Auburn University navigating SB-129 in the classroom

This is an ongoing story, The Plainsman will update at more information comes in.

As of Oct. 1, 2024, classrooms across Alabama have been navigating the Alabama Act of 2024-34, formerly known as SB-129. This bill, also referred to as the “DEI Bill,” is still having an effect on Auburn University.

The bill itself is nine pages long and topically vague. The legislation frequently mentions “divisive concepts” and defines them using eight examples of “divisive” ideas. These ideas are listed below.

1. That any race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity or national origin is inherently superior or inferior.
2. That individuals should be discriminated against or adversely treated because of their race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.
3. That the moral character of an individual is determined by his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.
4. That, by virtue of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, the individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.
5. That individuals, by virtue of race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.
6. That fault, blame, or bias should be assigned to members of a race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.
7. That any individual should accept, acknowledge, affirm, or assent to a sense of guilt, complicity, or a need to apologize on the basis of his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.
8. That meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist.

These examples have sparked confusion with the general public and caused many to have different ideas of what a “divisive concept” really is. The synopsis section of the bill states, “This bill would authorize certain public entities to discipline or terminate employees or contractors who violate this act.”

In avoidance of terminating faculty for discussion or teaching of these “divisive concepts,” the University has implemented a syllabus and course materials review. The Office of the Provost has a website outlining Auburn’s guidelines for faculty regarding this bill and its upcoming review of materials.

The website states: “Auburn University’s review of course materials is to support compliance while maintaining our commitment to academic freedom and open inquiry within the framework of state law.”

Further, the University outlines 11 guidelines for compliance with the bill but also “provide a starting point as we [Auburn] review our materials and uphold the highest standards of integrity, fairness, and open inquiry.”

Finally, to ensure further compliance, the Office of the Provost has supplied an optional syllabus and course content review rubric for faculty to sign upon these implementations.

A source reached out to The Plainsman with a series of emails from AAUP President, Beth Davis-Sramek, these emails were dated Oct. 30, 2025.  In these emails, Davis-Sramek cited that some colleges have a deadline of Nov. 18 and others had a deadline of Nov. 3 to sign a form affirming that course materials and the syllabus made for future classes adhere  to state and federal laws.

Chase Bringardner, associate provost for academic affairs, issued Davis-Sramek a statement via email which reads:

"At this point in time, the Provost office is in the middle of finalizing additional resources to make available to all colleges and their faculty to assist in this process, to offer some clarity and hopefully alleviate some of that stress especially given the larger contexts in which faculty find themselves. Our hope is that these will be available in the next few days and circulated broadly to the faculty."

The Plainsman has reached out to Jennifer Adams, vice president for public affairs, communication & marketing for Auburn University, requesting a statement of what these forms mean for university employees and students.

Adams responded with a series of statements from provost Vini Nathan that were sent via email. They read as follows:

Oct. 27: "I am grateful to each of you for your continued dedication, enthusiasm, and leadership in advancing our mission through instruction, research/scholarship, and extension. Auburn University is committed to providing exceptional academic experiences by supporting our faculty, while remaining compliant with applicable laws and guidance at the state and federal levels. As we discussed during our ART (Academic Round Table on October 13^th), Deans’ Forum (October 20^th), and feedback sessions (October 21^st and 23^rd), I am following up with written guidance on our individual and collective responsibilities as Auburn University’s academic leaders. Last year, the Alabama State Legislature passed Alabama Act 2024-34 (previously known as Senate Bill 129) (“SB 129”), which took effect on October 1, 2024. Among other requirements, SB 129 defines and imposes limitations related to “divisive concepts”. Since January of this year, additional guidance related to these topics has been provided by the federal government, clearly signaling heightened scrutiny of programs that are determined to be inconsistent with existing anti-discrimination law. (See January 21, 2025 Executive Order 14173 “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity;” February 5, 2025 Office of the Attorney General Memorandum “Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences;” May 19, 2025 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Deputy Attorney General Memorandum “Civil Rights Fraud Initiative;” and July 29, 2025 Office of the Attorney General Memorandum “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination”). Non-compliance with applicable law places Auburn at significant legal risk and threatens the university’s funding across the entire enterprise. Responsibility for legal compliance is shared by all individuals across all units of the university. As the ranking academic officer of your respective college, you are ultimately responsible for the content of your college’s instructional materials. Therefore, I request that you work with your faculty to review and certify that all course descriptions, syllabi, content, and instruction are legally compliant. No later than November 18th, 2025, please send me an email indicating that you have received certification from each of your faculty affirming that their course descriptions, syllabi, content, and instruction for each course offered during Fall 2025 have been reviewed with attention to applicable state and federal law and regulatory guidance. Please note in your communication that—to the best of your ability and judgement, and in consultation with your college leadership, faculty, and staff—you concur that your college’s course descriptions, syllabi, content, and instruction comply with applicable state and federal law and regulatory guidance."

Oct. 31: "Dear Colleagues, As we reach the end of October, it’s remarkable how quickly the fall has passed. Many thanks to all of you who attended the recent Senate and General Faculty meetings earlier this month. Both offered valuable opportunities to share updates and engage in thoughtful discussion on topics that continue to shape our academic work. One of the themes in those meetings was the ongoing need for clarity regarding the implementation of Alabama Act 2024-34 (SB 129) and its implications for our academic courses. To ensure our compliance with SB 129, I recently requested that our deans lead a faculty-driven process for reviewing and affirming the fall 2025 courses offered in the colleges.  In response to the thoughtful questions and feedback many of you have shared, my office has drafted Additional Supplemental Guidance and Suggestions designed to assist you in reviewing syllabi, course descriptions, and instructional materials. As the deans work with faculty to support our ongoing compliance efforts, I hope this additional guidance will be useful. To further support faculty who may have specific questions about their course content and SB 129, the Office of the General Counsel has offered to host a series of open sessions—similar to those held last year—to continue the dialogue, provide additional guidance, and address specific concerns. You can register for one of the Consultative Sessions and Faculty Guidance on SB 129 here. I am deeply grateful for your professionalism and thoughtful engagement as we navigate these requirements together. Through your ongoing commitment to navigate these requirements together. Through your ongoing commitment to excellence, integrity, and intellectual curiosity, we continue to strengthen the values that define Auburn and advance our shared mission."

Nov. 3: "Based on feedback from the consultative sessions with our faculty today, Our Office of General Counsel and our Office of Governmental Relations have provided additional clarity/guidance suggesting that at this point, our course review focus solely on SB 129. If you have already completed your review with verbiage re federal law, then, no need to re-do the review using just SB 129 language. If focusing just on SB 129, helps reassure your faculty and hopefully alleviate some of their concerns, then, please feel free to refer to only SB 129 in the acknowledgement/affirmation mechanism. Additionally, please feel free to replace the word “certify” with “affirm” or “acknowledge” or a phrase such as “I have undertaken a diligent, good faith review and represent that…” Since we have provided much flexibility at the college and department levels, for this review of fall 2025 courses, it’s ok that we have different formats and versions. I request that you/your office share with your department and college leaders, faculty and others who are engaged in this effort."

Davis-Sramek sent a follow-up email on Oct. 30 regarding things employees can do for more insight into Auburn’s implementations of this legislation. In that same email, she cited a federal case related to SB-129 that was filed by the Alabama NAACP, professors and students from The University of Alabama, which argues the legislation is unconstitutional.

Dei Opinion by Caleb Taylor

This filing requested a prelim injunction to prevent SB-129 to take place until after the case had been heard in court. This was denied in August 2025.

Davis-Sramek also cited that she has set up a meeting with the Auburn University General Counsel’s office this week, and she encouraged other professors and faculty to do this as well.

The Office of The Provost provides supplemental materials on navigating the bill, in these meetings. The website states, "These sessions are designed to continue the dialogue, offer additional guidance, and address specific questions. To ensure meaningful discussion, each session will be limited to 20 participants.”

The Plainsman has reached out to Davis-Sramek and Virginia Davis, chair of Auburn University faculty senate, requesting an interview or statement and is awaiting a response.

---

Brychelle Brooks | Editor-in-Chief

Brychelle Brooks, senior majoring in public and professional writing with a minor in information systems, has been with The Auburn Plainsman since August 2023. She previously served as the Campus Reporter, Opinion Editor and Newsletter Editor. She is currently serving as the Editor-in-Chief.