Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/106

 926 F.2d at 1075. As the Supreme Court has previously announced, “[t]eachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.” Keyishian, 385 U.S. at 603 (quoting Sweezy, 354 U.S. at 250).

The IFA is antithetical to academic freedom and has cast a leaden pall of orthodoxy over Florida’s state universities. Neither the State of Florida’s authority to regulate public school curriculum, nor its interest in preventing race or sex discrimination can support its weight. Nor does the First Amendment tolerate it. In this case, unlike in Bishop, the interest in academic freedom weighs heavily in Plaintiffs’ favor.

In sum, Bishop’s balancing test—as applied to the facts before this Court—favors Plaintiffs’ free speech rights over Defendants’ enforcement of a viewpoint-discriminatory ban targeting protected speech. In Bishop, the Eleventh Circuit was presented with facts supporting the University’s weighty interest in setting curriculum and avoiding an establishment violation, versus a professor’s weak interest in academic freedom to discuss matters outside the scope of his course’s curriculum. Here, this Court is presented with the reverse—namely, the State of Florida’s weak interest in employing viewpoint-based restrictions targeting pure expression to combat racism, versus the weighty interest in academic freedom to