The Individual Freedom Act in Florida

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

In recent years, Florida has passed several bills to protect its people’s rights. The Individual Freedom Act (IFA), commonly referred to as the Stop WOKE Act is among the current bills in the region. IFA was signed into law on April 22, 2022, by Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor, and effected on July 1, 2022 (Adler-Paindiris et al., 2022). This legislation contains provisions to avert discriminatory instructions in public schools and workplaces. It is based on the premise that mandatory training on diversity and inclusion in social institutions may project some races or sexes as oppressive, causing guilt or discomfort among individuals linked with such groups. As a result, IFA promotes the idea that everyone is equal and entitled to the respect and dignity accorded to all individuals rather than be judged based on sex, gender, or race (“Governor Ron DeSantis,” 2022). Nevertheless, the enactment of some provisions of IFA has temporarily been halted due to a court injunction after it was linked with violating individuals’ freedom of speech.

The “Historical” Background for the Individual Freedom Act

The history of the IFA can be traced back to the “woke culture.” The term “woke” was initially used in the early twentieth century by African Americans to emphasize sensitization on social injustices against people of color (Romano, 2020). In recent years, the “woke culture” has resurfaced to create awareness of social issues and movements against inequalities, injustices, and bias. The “woke culture” re-emerged especially following the death of George Floyd in 2020, when many institutions, including schools and workplaces, began anti-bias and anti-racism training (Schwartz, 2021). In this case, organizations started holding workshops to educate their employees on diversity and inclusivity (Schwartz, 2021). On the other hand, different scholars developed curriculums to illuminate gender identity, sexual orientation, and race-related content among learners to give them a better understanding of how society works. The introduction of anti-discrimination and anti-bias training in public institutions gained much criticism from a section of the public, including groups of parents, school boards, and other interested parties (Schwartz, 2021). The public outcry influenced lawmakers in Florida to formulate and enact the IFA.

The Events That Led to the Idea for the Individual Freedom Act

Multiple chains of events may have triggered the formulation of the IFA. In September 2020, Fox News hosted an interview with Christopher Rufo, a conservative journalist, who criticized the anti-bias training conducted in federal agencies as a form of critical race theory (CRT) (Borter, 2021). Rufo denounced CRT as a radical belief propagating racial divisions through the education systems. Three days later, then-President Donald Trump signed an executive order prohibiting various types of diversity training in federal institutions (Borter, 2021). The order, which President Joe Biden later revoked, outlawed training that supported certain ideologies, including one sex or race being inherently superior to another or individuals of particular races having an unconscious bias (Borter, 2021). Nevertheless, before being rescinded, the topic of diversity training had triggered a backlash from advocacy groups, parents, and pundits, particularly conservatives, as well as across the political spectrum. These groups strongly opposed the anti-discrimination exercises and efforts to diversify the curriculum by arguing that emphasis on race in schools made White students feel guilty for past atrocities experienced by African Americans.

The overwhelming public criticism led parents to disrupt school board meetings across the country opposing CRT, which they perceived was promoting an anti-white worldview. As a result, about eight Republican-led states enforced regulations limiting how the concepts of race are taught in schools (Borter, 2021). Consequently, lawmakers in Florida also began initiatives to enact a bill barring corporate wokeness and CRT in learning institutions. Therefore, former President Trump’s executive order on the list of “divisive concepts” and the resulting anti-CRT legislation triggered the enactment of the IFA law.

Whether Other States Have Similar Laws

The main objective behind the IFA was to simultaneously oppose the critical race theory in learning institutions and corporate wokeness. Florida is the first state to enact such a law that bans both discriminatory instructions in the workplace and CRT in schools in the United States. However, even though other states have yet to pass this legislation, some have passed regulations to bar CRT. In this case, by 2021, nine states, including New Hampshire, Idaho, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, South Carolina, and Tennessee, had enacted anti-CRT laws (Ray & Gibbons, 2021). Nevertheless, Arizona’s regulation was later overturned by the state’s Supreme Court. In addition, in 2022, anti-CRT laws were passed in Mississippi and Georgia (Schwartz, 2021). Research shows that since January 2021, approximately 42 states have initiated bills or other measures to control the teaching of CRT or restrict how instructors discuss sexism or racism in the classrooms (Schwartz, 2021). Out of this, only 17 states have enforced these restrictions and bans through regulations or other avenues (Schwartz, 2021). Thus, there are widespread efforts throughout the country to outlaw CRT in learning institutions.

Anti-CRT efforts have also spread in states without CRT legislation, where groups of parents and school boards have denounced various curriculum concepts. These groups have also called for instructors to remove banners linked to social justice causes and for schools to ban certain library books (Schwartz, 2021). Nevertheless, some of these legislations are being threatened by legal charges. For instance, several lawsuits have been filed in New Hampshire and Oklahoma on the basis of infringing teachers’ equal protection rights and freedom of speech (Schwartz, 2021). Therefore, although other states have yet to enact the IFA law, some have passed legislation banning CRT in schools.

Groups Supporting/Opposing the Individual Freedom Act

IFA has significantly attracted criticism and opposition from various groups. These include students and professors from different learning institutions, including the University of South Florida (Kam, 2022). The critics are also part of a group of plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The petitioners claim that the restrictions instill fear and confusion among instructors, making it difficult to determine what they can talk about in classrooms in order to protect their jobs (Sachs, 2022). Therefore, these individuals argue that IFA creates panic for instructors and learners who wish to discuss white privilege, systemic inequality, race, and other areas disfavored by the legislature (Goñi-Lessan, 2022). Adriana Novoa, a history professor at the University of South Florida, argued that when discussing, for example, Latin American history, issues related to race and slavery form the central part of class instructions (Kam, 2022). In this case, some tutors believe their inability to speak on specific issues infringes on their rights. Therefore, it is their position that they all have a right to learn and teach free from censorship.

Some scholars believe that IFA contravenes their rights to free expression, hence violating the First Amendment. The United States Constitution guarantees protection on freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and the right to petition the state for restitution of concerns (U.S. Const. amend. I). In this regard, the Stop WOKE law curtails the freedom to share information, depriving schools of the right to discuss or debate issues related to systemic racism, discrimination, and other universally accepted concepts. For this reason, various groups, especially African-American educators and learners in the region, have argued that the act is punitive and promotes biases because it limits their capacity to speak freely about racism. Similarly, the IFA infringes on the 14th Amendment, which requires the state to provide equal protection (U.S. Const. amend. XIV). Therefore, the regulation is perceived as discriminative because educators and trainers are compelled to desist from discussing gender inequities and race issues in their classrooms or at work to avoid being dismissed.

The Media’s View of the Individual Freedom Act

Various media channels have continued to express divergent views regarding IFA. Some indicate that the law is designed to control the inalienable right of free speech in learning institutions and places of work. Therefore, Florida lawmakers’ move to pass the regulation is considered unconstitutional and should be amended (Coward, 2022). Among multiple bills in legislatures around the country addressing sex stereotyping and issues on race in education, the state’s Stop WOKE regulation is more prominent, but not in a positive way. Thus, suppose the law was upheld, Florida could be the first state to outlaw discussions on sex and race in learning and work institutions. A media outlet proposed that the Senate could have amended the bill by clarifying that its provisions cannot negatively impact what can be taught in schools (Coward, 2022). Thus, it is the position of some mainstream media that people in schools and workplaces must always have the freedom to inquire, study, and evaluate topics related to inclusivity, gender, and racism to gain new understanding and maturity.

The IFA mars Florida’s image as a model of inclusivity and diversity in the United States. Due to the vague language the legislation uses to prohibit teaching and training race or gender-related concepts, many Floridians struggle to understand how to comply with it (Mas, 2022). However, Woke, Inc., a blog, has shown its immense support for the law (Zilber, 2021). It emphasizes that IFA promotes freedom from institutional existing policies intended to build competency and awareness on issues of inequality and race, which has been censured as woke indoctrination (Zilber, 2021). On the other hand, several media platforms, including Vanity Fair, a magazine, indicate that the Stop WOKE law threatens all the efforts to promote social equality and justice (Levin, 2022). Therefore, the IFA has been termed ridiculous and unconstitutional, while lawmakers have been described as a threat to society because they want to dictate what people say and do in public institutions.

Whether the Bill Addresses a Specific Issue

The IFA bill addresses the issue of discriminatory practices in the workplace and public schools by restricting training on diversity and race-related concepts. The law is grounded on the notion that mandatory teachings and instructions about diversity, equity, and inclusivity in organizations may shame individuals of certain races (Craig, 2022). The concepts taught in such workshops may project some individuals as inherently oppressive due to their race, sex, or gender, making employees in those groups uncomfortable. The IFA also curtails how race-related topics are taught in schools to protect White students from feeling guilty for the historical wrongs perpetrated against African Americans (Craig, 2022). In this context, it deems CRT as unlawful and stresses the need for factual, objective, and balanced educational discussions.

The IFA outlines several provisions to protect individuals against discriminatory practices in social institutions. It bars private and public employers from mandating any staff to undergo training-related exercises that make them believe that persons of a given sex, race, or ethnicity are morally superior to others (“Governor Ron DeSantis,” 2022). In addition, IFA stipulates that workplace training should not encourage a person to perceive that particular individuals are inherently oppressive, sexist, or racist. Similarly, the instructions and teachings should not make the employees feel that an individual ought to be discriminated against due to their color, ethnicity, sex, or race. In cases where employees, students, or parents feel that the CRT training discriminates against them, the law allows them to take the appropriate actions against the employers or schools.

Whether the Individual Freedom Act Will Be Effective in Solving the Issue at Hand

In my opinion, the IFA may not effectively solve the problem at hand. In this case, the law stifles the freedom of speech and violates the First Amendment, especially among employers who wish to train their staff on gender and race-related content (Adler-Paindiris et al., 2022). Due to this conflict, many employers may continually oppose the law’s implementation, thus hindering its effectiveness in solving the purported discriminatory practices in the workplace. This may explain why the federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida overturned the law as unconstitutional in August following a petition by employers, such as Honeyfund.com (Adler-Paindiris et al., 2022). In addition, it infringes on teachers’ equal rights protection and freedom of speech because it curtails their teaching methods, particularly regarding events in the country’s history, such as the civil rights movements. Therefore, IFA may not be efficient in ending discrimination and woke indoctrination since its existence infringes on other individuals’ rights and freedoms.

The law’s ineffectiveness in curbing woke indoctrination may stem from its vague nature. IFA is aimed at fighting against wokeness in corporate organizations and CRT in schools. However, it still permits such institutions to train or teach about gender and race-related concepts, provided they are done objectively (Adler-Paindiris et al., 2022). In this case, it is difficult to determine which manner of training or education is more impartial or biased when discussing issues of race and gender. This may create a lot of confusion among instructors on how to present sensitive topics, such as slavery and the holocaust, without violating IFA. This implies that the act is not specific or clear on what practices may be deemed unlawful, hence deterring its efficacy in restricting discriminative instructions in workplaces and schools.

Conclusion

In conclusion, IFA safeguards individuals’ civil rights in employment places and learning institutions by ensuring that workers and students are not subjected to discriminatory practices. It stipulates that all individuals should be accorded equal respect and dignity regardless of sex, race, or gender. The legislation was triggered by public criticism against anti-discrimination training in schools and workplaces and former President Trump’s executive order prohibiting diversity exercises in federal agencies. Although several other states have passed regulations restricting how CRT is taught in schools, Florida is the only state that has passed a law opposing both corporate wokeness and CRT teaching in learning institutions. Nevertheless, the regulation has received a lot of criticism from several employers, professors, scholars, and some students who feel that it infringes on an individual’s freedom rights, thus violating the First Amendment. Therefore, the IFA may not effectively achieve its mandate because it is vague and intrudes on individual rights and freedoms.

References

Adler-Paindiris, S. L., Kirmani, S. M., Simpson, A. A., & Read, C. E. (2022). Federal court blocks Florida’s Individual Freedom Act as unconstitutional. JacksonLewis. Web.

Borter, G. (2021). Explainer: What ‘critical race theory’ means and why it’s igniting debate. Reuters. Web.

Coward, T. (2022). Florida lawmakers are about to cross an unconstitutional line. They must amend HB7. The Fire. Web.

Craig, T. (2022). Florida legislature passes bill that limits how schools and workplaces teach about race and identity. The Washington Post. Web.

Goñi-Lessan, A. (2022). Minutes after bill is signed, lawsuit filed against DeSantis for ‘Stop WOKE Act.’ Tallahassee Democrat. Web.

Governor Ron DeSantis signs legislation to protect Floridians from discrimination and woke indoctrination. (2022). Ron DeSantis 46^th Governor of Florida. Web.

Kam, D. (2022). A federal judge weighs arguments against Florida’s ‘Stop WOKE Act.‘ WGCU News. Web.

Levin, B. (2022). Federal judge declares Ron Desantis’s ridiculous “woke indoctrination” law unconstitutional. Vanity Fair. Web.

Mas, C. (2022). Miami once provided a model for diversity. Now DeSantis won it big. The Washington Post. Web.

Ray, R., & Gibbons, A. (2021). Why are states banning critical race theory? Brookings. Web.

Romano, A. (2020). A history of “wokeness.”Vox. Web.

Sachs, S. (2022). USF professor, student sue Florida over ‘Stop WOKE Act.’ WFLA New Channel. Web.

Schwartz, S. (2021). Map: Where critical race theory is under attack. Education Week. Web.

U.S. Const. amend. I.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Zilber, A. (2021). Woke culture is ‘infecting schools’ and turning education into indoctrination by ‘poisoning’ children’s minds, ‘Woke Inc’ author warns. Mail Online. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!