Federal Court Blocks Enforcement of California’s Mandatory DEIA and “Anti-Racist” Ideology against Bakersfield College Professor

Requiring professors to “reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles” in their teaching, and be DEIA-proficient to “teach, work, or lead within California community colleges,” likely violates the First Amendment

February 23, 2026   •  By IFS Staff   •    •  
Daymon Johnson / Photo by: Vinnícius Lopes

Bakersfield, CA — Bakersfield College History Professor Daymon Johnson is again free to express his political and social views, and to teach his classes, without fear of being fired for opposing California’s official ideology of “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA)” and “anti-racism.”

A federal court blocked California community college officials from enforcing the state’s mandatory DEIA and anti-racist regulations against Professor Johnson, an Institute for Free Speech client, finding that Johnson is likely to succeed in his First Amendment challenge, claiming that officials are unlawfully compelling his speech and discriminating against his viewpoints.

In a significant victory for academic freedom, Judge Kirk E. Sherriff of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Johnson’s motion for a preliminary injunction late last Friday, enjoining Kern Community College District and Bakersfield College officials from investigating, disciplining, or terminating Johnson based on his speech in the classroom, in his scholarship, or as a private citizen—including his social media posts, media appearances, published articles, and participation in protests.

California’s DEIA regulations require faculty to “employ teaching, learning, and professional practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles” and establish “proficiency in DEIA-related performance to teach, work, or lead within California community colleges.” The court found that these regulations likely violate the First Amendment by compelling Johnson to endorse the state’s preferred viewpoint on DEIA matters or face potential termination for refusing to do so.

The court also rejected officials’ argument that the state’s general interest in promoting DEIA principles outweighs Johnson’s First Amendment rights, concluding that defendants “failed to demonstrate ‘a legitimate administrative interest in suppressing the speech that outweigh[s] the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.’”

“The First Amendment forbids California from demanding that community college professors conform their speech to an official government ideology—including so-called ‘DEI’ and anti-racist ideologies,” explained Institute for Free Speech Vice President for Litigation Alan Gura, lead counsel for Johnson.

“Professor Johnson has the right to teach history as a scholar, share his views as a citizen, and lead his faculty group—all without the state dictating what he must believe or say. In America, no one can be required to believe or endorse the state’s official political ideology, and everyone is free to criticize it. That is especially true on college campuses, given the strong First Amendment interest in academic freedom,” Gura added.

The court’s ruling follows a 2025 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed an earlier dismissal and found that Johnson had standing to challenge the DEIA regulations, concluding that he had established a credible plan to engage in speech that the regulations may proscribe. Bakersfield College has disciplined and even terminated faculty before for their political viewpoints. It had previously investigated Johnson’s political speech on Facebook.

On remand, the district court agreed that Johnson’s intended speech—including classroom instruction, scholarship, activities through his dissident faculty organization the Renegade Institute for Liberty (RIFL), and off-duty commentary—is protected by the First Amendment.

The court also denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that KCCD and Bakersfield College officials are the proper defendants, as they are responsible for enforcing the DEIA regulations against Johnson.

The case, Johnson v. Fliger, et al., will proceed toward a final judgment on the merits.

To read the court’s order in the case, click here. To visit our case page, which includes all filings and other case resources, click here.

About the Institute for Free Speech

The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment.

IFS Staff

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap