However, the regulations also indicate that these faculty members will be evaluated by their advancement of these and other principles. Moreover, some of the underlying terms raise obvious free speech problems. FIRE states:
An official glossary of terms released by the state makes plain that the “anti-racist” views it mandates are highly ideological. Indeed, the definition for “anti-racism” states that “persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial.” California declares that “color-blindness,” or the belief that “the best way to end prejudice and discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity,” is itself a problem because it “perpetuates existing racial inequities and denies systematic racism.”
Even a professor saying something as benign as “I grade my class based on merit” is suspect under the regulations. “Merit is embedded in the ideology of Whiteness and upholds race-based structural inequality,” the glossary claims. “Merit protects White privilege under the guise of standards … and as highlighted by anti-affirmative action forces.”
FIRE objected to the regulations when they were proposed last year as unconstitutional and requiring, as a condition of employment, that faculty “profess allegiance to and to promote a contested set of ideological views.”
The regulations reflect the growing orthodoxy on our campuses as captured by its statement that “persons are either anti-racist or racist.” There is no variation allowed on how to address racism and all of those who are not racist but oppose such mandatory viewpoints are declared “in denial.” The denial of viewpoint diversity can also be a denial of constitutional rights.
We will be following this lawsuit closely in the coming months.