Florida measure to gauge extent of campus free speech is on trial for "chilling" free speech.

The Orwellian left strikes again.

Gov. Ron DeSantis is determined to ensure that students at Florida’s public colleges and universities are exposed to diverse points of view and can speak freely about them. To this end, Florida law now requires these colleges and universities to survey students and staff members about the degree (or absence) of intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity on campus.

Under this law, the State Board of Education and the university system’s Board of Governors are required to select or create “objective, nonpartisan, and statistically valid” questionnaires to weigh the “extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented” on campuses. The survey will also examine whether students and staff feel to free to express ideas. The questionnaires are to be administered annually.

Naturally, leftist teachers, their union, and some of their students challenged the constitutionality of the new law. The case is now being tried in federal court.

Here (with my commentary) are excerpts from a report by a local news outlet on the first day of the trial:

Attorneys for the plaintiffs on Monday called Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University in Washington, D.C., as their first witness. They questioned Lichtman about whether the law had the intent of discriminating against colleges and universities, with Lichtman arguing that the required surveys are “highly problematic.”

How does a left-liberal prof from D.C. know the intent of a Florida law? Lichtman specializes in history, not gleaning legislative intent.

Lichtman was asked about statements by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who signed the bill, and Rep. Spencer Roach, a North Fort Myers Beach Republican who was a sponsor of the legislation. Roach, for example, wrote in a March 2021 Facebook post that the measure would protect free-speech rights and “stem the tide of Marxist indoctrination on university campuses.”

Lichtman pointed to what he described as a “willingness by decision-makers to assail what they perceive as liberal … ideology” at the schools.

The statement by Roach shows that he, personally, would like to stem the tide of Marxist indoctrination, not that he wants to “assail liberal ideology.” In any case, all the law does is enable policymakers and the public to discover the degree to which all ideologies are allowed to be aired on campuses — in other words, the degree to which some are being “assailed” or silenced.

The history professor also said the law includes “no restriction” on how the Legislature could use survey data.

Nor is there any constitutional requirement that it do so. If the survey data is used in an unconstitutional manner, that’s the time to bring a lawsuit.

“This survey, in perpetuity, has a chilling effect,” Lichtman said.

So it chills speech to find out whether, or to what the extent, campus speech currently is being chilled. Absurd.

Under the law, professors are free to continue teaching the way they do. If the survey shows, for example, that instruction at a university as a whole excludes certain viewpoints, there’s no reason to believe the remedy would be to require any professor to teach differently. The likely remedy would be to make other viewpoints, from other sources, available — and make sure they are not shouted down, as happens too often to conservative speech at colleges and universities.

Attorneys representing the state argued in a court filing before the trial that the surveys, and the overall law, do not contemplate any potential punishment for schools, students and staff members.

“Like a thermometer, the surveys are meant to be a diagnostic tool designed to take the temperature of taxpayer-funded campuses. The survey provisions presuppose no diagnosis, prescribe no course of treatment, and predict no future action or consequence,” lawyers for the state wrote in a Dec. 8 brief.

Exactly. I couldn’t have put it better.

Though Lichtman repeatedly said the law does not specifically require that the surveys be anonymous or voluntary, a first round of surveys administered in April made clear that the identities of respondents would not be published and participation was optional.

The point is that the law doesn’t require that people take the surveys or that respondents reveal their identity. If, contrary to the facts of the case, the law were to be administered to require these things, then Lichtman’s point would become relevant and the constitutional implications, if any, could be considered.

The state’s lawyers also argued colleges and universities face no threat of lost funding because of the law.

“As they have done throughout this litigation, plaintiffs are sure to testify at trial that they fear of future funding reductions to their institutions or programs as a result of HB 233. But plaintiffs will not elicit any testimony at trial regarding any proposed or actual funding cuts to any institution based on HB 233, nor will they point to any provision in HB 233 that contemplates any funding decisions,” the state’s lawyers wrote.

Good point. But the wise guy in me is tempted to say, “too bad.”

The left regards America’s college campuses as their special preserve (or, these days, one of them). Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised that its foot soldiers object to any proposal that shines light on what’s happening on campus. Nor should we be surprised that they cynically invoke free speech concerns to defend a regime that’s become rampantly hostile to free speech.

The case is being tried before Judge Mark Walker, an Obama appointee who is now chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. We’ll keep an eye on the proceedings in this important matter.