Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/80

 the eight concepts. Further, Ms. Dauphin does not demonstrate that the professor will self-censor. If the professor plans to promote or compel belief in the course objective while risking discipline, Ms. Dauphin would not suffer an injury. In short, Ms. Dauphin’s evidence fails to demonstrate an injury for purposes of standing under the heightened burden imposed at the preliminary injunction stage.

On the other hand, in the Novoa case, Samuel Rechek has demonstrated standing. Mr. Rechek is an undergraduate at USF and president of First Amendment Forum at University of South Florida. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 14, 16, in Case No.: 4:22cv324-MW/MAF. He plans to enroll in Professor Novoa’s Science in Cultural Context course for spring 2023. Id. ¶ 153. As set out above, Professor Novoa plans to assign her own work treating the existence of racial privilege as a given in this course. Likewise, during her class discussion, Professor Novoa intends to promote another author’s arguments in favor of race consciousness. Both planned actions arguably promote or compel belief in the third concept under the IFA. See § 1000.05(4)(a)3., Fla. Stat. (2022); Regulation 10.005(1)(a)3. Given Mr. Rechek’s specific, verified allegations and Professor Novoa’s evidence that she would instruct her course in this way but for the IFA, Mr. Rechek has demonstrated that he will imminently suffer an