Jackson, Miss. (AP) – The federal judge blocked the practice of the Mississippi Insurance Diversity, Justice and Inclusion in Public Schools in the course of its action.
On Monday, the US County Judge Henry Wingate’s blocked attitudes seek to prohibit public schools to discuss “different concepts” related to race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin. They would also prevent public schools from maintaining programs, courses or offices that promote the DEI, or to approve the “separation concepts” and prohibit the training requirements of diversity.
The preliminary order does not block other parts of the laws, including those that prevent schools from providing preferential treatment on the basis of race, gender, color or national origin, and punish students or staff for their refusal to accept the concepts of Dei.
The law, which came into force in April, aims to prevent public schools to “engage in discriminatory practice” by prohibiting Dei offices, training and programs. Any school that violates the law could lose public funding.
A group of teachers, parents and students go to court, arguing that the law violates its first and fourteenth correctional rights.
By his resolution, Wingate wrote that he believes the law was contrary to the first amendment and the public interest of the state.
“This is unconstitutionally unclear, unable to treat languages neutral and pose a serious danger due to terrible consequences associated with the chill of expression and academic freedom,” he wrote.
Wingate also granted the plaintiff’s request to involve claims in the lawsuit, which means that the order will apply to teachers, teachers and students across the state. The plaintiff’s lawyers sought to supplement after June. June The US Supreme Court ruling was limited to federal judges to give extensive orders.
Jarvis Dortch, the executive director of the Mississippi ACLU, who helps to hear the case, said he was grateful for Wingate’s position.
“The court sees the law on what it is clearly – trying to stop the proper exchange of ideas in the classroom,” Dortcho said in a statement.
Wingate’s decision enforces a temporary constraint order, which he allowed the plaintiffs in July.
August 5 At the hearing, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs said the law was too confusing, so parents, teachers and students ask what they can and cannot say and whether they may face the consequences of their language.
Cliff Johnson, Director of the MacAarthur Justice Center at the University of Mississippi Mississippi Law, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered as “sharing topics”.
Johnson said he did not believe that the law would allow him to teach the first, fourteenth and fifteenth amendment; A court case that opened the way for Japanese citizens during World War II; Parts of the Civil Rights Act; or EMMmett Till and Fr. Murder of Martin Luther King Jr..
“I think I’m in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and risk being disciplined, or I could give up what is very important to me,” Johnson testified. “I feel a little paralyzed.”
The Mississippi Attorney General’s Office said civil servants did not have the first amendment.
“They speak for the Government, and the government has every right to tell them what they need to tell in their name,” said a lawyer for Lisa Reppeto, the State Prosecutor General’s Office.
She added that the first amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school is doing or say.
Reppet also stated that the consequences of the law are for schools – not students or teachers – and that the plaintiffs’ arguments do not match what is the statute. “