A University of Alabama professor and administrator Wednesday accused a member of the Alabama House of Representatives of threatening a fellowship program’s budget if its curriculum was not changed to comply with a state law banning DEI programs and so-called “divisive concepts.”

In an evidentiary hearing in a federal lawsuit over the statute, known as SB 129, Dana Patton, director of the Witt Fellows Program and a political science professor at the University of Alabama, testified that university officials told her a “powerful person in Montgomery” was behind complaints alleging the Dr. Robert E. Witt Program, an interdisciplinary honors program at UA focused on community service, was violating the law.

“Clearly, a very powerful person was behind this complaint for me to be asked to provide such extensive detail about my course,” Patton said in testimony before U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor. “I did not know who she was referring to. When I hear ‘very powerful person,’ I generally think it’s either a big donor to the university, a board of trustee member or state legislator.”

More from Alabama Reflector

The anonymous complaints, which Patton received on October 15 and read during her testimony, alleged that “divisive concepts (were) embedded in UA Dr. Robert Witt Fellows program.” It stated that five students complained that “the viewpoints in the required reading books are presented as the correct perspective, and other opinions are shut down,” and “the students have stated they feel unsafe and scared to speak in class, unable to express their viewpoints in the classroom or in class assignments.”

Patton testified that at a University of Alabama game on Nov. 16, 2024, she was introduced to Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville, the chair of the House Ways and Means Education Committee, one of two legislative committees that oversees the Education Trust Fund budget, in the president’s box at Bryant-Denny Stadium.

She further testified that at that meeting, she had a 45-minute conversation with Garrett where he asked her if she knew about the complaints, which she told him she did. According to Patton, Garrett said that Rep. Susan DuBose, R-Hoover, “was not going to let this thing go” and that she was very “tenacious.”

Citing the litigation, Garrett in a phone call Wednesday declined to comment on Patton’s allegations. A message seeking comment was left with DuBose.

The lawsuit, filed in January, alleged that SB 129, sponsored by Sen Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, violated the First and Fourteenth amendments by prohibiting public funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and limiting discussions of so-called “divisive concepts.” Plaintiffs also allege the new law is confusing, vague and discriminatory.

Patton also said she understood a comment allegedly made by Garrett at the UA game, telling Patton he is chair of the House Ways and Means Education Committee, as a threat against her university program.

“He told me he’s the chair of the budget. He’s in charge of the budget. He answers to the taxpayers. He controls the budget, and all of this conversation was in relation to talking about the complaint and talking about my program and my courses. Well, I took it very much as a threat against the budget of my program,” she said.

Jay Ezelle, an attorney representing the members of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, did not address those allegations or ask for clarification when cross-examining Patton, who said she does not know if any complaints were investigated and remains unclear whether they came from within the university community.

After the hearing, Ezelle declined to comment on the complaints and would not vouch for their authenticity, saying that he didn’t want to possibly identify one of the anonymous complainers.

“I won’t comment on that,” he said, saying that his public comments are on the court record.

Garrett texted Patton following their introduction in November, according to evidence presented to the court, saying that he “will be working with (Vice Chancellor of External Affairs) Charlie Taylor to set up a time for you, the Honors College Dean and me to meet with a couple of other legislators who have raised concerns. As I expressed today, my desire is to address/resolve concerns and avoid potential major issues in the future.”

Patton said she “took that as a threat.”

“Well, he wants to talk to avoid major issues in the future. He had made it clear that he controls the budget. He had told me that the state legislature was upset with the program. I’ve been asked about the books that I assign. He’s saying we need to avoid major issues. We need (to) compromise about my class and my decisions about it. It felt very much like a threat to me,” Patton said.

Patton said she has already made some changes to her courses as of her testimony Wednesday, and plans to make more for next semester. She has discontinued the use of the Harvard Implicit Association Test (IAT), a test that analyses a person’s subconscious bias.

 Patton said that while she was not asked to make that change, she’s afraid that it could lead to more complaints, putting her in a similar situation again. She said that while she tells students the IAT doesn’t label them as racist or sexist, she cannot control their “feelings of guilt,” which could lead to accusations of violating SB 129, especially concerning the law’s mention of subconscious concepts.

In her introductory “Understanding Poverty” class, Patton said next semester she will stop showing three documentaries that tend to elicit “visceral reaction” and “feelings of guilt and anger” in students, particularly regarding topics like convict leasing.

“That’s my main concern based on SB 129. I can’t control how students feel when they view these documentaries,” she said.

The hearing will continue Thursday with testimony from University of Alabama students impacted by SB 129, followed by a presentation of evidence by lawyers for the UA Board of Trustees, though they did not indicate who might testify.