The Suspension of Alice and Nineteen Fifty-Six Magazines
In December 2025, the University of Alabama (UA), a flagship public institution in Tuscaloosa, abruptly suspended two longstanding student-run magazines: Alice and Nineteen Fifty-Six. This decision sent shockwaves through the campus community, sparking debates over free speech, diversity initiatives, and the role of student media in higher education.
Alice, launched in 2015, served as a biannual print publication focusing on women's issues, gender, sexuality, lifestyle, health, and wellness. It helped students navigate the transition from adolescence to adulthood, earning accolades like the Pacemaker Award in 2016 and Best Magazine from the Society of Professional Journalists in 2021. Nineteen Fifty-Six, founded in 2020 and named after the year UA first briefly admitted Black student Autherine Lucy Foster, highlighted Black culture, excellence, and campus experiences through articles, art, and photography. It too received awards, including recognition for feature magazines.
Both magazines were funded by UA's Office of Student Media—approximately $16,000 annually for Alice and $12,000 for Nineteen Fifty-Six—with operations open to all students regardless of background. Staffs were diverse, including multiracial and gender-balanced teams, and stipends supported editors.
University's Rationale: Compliance with Anti-DEI Guidance
On December 1, 2025, editors were summoned to meetings where Vice President of Student Life Steven Hood announced indefinite suspensions and defunding. The reason? The magazines "targeted primarily specific groups"—women for Alice and Black students for Nineteen Fifty-Six—making them "unlawful proxies" for discrimination under a July 29, 2025, non-binding memo from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Bondi's memo, titled "Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination," warned federally funded entities like public universities against DEI practices functioning as proxies for race or sex discrimination, such as identity-based scholarships or events. UA interpreted the magazines' focuses as violating this, despite student assurances of inclusivity. Hood acknowledged content wasn't the issue but perceived audiences were.
This aligned with Alabama's SB 129 (2024), banning DEI programs and "divisive concepts" in public higher education, leading to closures of DEI offices and groups like the Black Student Union. UA hoped to launch a new inclusive publication but offered no guarantees for original viewpoints.
Immediate Backlash and Student Resilience
Reactions were swift. Editor-in-Chief Gabrielle Gunter of Alice expressed devastation, believing First Amendment protections shielded them. Nineteen Fifty-Six founder Tionna Taite decried regression from 2020 diversity promises. A petition amassed over 3,000 signatures demanding reinstatement.
- Alumni launched fundraisers via Masthead, raising $25,000+.
- By March 2026, independent relaunches: Selene (Alice successor, women-focused) and Sixty-Three (Nineteen Fifty-Six, Black experiences), publishing first print issues spring 2026.
Free speech groups like Student Press Law Center criticized the moves as unconstitutional.
The Lawsuit: Pointer v. Phelps Unfolds
On March 23, 2026, eight former contributors filed Pointer v. Phelps (7:2026cv00476) in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, against UA Board of Trustees (chaired by Scott Phelps, members including Gov. Kay Ivey).
Plaintiffs: Rihanna Pointer (multi-media editor, Nineteen Fifty-Six), Grant Sturdivant (photographer), Timoni Taite, Jaleel Matanmi, Jermaine Ball, Sara Beth Caddell (Alice web editor), Gabrielle Gunter (Alice EIC), Emmy Waugh. Represented by NAACP Legal Defense Fund, ACLU of Alabama, Southern Poverty Law Center.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, they claim viewpoint discrimination in a limited public forum (UA Student Media, per Media Policy Board Charter guaranteeing free press). Suspension targeted race/gender viewpoints while sparing others like The Crimson White.Read the full complaint here.
Legal Arguments and Precedents
Plaintiffs argue UA created a forum for student speech but discriminated based on viewpoint—perspectives on women/Black experiences. Audience as proxy is invalid; government can't exclude speech interesting to specific groups (e.g., religion).
Key precedents:
- Rosenberger v. UVA (1995): No viewpoint discrimination in funding student groups.
- Widmar v. Vincent (1981): Strict scrutiny for forum discrimination.
- Gay Lesbian Bisexual All. v. Pryor (11th Cir. 1997): Constraints in created forums.
- Amidon v. SUNY (2d Cir. 2007): No favoritism to majority views.
University's Stance and Ongoing Silence
UA declined comment on the lawsuit, consistent with policy on pending litigation. Spokesperson Alex House reiterated suspensions ensure inclusivity amid "compliance landscape." No motion to dismiss filed as of April 1, 2026; case early stage.
Broader Anti-DEI Context in U.S. Higher Education
This case exemplifies nationwide pushback against DEI post-2024 elections. Trump's administration revived scrutiny via Bondi's memo, threatening federal funds for "proxies." States like Alabama (SB129) mandated closures.View Bondi memo.
Impacts: Dozens of universities shuttered programs; student media rarely targeted, making UA unique. Similar suits challenge DEI bans (e.g., Alabama faculty appeal SB129).
Stakeholder Perspectives and Student Impacts
Students lost portfolios, stipends, facilities; Pointer: "Freedom of expression... vital for inclusive community." Attorneys: Silencing marginalized voices echoes dark history.
UA argues legal compliance; critics see censorship. Relaunches show resilience but lack institutional support.
Implications for Student Journalism Nationwide
Public universities must navigate funding speech without viewpoint bias. Cases like Rosenberger set high bar; Bondi guidance non-binding, per precedents. Outcome could clarify DEI-media intersection.
Future Outlook and Case Trajectory
As of April 1, 2026, no rulings; expect motion to dismiss. Injunction possible if plaintiffs show irreparable harm. Broader: May spur policy reviews, alumni funding models. Encourages universities to affirm media independence via charters.
For higher ed leaders: Balance compliance, free speech. Students: Explore independent outlets, legal protections.
