Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/120

 http://bit.ly/3zcLbB1 (last visited October 24, 2022)), the term loses that meaning when paired with the adverbial phrase “without endorsement of the concepts.” Simply put, “objective” instruction allows for the most zealous condemnation of the eight concepts—motivated by an instructor’s own personal prejudice or biases—but apparently permits not a single classroom debate between instructors or guest speakers who wish to promote the merits of their position, so long as one of their viewpoints falls on the list of specified concepts. The State of Florida has redefined “objectivity” in a manner that does not comport with common sense. No ordinary person would understand “objective” instruction to allow for this imbalance. Cf. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 159–60 (1974) (holding that federal statute authorizing discharge of federal employees for “such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service” was neither void for vagueness nor overbroad in light of “longstanding principles of employer-employee relationships” and “[the availability of legal counsel] to employees who [sought] advice on the interpretation of the Act and its regulations”); see also San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 961 F.2d 1125, 1137 (3d Cir. 1992) (rejecting vagueness challenge to university regulation that permitted