September 10th 2025.
A recent ruling by a federal judge has sparked controversy as the NAACP's federal lawsuit against a South Carolina censorship law was dismissed. The law in question, Budget Proviso 1.79, has been deemed discriminatory by the plaintiffs, who took legal action against South Carolina Superintendent of Education, Ellen Weaver, and two school districts in the Midlands. The lawsuit was filed after state leaders decided to cancel the Advanced Placement African American Studies course in public schools. The plaintiffs argue that this budget proviso has a direct impact on how students in grades K-12 are taught about race and slavery.
In her filing, Judge Sherri A. Lydon acknowledged the significance of the issues brought up by the plaintiffs. However, she stated that due to a lack of standing, the resolution of these matters falls under the jurisdiction of the democratic process rather than the federal courts. As reported by WISTV, Judge Lydon further explained that the removal of the AP African American Studies course was not directly linked to the budget proviso, as alleged by the plaintiffs during the initial hearing in July. Instead, it was tied to the controversy surrounding the course and a planned update to the state's public school studies standards, according to a memo issued by the South Carolina Department of Education.
The memo issued by Weaver, announcing that AP African American Studies would no longer be offered in South Carolina public schools, stated that there is no restriction preventing districts from offering the course as a locally-approved honors course if they wish to do so. She also reaffirmed the state education department's commitment to teaching the factual historical experience of African Americans to students.
However, the ruling has faced criticism from the Legal Defense Fund, which represented the plaintiffs. They argue that Budget Proviso 1.79 imposes severe restrictions on the teaching of topics related to race, racial inequalities, and Black history, heritage, and culture. The proviso has prompted a lawsuit by a group of South Carolina educators, students, an author, and the NAACP South Carolina State Conference.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that the proviso is racially discriminatory and severely limits teachers and staff from sharing certain information and knowledge about the history and experiences of Black people in South Carolina schools. The Legal Defense Fund also claims that the proviso has resulted in the removal of books by Black authors from school libraries.
Expressing disappointment over the court's decision to dismiss the challenge to Budget Proviso 1.79, LDF Senior Counsel Charles McLaurin stated that the proviso continues to pose a threat to the state's public schools, particularly for Black children and teachers. Despite this outcome, they remain committed to challenging the proviso and ensuring that South Carolina schools provide an honest and inclusive education to all students. This ruling has also sparked further outrage, as it comes in the wake of a racist incident targeting Winsome Earle-Sears in Virginia, which has been condemned by state leaders.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
