PolitiFact flags this claim as false:

<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/25/viral-imag...>

"New Florida law doesn't require university students, faculty and staff to register political views"

We shall see this fall; the bill does not mention anonymity and desantis’ intent was pretty clear

Title is false - students and professors are not required to do anything.

The article points to https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/06/22/st..., which says:

In his continued push against the “indoctrination” of students, Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday signed legislation that will require public universities and colleges to survey students, faculty and staff about their beliefs and viewpoints to support “intellectual diversity.”

Text from the law in the linked article:

>The State Board of Education shall require each Florida College System institution to conduct an annual assessment of the intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity at that institution. The State Board of Education shall select or create an objective, nonpartisan, and statistically valid survey to be used by each institution which considers the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented and members of the college community, including students, faculty, and staff, feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom. The State Board of Education shall annually compile and publish the assessments by September 1 of each year, beginning on September 1, 2022. The State Board of Education may adopt rules to implement this paragraph.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/233/BillText/er/P...

It's very similar to the language used Department of Education surveys about the racial and gender makeup of schools, I suspect intentionally. In that case I haven't seen those described as "requiring students to register their race".

It's midterm (political not academic) season.

“Survey” sounds more like a study, but it’s not required to answer? That’s a big difference.

Consider the “gay the census“ movement in 2020, or asking about immigration. The state can ask for a questionnaire and they can ask for your answers, but requiring those answers, and attaching employment to those answers, is it entirely different matter.

Florida is giving a "rate my professor" survey to students with political agendas to give the board of education grounds to fire professors.

" The State Board of Education shall select or create an objective, nonpartisan, and statistically valid survey to be used by each institution which considers the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented and members of the college community, including students, faculty, and staff, feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom "

I have been in college longer than I care to admit and I have never seen a person needing shielding for "intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity". However I have seen people who clearly didn't read the text come in and declare 1+1 is 3 and thoroughly believe they failed because the prof hated them.

People should challenge this law in court and shot it down. One’s political view is none of the business of a state government, period.

Passing obviously illegal laws to be struck down by courts is how the right has been driving their angry voter base for decades. This is just part of the show, and having the court strike it down is a necessary part of the strategy.

Now do “common-sense gun control”. Politicians of all stripes do this because it works.

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. That's not allowed, regardless of which politics/ideology you're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

I think this is a bad law, but what specific legal theory could be used to challenge it in court? Please cite the specific section of the law that is in violation of the US Constitution or federal law?

Freedom of speech also covers compelled speech so I would think this would violate that.

No one is being compelled to answer the survey. Have you read the actual law?

The state (thru taxes) is funding the universities, right? Speaking for myself, if I was funding a university I would do things to encourage intellectual diversity.

I’m more sympathetic to the more general view that education is not the business of state governments, period.

Intellectual diversity imposed upon universities (rather than being some quasi-constitutional thing to sue over) is in my view solely of use to grifters and morons. It sounds like a nice idea but it's so easily manipulated (especially by politicians looking to signal to their base rather than actually fix something even out of naivete)

It’s already happening by left-wing politics. Discussed here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31149311

How is that intellectual diversity? Isn't the common refrain that we should be enforcing intellectual diversity and not other kinds, specifically because the other kinds of diversity don't result in intellectual diversity?

Of course, you shouldn't worry yourself over this too much, Canada's not the US, and while that is a government mandated policy there, it would be illegal here.

> if I was funding a university I would do things to encourage intellectual diversity.

The first amendment prohibits the state from doing such a thing. They must allow diversity of opinion, they cannot require it (this would be silly, where does it end, Edwards v. Aguillard and Kitzmiller v. Dover seem pretty clear on this).

The first amendment places limits on the conditions that a state government can attach to university funding?

See South Dakota v. Dole, which holds (among other things) that federal funding cannot be granted contingently on a requirement that would otherwise violate the constitution or be "coercive". This would almost certainly apply to the states via incorporation. So while a state could choose to not fund universities at all, if it chooses to, it cannot favor certain universities based on a speech-test.

Then you are arguing that these surveys would abridge free speech?

If done with the intent "to encourage intellectual diversity." Yes. At the point where you have intellectuals being required to register their views with the government, you're veering heavily into red scare territory.

These surveys are compelled speech. Freedom of speech not only means you are free to speak out, but that you can not be compelled to speak.

Education should not be a business.

What does this mean?

Classic misdirection:

"It used to be thought that a university campus was a place where you'd be exposed to a lot of different ideas," DeSantis said at a press conference following the bill signing. "Unfortunately, now the norm is, these are more intellectually repressive environments. You have orthodoxies that are promoted, and other viewpoints are shunned or even suppressed."

Some people sound more and more desperate each day for provoking people to riot. The more angry, the better. Why do they do this? and why now? This is the good question.

I would assume (I'm just speculating) that the goal is to make the Capitol assault look better by comparison. Or sell the idea that it was antifa, or galvanize their own forces again under the "them or us", "kill or be killed" etc... idea.

If everybody is rioting, nobody is. At some point you can't jail everybody and a general pardon could be proposed as the only realistic solution.

But is just one silly idea.

Maybe to divert the focus from Russia creating mass shootings, stampedes and all kind of problems inside? Another stupid idea.

A very delicate period in the US history, for sure, but if people remains smart and cold can be navigated.

> I would assume (I'm just speculating) that the goal is to make the Capitol assault look better by comparison. Or sell the idea that it was antifa, or galvanize their own forces again under the "them or us", "kill or be killed" etc... idea.

That kind of wild speculation is step 1 in "how to do conspiracy theory."

> That kind of wild speculation is step 1 in "how to do conspiracy theory."

It seems that theory in this particular case was strong enough to became law (or we wouldn't have reached the "trial for conspiracy" phase).

Time will say how it ends but, for the smaller Idus of January at least, doing time is the only future possible.

Politicians are a lazy crew. If they bother to go out of their bath-masses routine to do something really unpopular, you can bet that there is a reward for doing it.

the capitol assault already looks insignificant compared to the blm riots, which seemed to be a successful implementation of "if everybody is rioting, nobody is"

there certainly does seem to be some kind of effort to push the pendulum further and further in both directions

2021? https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/233/

Link to the actual bill, since any summary (including mine below) will inevitably be skewed to the point of misrepresentation: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/233/BillText/er/P... [PDF]

FWIW it seems perfectly fine to me. Opposition based on assumed intent of DeSantis (or even if he explicitly states his intent) is meritless in the face of the actual text of the bill, which when read properly actually enables the very things conservatives are worried about (CRT, Marxism, etc), so long as it isn't the only thing taught. It also clarifies how lecture recordings can be used and explicitly prevents such recordings from being published without the lecturer's permission. Seems reasonable.

I'm sure someone will chime in and say something like "but that means flat earth and creationism and gay conversion theory and holocaust denial and [insert your favorite terrible thing] will be taught!"

Maybe. Probably not, but maybe. And if they are, they will be taught alongside the oppositional stance. Surely the correct stance will win out, right? After all, the only reason flat earth or holocaust denial et al. gain any traction is because people are not properly taught the truth and are instead stuck in their own self-reinforcing bubble. And if the truth is not convincing for those people, either there's a failure in teaching or there's some other irreconcilable barrier that won't be fixed by "just don't bring it up".

If you're still not convinced, consider the idea of systemic racism: how do you teach that this exists without teaching that there are in fact racists and explaining what those racists believe? You must always present the other side to some extent in order to explain why they are wrong.

This bill does not require that every belief or concept be taught as true; it simply requires that the other belief or concept not be entirely omitted from discussion.

> enables the very things conservatives are worried about (CRT, Marxism, etc), so long as it isn't the only thing taught

Any subject was already allowed before. What more could be allowed?

Here's a class on CRT from a few years ago. I can't see what good the bill would do here. But I can think of a lot of ways to harass people with it, or get the class cancelled out of fear of being sued or fired.

https://www.law.virginia.edu/past-courses/view/119820244

> "Unfortunately, now the norm is, these are more intellectually repressive environments. You have orthodoxies that are promoted, and other viewpoints are shunned or even suppressed."

From the man that brought you "Don't Say Gay," championed the loss of American women's rights, and tried to criminalize towns creating mask policies during peak COVID, this coming from him is as rich as chocolate mousse from Paris.

This is, say, six steps away from that scene in _Handmaid's Tale_ where women walked by men who were hung for show.

No kidding. DeSantis is fucking grim.

Bad, misinformed article. Nonsense. Remove this from HN.