the subject of study" or "no legitimate pedagogical purpose"; Prohibition of "infringement upon" a student's First Amendment rights and "freedom of conscience" by university administrators, student groups, or the academic institute's rules; Use of student fees by academic institutions on a "viewpoint-neutral basis", without lending credence to certain viewpoints; Professors "making [their] students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own"; The right for academic faculty to receive or lose employment or tenure based on their abilities, not their personal beliefs, and; The right for students and all academic faculty to be informed of their academic rights. If a student felt that their professor had targeted them or behaved in a way that was intolerant of the student's beliefs, H-837 would have given them grounds to file a lawsuit. Some interpreted the bill as mandating professors to teach both sides of a subject without any complaints from students, but Baxley maintained in interviews that this was not part of the bill. Horowitz's Academic Bill of Rights (and by extension, H-837) did not contain overtly politicized language. However, Democrats raised concerns about the partisan financial support, as well as the conservatism of the board of Students for Academic Freedom. Reaction H-837 received national attention; though multiple states proposed similar bills, Florida was the sole state that seemed likely to pass it. The bill primarily gathered support from Republicans and conservative student groups, including Students for Academic Freedom, who denied a political motivation. Proponents asserted that H-837 would give students a more balanced education; conservative students and activists argued that only liberal viewpoints were being taught. Supporters also rallied behind claims that conservative students were being targeted by liberal professors for "humiliation" and retaliation as a result of their beliefs, arguing that the Academic Freedom Bill of Rights would protect students from ideological discrimination. (While both Baxley and Horowitz circulated claims of alleged retaliations, they declined to name students or professors involved.) Democrats and academics largely opposed the bill, citing the unclear language and government interference in situations handled by educational boards. Many criticized it as an effort to frighten professors away from controversial topics or discussions, pointing out an overhanging threat of lawsuits would stifle discussions. Eleanor Sobel (D-Hollywood), who voted against the bill in the Choice & Innovation Committee, called it "the antithesis of academic freedom". Dan Gelber (D-Miami Beach) pointed out the potential for abuse by students who