Government-Compelled Naming Mandates for Academics, Like Alabama's 'Gulf of America' Law, Violate the First Amendment
Source: Ronald Krotoszynski. "Alabama banned me from saying “Gulf of Mexico.”." November 6, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author, an Alabama law professor, says a new state law forces public university employees to call the Gulf of Mexico the 'Gulf of America', and a federal order pushes a similar renaming of 'artificial intelligence'. He argues that making professors use government-chosen words hurts their credibility and their academic freedom, and that Supreme Court free-speech precedents mean courts should strike these mandates down.
Conclusion
Alabama's H.B. 2, which requires state employees including professors to say 'Gulf of America' instead of 'Gulf of Mexico', and similar federal mandates such as the 'superintelligence' executive order, violate the First Amendment and academic freedom, so federal courts should swiftly strike them down.
Premises
- H.B. 2 requires all state and local employees, including public university professors, to use 'Gulf of America' in official communications, educational materials and other resources, with only a narrow exception for 'historical purposes' in instruction.
- In academic discourse, using the correct, widely accepted term is essential to professional credibility, so compelled use of nonstandard names harms scholars' teaching and research.
- Such mandates are part of a broader national effort to standardize speech and thereby thought, and could expand to terms like 'Lake Ontario' and 'artificial intelligence', including through federal research funding conditions.
- Under Cohen v. California, government cannot forbid or compel particular words without risking suppression of ideas, because control over words amounts to control over thought and officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area.
- The First Amendment gives special protection to academic freedom, as stated in Frankfurter's Wieman v. Updegraff concurrence, because teachers need freedom of responsible inquiry to do their work.
- Therefore, compelling academics to use government-chosen terms in teaching and scholarship violates both general free speech principles and the specific protection for academic freedom.
Assumptions
- Cohen v. California, a case about criminalizing a word in public, extends to compelled speech by government employees in their official or professional roles.
- The state's power as employer to regulate employee speech in official duties (e.g., Garcetti v. Ceballos) does not override academic freedom protections for professors.
- Academic freedom is a constitutionally enforceable right, not merely a professional norm, and covers terminology choices.
- Renaming bodies of water is a viewpoint-laden act, not mere government-controlled nomenclature in its own communications.
- The 'historical purposes' exception is too narrow to cure the constitutional problem.
- The Trump 'superintelligence' executive order exists and operates as described, and will be applied as a condition on research funding.