Judge Bans Bakersfield College From Punishing Professor Over DEI, Yet Allows Required Training
The judge ruled that while the university is allowed to require faculty members to participate in certain trainings, the sessions cannot “compel Johnson to speak in support of DEIA principles as part of the training, or sanction Johnson for refusing to endorse a specific viewpoint on DEIA principles.”
A judge has banned California’s Bakersfield College and its Kern Community College District from placing sanctions on a professor who criticized the school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Daymon Johnson, who referred to the college’s practices regarding DEI requirements on faculty as “cultural Marxism,” will now be able to speak freely. Yet, Johnson will still be required to take training courses that involve the same topics.
The Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Kirk Sheriff ruled on Friday that the required training does not force Johnson to “personally endorse the [California] government’s views as his own.” However, the court questioned California’s regulations requiring faculty to “employ teaching, learning, and professional practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles.”
The judge ruled that while the university is allowed to require faculty members to participate in certain trainings, the sessions cannot “compel Johnson to speak in support of DEIA principles as part of the training, or sanction Johnson for refusing to endorse a specific viewpoint on DEIA principles.”
Johnson’s lead counsel, Institute for Free Speech Vice President for Litigation Alan Gura, took the free speech victory as a major win over progressive “anti-racist ideologies.”
“The First Amendment forbids California from demanding that community college professors conform their speech to an official government ideology—including so-called ‘DEI’ and anti-racist ideologies,” wrote Gura.
“In America, no one can be required to believe or endorse the state’s official political ideology, and everyone is free to criticize it.”
As even left-leaning judges apply strict scrutiny to DEI training requirements at universities, the constitutional reasoning behind this line of questioning could create difficulties for similar programs at other institutions. As covered by CriticalRace.org, required DEI faculty trainings have become increasingly common, extending beyond California community colleges.
At the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, faculty and staff involved in recruitment and hiring are required to complete the “Inclusive Hiring at Illinois” program.
The prestigious Carnegie Mellon requires faculty mentors in the “Behavioral Brain (B2) Research Training Program” to “commit to at least 10 hours of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) learning during the two years in which the trainee receives B2 support.”
Conservative state universities also appear not to be exempt from requiring some of their faculty members to participate in DEI training. The University of Alaska Southeast states in its “Faculty Handbook for Academic Year 2025-26” that search committees receive training from the Office of Human Resources to enable them to understand “unconscious bias and reinforce the reasons UAS is working to attain a more diverse faculty.”
As the constitutionality of these required DEI trainings is challenged, future litigation may need to determine whether the trainings effectively compel faculty members to adopt specific political ideologies.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Equality rejects racism, “equity” requires it. ’nuff said.
There are two types of DEI training. In the first, the employer, determined to adopt DEI principles in the workplace, instructs employees what is expected of them in the advancement of the company’s goals in adopting DEI. The second attempts to indoctrinate the employees in DEI concepts with the goal of the employees’ adoption of a DEI-aligned mindset (politically-tainted social engineering).
I consider the first legitimate training. (This is apart from any consideration of the legality, effectiveness, or the effects on the workplace of DEI policies. If an employee wants no part of such policies, they’re generally free to quit and find work elsewhere, however impractical that may be when DEI is so pervasive.) The latter has a documented history of causing strife between employees and creating hostile work environments, and in addition is a violation of the employees’ right to political autonomy (particularly problematic when the employer is government, or a government-funded entity).
I am a state worker. My employer has mandated the latter form of “training.” It has been at least two years since I informed my employer of my refusal to participate in the training, and so far there as been no push-back.
DEI…A???
Waiting for the “Q++🪐👽🚀” to drop, plus a pixelated flag featuring every possible visible frequency except white.
And I’m positive that professors who take these ‘mandatory’ DEI classes and refuse to bend the knee to the resulting diktat will be respected as free-thinkers and upholding the principles of the university. Right.
I guess acosta missed this story…………somehow.
https://x.com/Acosta/status/2027184643120742442
As I’ve been warning, America now has state-compromised media. When 60 Min or CNN is in trouble, we’re all in trouble. Trump has cracked the code in how to hurt the press. Free speech is now at risk. MAGA corporations must not control the news. Support independent media.