Senate Bill 129 Controversy in Alabama
On Monday, both sides involved with Senate Bill 129 submitted an exhibit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, requesting an injunction to prevent professors and students from implementing the new state law. Enacted during the 2024 legislative session, SB129 restricts discussions about a certain “splitting concept.”
According to reports from various University of Alabama student publications, testimonies during a recent hearing indicated that the environment created by SB129 negatively impacts the academic setting. Dana Patton, a political science professor, expressed concerns at a press conference on June 26, noting that instructors now hesitate to say certain things in class. One senior from the University of Alabama at Birmingham also mentioned that fear influences academic freedom and the classroom discussions.
The exhibit submitted aims to demonstrate how SB129 affects professors’ ability to teach at the University of Alabama. It highlights both administrative attention and coordinated pressure from community members who perceive certain courses as unpatriotic.
In an email, University of Alabama Provost James Dalton indicated that he had to focus on the complaints from faculty about potential violations rather than pursuing strict punishment for confirmed infractions. This reply came after Professor John Petrovich expressed dissatisfaction with how the administration’s response to SB129 bred “distrust, anxiety, and fear.” Petrovich criticized Dalton’s remarks about the cancellation of a reported class “sit-in.”
Petrovich emphasized that the anxiety stemming from SB129 could lead to a detrimental environment for academic freedom. He urged the University to align with principles set forth by Judge Brennan, cautioning against potential legal entanglements by adhering strictly to the law.
Another email from the plaintiffs revealed concerns about a “concerning change” in the prestigious Robert Witt University Fellows Program, specifically regarding the course “Understanding Poverty” taught by Patton. She noted that complaints had been compiled by a “powerful Montgomery figure,” prompting her to engage with Rep. Danny Garrett during a football game.
Responses from unnamed students included statements like, “The program feels anti-American,” and “The idea is that America’s dreams are bad.” Patton also pointed out the administration’s failure to verify whether these comments were made by students in her class.
The majority of complaints focused on disapproval of required readings. One quote attributed to students criticized assigned books for promoting landowners and capitalists, while others claimed a lack of diverse opinions among the texts. The five books assigned in Patton’s course largely authored by Matthew Desmond discuss poverty but do not explicitly support communist or socialist ideologies.
Dalton confirmed that the University looked into the complaints but noted that Dr. Patton was not disciplined. When asked about the course content, the administration reportedly sought to understand how to foster classroom discussions.
During her testimony in June, Patton mentioned altering her syllabus due to concerns about student reactions to the assigned documentary. In a memo addressed to the Associate Provost and the Dean of Honorary College, she asserted that she has never compelled her students to accept any viewpoints related to the “schizoidal concept.”
Another faculty member, Richard Fording, remarked that he ceased teaching the politics of poverty course since SB129’s implementation, citing conflicts with educational standards that are critical of the law.
On behalf of Governor Ivey, the Attorney General’s Office outlined in March that Alabama law contrasts with constitutional promises of equality, stating that the curriculum should not enforce discriminatory concepts.
Further briefings are anticipated as the court prepares to evaluate whether to issue a temporary injunction.
