Courts

Indiana University Professors Stuck With Vague ‘Thought Diversity’ Law That Controls Their Classrooms

Adding a 'What if he deserved it?' slide to each police brutality case is the real thought diversity.

By Chris Williams on July 28, 2025 5:30 pm

Thought diversity usually gets brought up on this site as a gag example of the diversity that really matters. For the sake of school applications and scholarships, that “thought diversity” usually boils down to “I grew up on a farm which means I think differently” or “Being a collector of novelty Labubus will prepare me to be a more ethical prosecutor in these ways.” But there are occasions where our constitution for diverse points of view is actually tested, like when a Trump judge gives a Nazi-adjacent student an A after submitting a paper on why immigrants should be killed or when Amy Wax decides to invite a White Nationalist guest to her classroom again. While they happen with relative frequency, they are generally one-off events that flow from the quirkiness of the parties involved. This time, a “thought diversity” requirement could force teachers in Indiana to change their lesson plans in ways that aren’t just vague, but could include dangerous viewpoints. The Indiana Lawyer has coverage:

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of several Indiana professors against Indiana University and Purdue University over the state’s intellectual diversity law, with a lack of jurisdiction cited as the reason for the case’s dismissal.
…
The law states that faculty are required to teach scholarly works “from a variety of political or ideological frameworks” within their purview of instruction…The professors raised concerns that the unclear language of the law could open coursework requirements to include potentially dangerous viewpoints.

For context, teaching both sides — much like taking the sunlight is the best disinfectant rationale to its logical ends — often has the consequence of platforming fascists:

It’s a lesson Medhi Hasan should have been well aware of; here he is just four years later helping fascist talking points be platformed in the spirit of open discussion:

In a later interview Hasan clarified that he didn’t know that he’d be debating open fascists — he was told that they’d merely be “alt-right conservatives”, but that should have been enough of a tell tell sign. Fascists have been operating under the alt-right conservative moniker since at least back when Richard Spencer got punched in the face nearly a decade ago. That being said, if the fascist by another name was all it took to sidestep someone like Hasan’s suspicions, the same trick may very tell bypass a teacher’s gutcheck sense of who and what should be getting stage time in the classroom — the alt-right pipeline is already so ingrained in to algorithms and advertisement that an introduction in to the “opposition” could set their students well down the “was it really six million?” rabbit hole.

Let’s take the conversation back to the pragmatic consequences. What would this law require teachers to do? Counter each module on the moral significance of liberté, égalité, fraternité as they relate to the Enlightenment with an equally in-depth survey of Dark Enlightenment thinkers arguing about how exclusionary ethnostates that deploy slavery and rigid social stratification are the future of humanity? What if the teachers are willing to teach “both sides” but lack the conceptual familiarity or background to do so? Take the Dark Enlightenment example from above; I seriously doubt that every English or Philosophy professor that is brushed up on Kant and Voltaire’s notions on “freedom” are as equally prepared (or willing) to cover those concepts as understood by Nick Land or Aleksandr Dugin. If they aren’t willing, does the law compel them to do so?

Now do this rationale for every discipline. The case may have been dismissed but the theory behind it, that the law is unclear and violates the First Amendment, appears to be very strong. Let’s hope that the next steps in this case will be successful — and Godspeed to whatever History professor will have to add a “What if Hitler was right?” addendum to their WW2 section of the syllabus to keep things “diverse.” For updates, keep your eye on McDonald v. Trustees of Indiana University, Trustees of Purdue University, 1:24-cv-1575.

Federal Judge Dismisses Professors’ Lawsuit Against IU, Purdue Over New Intellectual Diversity Law [The Indiana Lawyer]

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who is learning to swim, is interested in critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at [email protected] and by tweet at @WritesForRent.