by Alander Rocha, Alabama Reflector
August 11, 2025

Attorneys representing the University of Alabama (UA) system in a lawsuit challenging Alabama’s 2024 state law banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and so-called “divisive concepts” claimed in court filings that new federal guidance on anti-discrimination laws would make it unlawful for UA to reopen open spaces dedicated to minority students, likening it to “unlawful segregation.”

In a brief filed Tuesday last week, attorneys for the university cited a July memorandum from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, claiming that DEI initiatives can be considered discriminatory and may be in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

“The guidance states that it would be an unlawful practice for ‘[a] university’s DEI initiative [to designate] a ‘safe space’ or lounge exclusively for students of a specific racial or ethnic group,’ … and that ‘[e]ven if access is technically open to all, the identity-based focus creates a perception of segregation and may foster a hostile environment’ in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws,” the attorneys wrote, quoting the Trump administration’s guidance.

The lawsuit, brought by professors and students in the University of Alabama system against Gov. Kay Ivey and the university system Board of Trustees, alleges that SB 129 stifled instructional activity and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The anti-DEI law bans public funding for diversity and inclusion initiatives and the teaching of so-called “divisive concepts,” such as people of one race being “inherently responsible” for past crimes committed by members of that race.

UA professor alleges lawmaker threatened honors program budget over anti-DEI law

In July 2024, ahead of the anti-DEI law’s implementation, the UA system announced it planned to close the schools’ DEI offices and replace them with offices that seemingly addressed similar goals. Later in August, UA closed its Black Student Union and Safe Zone, its LGBTQ+ resource center, citing compliance with SB 129.

UA attorneys wrote that the guidance “speaks directly” to officials’ concerns about reinstating Black Student Union and Safe Zone offices in the UA Student Center; UA’s Division of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion; University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; and UAB’s Student Multicultural and Diversity Programs office.

Attorneys from the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and the ACLU of Alabama representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued in a filing Monday that the guidance is irrelevant, stating that the memorandum is nothing more than “non-binding suggestions.”

“The fact that the board defendants now believe they could support the closure based on some other law (an argument they did not introduce until after the evidentiary hearing) does not undermine standing or otherwise avoid adjudication of whether the closures pursuant to SB 129 were unconstitutional,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote.

The attorneys also wrote that it was “undisputed” that the Black Student Union and Safe Zone spaces were open to all students and “did not limit use based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic.”

“There is not a shred of evidence in the record that either the BSU space or the Safe Zone created a perception of segregation or fostered a hostile environment.  The guidance simply has no application to the case actually before this Court,” plaintiff’s counsel stated.

Plaintiffs said at a two-day evidentiary hearing in June that SB 129 was vaguely written, threatened the teaching of Black history in schools, chilled academic freedom and ultimately led to threats of budget cuts to an honors program from one state representative.

U.S. District Judge David Proctor indicated in June he wanted to decide whether to issue an injunction before the start of the fall semester. Classes start on August 20 at UA and August 25 at UAB.

In briefs filed after hearings in late June and early July, plaintiffs argued that a new law is leading to “viewpoint discrimination,” claiming that professors, fearing enforcement, have to “self-censor” and change their teaching methods. One professor, Dana Patton, testified she was investigated after an anonymous complaint and warned by Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville, that lawmakers wouldn’t “let this go.”

The Alabama Attorney General’s office, representing Gov. Kay Ivey, argued in their post-hearing brief that these fears aren’t “objectively reasonable” since the professors stated they don’t intend to violate the law. Attorneys for the UA Board, argued that classroom speech is “government speech,” not private speech, and that the University of Alabama has the right to “reasonably control the content of their curriculum.”

Student plaintiffs also claim the law caused their organizations to lose funding and campus spaces. The defendants counter that some of these injuries are “monetary” and that, in certain cases, students chose not to apply for available funding.

Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

The post University of Alabama attorneys claim minority-focused spaces could be ‘unlawful segregation’ appeared first on alabamareflector.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content presents a detailed account of a legal challenge against an Alabama state law banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It highlights concerns about the law’s impact on minority student spaces, academic freedom, and constitutional rights, while also including the perspectives of both plaintiffs and state officials. The focus on civil rights organizations, constitutional arguments, and the negative consequences of the law suggests a center-left leaning, as it emphasizes protections for marginalized groups and critiques restrictive legislation, though it maintains a relatively balanced tone by presenting multiple viewpoints.