Page:Novoa v. Diaz.pdf/95

 4:22cv304-MW/MAF (“As an initial matter, by its own terms, the Act does not ‘prohibit discussion of the concepts’ listed in Section [1000.05(4)(a)].”). The problem here, however, is the State of Florida has determined that although these concepts may be covered in the curriculum, instructors may only discuss them “in an objective manner”—whatever that means—or they may criticize or condemn the concepts. Defendants admit that the State of Florida is engaging in rank viewpoint discrimination, although their admission conflates viewpoint with content. See Tr. at 30 (“[W]hen the university is setting its curriculum, it is entitled to have a viewpoint. It is entitled to—and its professors are speaking with its voice, and it’s entitled to determine what they say.”).

This Court is mindful of the Eleventh Circuit’s admonition that it “should not be [an] ersatz dean[] or educator[]” and that it “cannot supplant [its] discretion for that of the [State].” Bishop, 926 F.2d at 1066. Accordingly, this Court absolutely defers to the State of Florida’s curricular decision to permit instructors to discuss these concepts in its university classrooms. However, this Court has found no authority—nor have the parties pointed to anything binding or persuasive—that requires this Court to defer to the State of Florida’s blatant viewpoint-based restrictions on protected speech once the subject at issue is included in the curriculum. In other words, simply because the State of Florida has great flexibility in setting curriculum, it cannot impose its own orthodoxy of viewpoint about the