Like many students and alumni, I was shocked, but not surprised, to read on Monday that the University suspended Alice and Nineteen Fifty-Six. It’s another embarrassing instance of pre-emptive compliance with anti-DEI policies, but this decision was maybe the most egregious yet. Citing a July 2025 Department of Justice memo, Vice President for Student Life Steven Hood claimed, falsely, that because each magazine targeted primarily specific groups, they are “unlawful proxies” for illegal discrimination.
This claim falls apart with even the most cursory examination of the DOJ memo and relevant law. As independent student publications, Alice is free to have an editorial focus on content aimed at women and Nineteen Fifty-Six is free to focus on Black culture, so long as their membership practices do not discriminate on the basis of race or gender.
The memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi lays out guidelines and best practices for institutions receiving federal funds to avoid impermissible discrimination based on protected characteristics, which include gender and race.
The memo defines unlawful proxy discrimination as intentionally using “ostensibly neutral criteria that function as substitutes for explicit consideration of race, sex, or other protected characteristics.” Facially neutral criteria become legally problematic when they are used as substitutes for protected characteristics, or are implemented with the intent to advantage or disadvantage individuals based on protected characteristics, which can include race or gender.
The portions of the memo regarding “unlawful proxies” address hiring or application components used by an organization to consider race or gender in an impermissible manner. The key here is the denial of access or opportunity based on such characteristics. In theory, proxy discrimination allows an organization to screen or select potential members on the basis of their protected characteristics while avoiding any explicit mention of them in application components or membership definitions.
However, Hood and the University’s publicly stated concern was not regarding the magazines’ respective application processes, it was because their editorial content “target[s] primarily specific groups.”
In a memo published by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights on February 28, 2025, prior to the Bondi memo, the department directly addressed the legality of what it categorizes as “DEI” programs in general. The memo affirmed that “programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the world would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are open to all students regardless of race.” As long as programs don’t “treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races,” they may hold and support programming discussing racial issues, advocacy or awareness.
While the Department of Education memo is addressing specifically race under Title VI, the same basic principles apply to gender under Title IX. As a whole, the DOE memo clarifies that funding Alice and Nineteen Fifty-Six, which discuss cultural and social issues relevant to particular gender and racial identities, is legal.
The legal issue here, based on the federal government’s explanations of current policy, is not related to the editorial mission or goals of these student publications. Magazines targeted toward women, or discussing Black culture and student life, are fully within the bounds of acceptable speech and conduct. The issue is whether these organizations engage in unlawful discrimination in their membership, specifically through the use of “unlawful proxies,” and impermissibly consider gender or race.
The University has not produced a single piece of evidence indicating Alice or Nineteen Fifty-Six engaged in unlawful proxy discrimination. Hood admitted that the decision to suspend publication was not based on any actual discrimination complaint.
Instead, all available evidence shows, affirmatively, that neither organization discriminates within their membership. As the editorial staff of each has stated, participation was open to all members of the student body. Their intention to comply with anti-discrimination law is further demonstrated by the Equal Opportunity Employment Statements in their applications, stating again that membership is open to anyone regardless of race, gender or other protected classifications under federal law.
Their compliance with these stated principles is proven by the fact that both publications, presently and historically, have employed staff members who did not fall within their respective target audiences. Rather than taking this as proof of the magazines’ adherence to federal policy, Hood and the University took unilateral action to shut them down without any formal investigation or giving them an opportunity to present a defense.
The decision to suspend Alice and Nineteen Fifty-Six was not based on any actual discriminatory practice they were engaged in. It was made because Alice’s target audience was women, and Nineteen Fifty-Six focused on “Black culture, Black excellence, and Black student experiences.”
Independent student publications have a First Amendment right to editorial freedom, even when they receive funding from the school. By suspending these publications because of their editorial content without providing them an opportunity to heard or present a defense, the University may have engaged in content or viewpoint based discrimination and deprived the publications of their procedural due process rights.
By suspending Alice and Nineteen Fifty-Six, the University and Vice President Hood have shown their willingness to disregard the rights of the students they ostensibly represent. They must be held accountable for their actions.
Joe Hoffman is a 2024 graduate of The University of Alabama and a former contributing writer for The Crimson White currently studying at Cornell Law School.
Interested in having your voice heard in The Crimson White? Click here to learn how you can submit a letter to the editor.
Hence then, the article about letter to the editor alice and nineteen fifty six are not unlawful proxies was published today ( ) and is available on The Crimson White ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Letter to the Editor .. Alice and Nineteen Fifty-Six are not “unlawful proxies” )
Also on site :