restrictions on how teachers address certain subjects.
The provision requires schools to assess whether traits commonly associated with meritocracy might be seen as perpetuating racism or sexism based on a student’s race. It also queries whether teaching about such sensitive topics can be considered oppressive.
Marshall’s office characterized the provision as an effort to prevent public schools from indoctrinating students with ideologies that divide along racial or gender lines.
“Public schools are meant to serve everyone’s interests, but many administrators in both Alabama and South Carolina have acknowledged that taxpayer money is often used to promote divisive ideologies,” Marshall stated. “The state has the constitutional power to halt such indoctrination.”
Alongside Marshall, other states including Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia have supported a brief in the District Court in Columbia, South Carolina.
In their correspondence to the court, Attorney General Marshall asserted that the budget provisions effectively ban certain materials from public schools altogether.
“While citizens have a First Amendment right to receive information, that does not grant them the authority to demand specific content from the government at taxpayer expense,” Marshall noted. “Thus, there isn’t a fundamental right to compel state-funded schools to adopt particular curricula or mandate that school libraries carry inflammatory materials.”
Marshall has requested the court deny the plaintiffs’ request for an interim injunction and dismiss the case entirely.
In January, NAACP President Brenda Murphy expressed that the budget clause would hinder important discussions around the history of racism in classrooms.
“This clause is a significant setback for South Carolina students. It’s a troubling attempt to erase crucial aspects of Black history from education, despite its vital role in our nation’s narrative,” Murphy argued.
“Let’s be clear: political efforts to rewrite history only foster ignorance and division,” she added. “This form of censorship is a serious threat to the inclusive education of all students, especially in a time when understanding cultural context is more essential than ever.”
Kendi echoed similar sentiments, asserting that such budget measures stifle educators from teaching about institutional racism.
“I feel it’s my responsibility to engage in this case as a passionate advocate for the freedom to read, as a concerned author who believes we must learn about the history of racism rather than ban literature about it, and as a historian observing the impacts of censorship on critical educational topics,” he stated.
A court hearing is scheduled for July 30 in Columbia, South Carolina, to determine if the plaintiffs will be granted a preliminary injunction.
