"SB 37 Will Harm Students’ Development as Critical Thinkers"—TLEEC Testimony Against Senate Bill 37, March 20, 2025

Friends:

Sen. Brandon Creighton's (R-Dist. 4) Senate Bill 37 merits a close read not only because it is injurious to the purposes of higher education, but it could prove to be model legislation for other states. It is an anti-tenure and anti-faculty governance bill and is premised on the view that we are not doing our job in higher education in preparing young people for productive lives in society. At worst, we're allegedly and falsely about "woke indoctrination" instead of real education. 

As University of Houston's Dr. Maria Gonzalez demonstrated in her testimony, citing all the Texas institutions that granted the very legislators on Senate Education Committee their college diplomas, the system isn't broken, but rather doing what it's supposed to be doing. Similarly, Texas AFT's Amanda Garcia said that if it's not broken, it shouldn't be fixed.

To get the whole picture, I encourage you to listen for yourselves to the testimony delivered in yesterday's hearing in the Senate Committee on Education (Part I and Part II).  Of course, as usual, the invited testimony was approving of the bill while everyone else that spoke was strongly opposed. 

I am happy to share here this Texas Legislative Education Equity Coalition policy brief on the bill from which witness Vivek Datla testified. A version of it will most certainly come out of the Senate. A goal would be to stop it in the House.

Of course, reach out to whoever represents you to express your views on this horrific legislation that spells disaster for Texas higher education should any version of this become law.

-Angela Valenzuela

SB 37 Will Harm Students’ Development as Critical Thinkers

TLEEC Testimony Against Senate Bill 37, submitted by Vivek Datla to the Texas Senate K-16 Education Committee, March 20, 2025

Dear Chairman Creighton and members of the K-16 Education Committee,

My name is Vivek Datla, and I am an IDRA Education Policy Fellow testifying on behalf of the Texas Legislative Education Equity Coalition (TLEEC) against Senate Bill 37. Our coalition is a statewide collaborative of more than 38 organizations and individuals with the mission to improve the quality of public education for all children, with a focus on racial equity. We advocate at the local, state and national levels for high-quality teaching, curricula and instructional practices, bilingual education, fair funding, and enhanced college access and success.

TLEEC opposes SB 37 and is specifically concerned about Sections 51.315 and 454 and the potential of these proposals to censor students’ exposure to diverse curricula and ideologies as taught by field experts. The sections would diminish students’ exercise of free thought and academic judgement and impede the overall development of students as critically thinking adults.

Shared Governance Structures Promote Fair Curricula, Critical Thinking and Free Expression

Texas’ public universities do a great job of developing students and preparing them for the workforce. They consistently rank highly in publications of the nation’s best college institutions. They are powered by the principles of shared governance developed jointly in the 1960s by the American Association of University Professors, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

In producing those guidelines, the representatives of faculty, school leaders and governing board members recognized that the shared interests of different university bodies necessitate collaboration, shared management of responsibilities, and freedom of expression without fear of reprisal. Those shared interests should, as they correctly described, create and maintain an educational process that enables students to “be stimulated by it to become independent adults” and that transmits to them “the cultural heritage of the larger society,” including the “strength, freshness of view and idealism of the student body.” Research suggests that when students engage with curricula that challenge previously held beliefs, they become more civically engaged and are better prepared to cooperate with others in their workspaces and in their communities (Son Holoien, 2013).

It was understood then that decisions concerning curricula and instructional methods are best left, as they are now, to field and research experts: the faculty who work directly with students daily to introduce them to diverse subject matter, foster their creative thinking and analytical skills, and prepare them for careers after college that require them to exercise individual judgement to work with others to solve complex problems.

SB 37 Creates Vague Requirements and Processes that May Induce a “Chilling Effect” on Curriculum and Instruction

SB 37 introduces vague and potentially harmful constraints on students’ exposure to diverse curricula and ideas, while transferring curriculum oversight from faculty to new and unnecessary review committees. Specifically, we are concerned about bill language that seeks to establish an office to “address matters of academic discourse,” though the bill does not clarify allowable or unallowable discourse.

Additionally, we are concerned that the bill restricts any curricula from endorsing “specific public policies, ideologies or legislation,” though these terms and what endorsement is are not defined. This lack of clarity and the broad nature of these proposals are likely to create a political chilling effect on higher education courses, curricula and activities that ultimately reduces students’ exposure to and discussion of complex topics, inhibiting their development as critical thinkers in the process.

Recommendations

TLEEC urges the following recommendations.

• Maintain and strengthen shared governance structures that allow for engagement with diverse curriculum curated by experts.
• Support Texas colleges to offer students a diverse range of perspectives, experiences and opportunities that will prepare them to be critical thinkers, innovators and leaders.

For questions, please contact TLEEC either through Kaci Wright at IDRA (kaci.wright@idra.org), Dr. Chloe Latham Sikes at IDRA (chloe.sikes@idra.org) or Jaime Puente at Every Texan (puente@everytexan.org).

Resources

Son Holoien, D. (September 2013). Do Differences Make a Difference? The Effects of Diversity on Learning, Intergroup Outcomes, and Civic Engagement. Princeton Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity. https://inclusive.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf7151/files/pu-report- diversity-outcomes.pdf

Texas Legislative Education Equity Coalition (TLEEC) is a collaborative of organizations and individuals with the mission to improve the quality of public education for all children, with a focus on racial equity. The coalition convenes organizations and individuals who advocate in the interest of public school students at the local, state and national levels.

TLEEC Member Organizations

ARISE Adelante Asian Texans for Justice Austin Justice Coalition Big Thought Black Parents and Families Collective Breakthrough Central  Texas Coalition of Texans with Disabilities Culturingua Dr. Hector P. García G.I. Forum Easterseals Central Texas Educators in Solidarity (EIS) Ethnic Studies Network of Texas (ESNTX) Every Texan Houston Community Voices for Public Education IDRA McNeil Educational Foundation for Ecumenical Leadership Measure Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) Mexican American School Board Members Association (MASBA)

National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies (NACCS) – Tejas Foco San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce SEAT (Students Engaged in Advancing Texas) Southwest Region Youth Legislative Action Center Texas American Federation of Teachers Texas Association for Bilingual Education (TABE) Texas Association for Chicanos in Higher Education (TACHE) Texas Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (TADOHE) Texas Association of Mexican American Chambers of Commerce (TAMACC) Texas Center for Education Policy at the University of Texas – Austin Texas Hispanics Organized for Political Education (HOPE) Texas League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Texas NAACP Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) The Arc of Texas UnidosUS (formerly known as NCLR) UP Partnership

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.—Testimony March 20, 2025, before the Senate Education K-16 Committee in Opposition to Senate Bill 37

Friends:

URGENT WARNING: Sen. Brandon Creighton's (R-Dist. 4) Senate Bill 37 demands immediate attention—not only because it poses a direct threat to the very foundation of higher education, but because it could set a dangerous precedent for other states. 

This alarming piece of legislation is a full-scale attack on tenure and faculty governance, rooted in the misguided notion that educators are failing in their duty to prepare students for meaningful contributions to society. Even more disturbingly, as part of the "anti-woke" agenda, it perpetuates the false and inflammatory claim that universities are engaged in so-called "woke indoctrination" rather than genuine education. Hence, the focus of my testimony that addresses this assumption that lurks behind the bill. We only get 2 minutes to speak, so here is my testimony, short and sweet.

To learn about all that was said, you can hear for yourselves from yesterday's Senate Committee on Education deliberations (Parts I and II).  If left unchecked, this bill could have devastating consequences for academic freedom nationwide.

Thanks to Dr. David Albert, here is the link to yesterday's Senate Ed hearing together with a breakdown of where exactly on the meter you can hear everybody's testimonies:

Public testimony begins at 2:33 minutes and goes on for about an hour and 35 minutes.  I tried to get times for most of our people below. 

2:33 - Leonard Bright, 2:35 Seth Chandler, 2:39 - Margaret Hale (they were asked some questions by the panel)

3:16 - Karma Chavez, 3:18 - Andrea Gore, 3:20 - Pauline Strong, 3:23 - Brian Evans,

3:25 - Caitlin Smith, 3:28 - Jake Leo, 3:30 - Angela Valenzuela, 

3:42 - Amanda Garcia, 3:45 - Mathew LaDue, 3:48 - Andrew Henrich, 

3:59 - David Albert, 4:01 - Maria Unda, 4:04 - Allen Liu

As you can hear from everybody's testimonies, our concerns are by no means exaggerated. SB 37 is truly appalling. Its very filing sends a chilling message and will undoubtedly already have devastating consequences just in terms of the message it's sending out to the world. 

Frankly, this bill should have never been introduced in the first place.

-Angela Valenzuela

Testimony on Senate Bill 37

Countering the Allegation of Indoctrination in Higher Education: We are Epistemic Bubbles, Not Echo Chambers

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

March 20, 2025

I have thought long and hard about what education would look like if we were truly indoctrinating our students. I draw from the compelling work of game theorist and philosopher C. Thi Nguyen, who distinguishes “echo chambers” from “epistemic bubbles” or “knowledge bubbles.”

An echo chamber is a carefully rigged structure of language where a particular idea becomes a message that bounces off the walls from various sources. There is a distinctive sense of people who are insiders and outsiders to the echo chamber, with the outsiders being mistrusted and actively discredited. The “anti-woke” agenda itself is a good example of the echo chamber.

In contrast, an epistemic bubble emerges from an informational architecture that derives from our fields of study and the disciplines—that are themselves structured by specific methodologies, theoretical frameworks, operating assumptions, and so on.

While epistemic bubbles can also be impaired, they work differently from echo chambers. There is no “other side” that they are actively distrusting or discrediting. The issue is rather the never-ending quest of addressing our own blind spots, biases, and gaps in knowledge in our own research and teaching.

Whereas echo chambers can become quite durable—even to the point of rejecting disconfirming evidence—epistemic bubbles are more unstable and easily burst. And those bursts are the stuff of intellectual growth, epiphanies, and pathbreaking discoveries.

The irony is that SB 37 is justified as an attack on woke and ostensibly “woke professors” when what is actually sought is a backwards educational architecture that will cripple the scientific enterprise should this bill become law. Do we indoctrinate? No, we evolve and grow with our students by challenging them to think critically, question assumptions, and engage in the continuous pursuit of knowledge. Thank you very much.

Reference

Nguyen, C. T. (2018). Escape the echo chamber. Aeon Magazine,12. https://cs50.harvard.edu/x/2021/labs/10/chamber.pdf

Texas faculty testify against bills to screen universities’ curriculum for “ideological” bias, by Jessica Priest, Texas Tribune

As covered by Jessica Priest with the Texas Tribune, professors across Texas, myself included, gathered yesterday to issue a dire warning against Senate Bill 37, condemning it as a direct assault on academic freedom that could muzzle educators and impose sweeping ideological restrictions on higher education. Many argued that the bill will most definitely instill a climate of fear, forcing professors to self-censor rather than risk political repercussions for discussing essential but controversial subjects. Even more alarming, SB 37 represents an unprecedented power grab, stripping faculty of their long-held role in shaping curricula and hiring decisions and instead handing this authority to governing boards stacked with political appointees. 

The bill’s overhaul of faculty senates is equally troubling, as it would drastically curtail faculty participation and eliminate their ability to hold university leadership accountable. If enacted, SB 37 and its accompanying proposals could very easily dismantle the academic excellence Texas has spent decades building, leaving a system that prioritizes ideological conformity over intellectual rigor.

Republicans and Democrats should be equally outraged by this power grab by a senator who needs—and will indeed take this "win" to become governor. The public needs to be aware of this and act on it right away.

The bill still has to go to the House side. It would be great if we can stop it dead in its tracks there. Stay tuned!

-Angela Valenzuela

Texas faculty testify against bills to screen universities’ curriculum for “ideological” bias


Lawmakers say several bills under consideration Thursday would “address the unchecked authority of faculty.” They would expand university governing boards’ oversight powers.

By Jessica Priest March 20, 2025 | Texas Tribune

The University of Texas System's Board of Regents during a regular meeting in Austin on May 3, 2023.

Dozens of professors testified Thursday against a proposal that would prevent college courses from endorsing “specific public policies, ideologies or legislation,” saying it threatens not only their freedom to teach, but students’ freedom to learn.

The Texas Senate’s K-16 Education Committee heard testimony Thursday on Senate Bill 37, by Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, a sweeping piece of legislation that would task universities’ governing boards with screening curricula for ideological bias, among other things.

Seth Chandler, a professor of law at the University of Houston, said the bill could be interpreted as prohibiting a broad range of subjects — from the teaching of free market economics to the original interpretation of the Constitution, or even the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

Others said the legislation would instill fear to introduce and discuss material some might find controversial.

"Mostly, I'm concerned with how SB 37 infantilizes college students. These are adults who take my classes, who are bright, thoughtful and more than capable of confronting new and challenging ideas,” said Caitlin Smith, an assistant professor of Instruction in the Department of Educational Psychology at The University of Texas at Austin.

Sen. Royce West, a Democrat from Dallas, leveled with them. He said it was likely this bill would pass because Republicans have the majority, but he repeatedly asked witnesses to provide suggested language that would make the bill “more palatable.”

Creighton said he’d review their suggestions.

“It’s not our intention to promote fear,” he said. “There’s 10,000 bills in the Capitol that may cause someone anywhere from indigestion to incredible fear, but that’s because it’s the unknown, it’s change."

SB 37 would reduce faculty’s role in curriculum and hiring decisions and transfer much of it to the governing boards that oversee Texas’ public universities. They are composed of regents appointed by the governor and make policy, budget and administrative decisions for their systems.

Sherry Sylvester, a distinguished senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and one of Creighton’s invited witnesses, said SB 37 is a critical next step to build on the state’s ban on diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education. She said it would address an imbalance in the number of classes with gender, race and identity in their title versus those that cite the Federalist Papers or the Declaration of Independence.

Sylvester added that she was concerned about those classes being used to fulfill core curriculum requirements and that they don’t help meet the state’s workforce needs. SB 37 would require boards to create committees, made up of local industry partners and tenured faculty at the institution, to ensure courses prepare students for the workforce.

The bill “will ensure that the general education courses that students are required to take are focused on both their professional and civic skills, what they will need to prosper in the work world and in their lives after graduation,” she said.

SB 37 would also give college and university governing boards the final say on a wider range of leadership hires. Right now, governing boards are mostly tasked with hiring university system chancellors or individual universities’ presidents. SB 37 would let them vet and veto other administrators like deans and provosts.

West pointed out Texas public universities employ more than a thousand administrators to underscore how much additional work vetting the new hires would mean for regents. He said the regents already have power over curriculum and hiring because they can convey their wishes to their university systems’ chancellors and presidents.

“So what’s the current problem?” West asked.

Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, said he did not think confirming or vetoing the hiring of department chairs would be too much additional work for regents as there are only 82 at the University of Texas at Austin and they are unlikely to turn over at the same time. Creighton added that SB 37 will better orient future regents to their new responsibilities.

In addition, SB 37 would codify how faculty senates are established and who can serve in them. Faculty senates are bodies of professors that advise university leaders. They currently take the lead in developing curricula and in hiring and evaluating their fellow academics.

Creighton said he was spurred to limit faculty’s influence after some pushed against their universities’ leaders.

Creighton said Stephen F. Austin University joined the University of Texas System in part because the faculty held a vote of no confidence in University President Scott Gordon in 2021. Professors were upset Gordon had accepted an $85,000 pay raise amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The university’s board of regents backed Gordon despite the vote, but he ultimately stepped down months later.

One of Creighton’s invited witnesses, Carrie Butler, an SFA professor on sabbatical, offered a different account of the vote.

“It’s my opinion that the faculty senate did not accurately or appropriately make the decision based on credible information. It seemed to me, if I might use the term, more of a witch hunt,” Butler said.

Faculty at West Texas A&M University also took a vote of no confidence on President Walter Wendler after he banned a drag show on campus in 2023. Wendler remains president.

Creighton said there was a “lack of transparency for all to understand these actions … that have significant consequences on the future of the flagship or other systems.”

Some of the professors who testified Thursday wanted to make it clear to Creighton that the American Association of University Professors, not a faculty senate, was responsible for circulating a petition of no confidence for Jay Hartzell, who served as president of the University of Texas at Austin when police arrested dozens of students for protesting the Israel-Hamas war last spring. Creighton is a UT-Austin graduate.

“That petition was organized by a group that is entirely autonomous from the university. Not only did the faculty senate have nothing to do with it, they disavowed it and there was never a vote,” said Andrea Gore, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at UT-Austin.

Creighton said SB 37 will still allow faculty senates to take votes of no confidence, but they’d have to be recorded and the members of the faculty senate would be limited to one-year terms.

SB 37 would also establish an office within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to receive and investigate complaints that universities are not complying with state law. The office would employ nine people and cost more than $2 million to operate in its first year, according to the bill’s fiscal note.

The State Auditor’s Office is already checking college and universities’ compliance with the DEI ban. It released its first report on the issue last month, finding two minor violations so far.

Neal Hutchens, a professor at the University of Kentucky’s College of Education, said state legislatures and governing boards need to be careful not to use a wrecking ball to accomplish their goal for more transparency and accountability.

Hutchens said governing boards should ensure their institutions meet their state’s demand for certain professionals, such as engineers and doctors. But SB 37 opens the door for board members to prevent professors from teaching about certain topics that they might disagree with, Hutchens said.

“These are public institutions, so they should be responsive and representative to the public,” he said. “But if we become fixated on the idea that every course and every professor is trying to indoctrinate students, you really run the risk of harming institutions states have spent decades, centuries, building up.”

For decades, professors, administrators and governing boards have agreed to divvy up their responsibilities and lend their expertise to certain tasks in the best interests of their universities, said Mark Criley with the American Association of University Professors.

Criley said SB 37 conflicts with this agreement by stating that each college within the university may only have two faculty members on the faculty senate and one of the two must be appointed by the university president.

He said that under SB 37, faculty also would be excluded from disciplinary processes. At most top-tier universities, administrators who believe a faculty member’s conduct warrants discipline or dismissal make that case before a committee of faculty members. If that committee doesn’t agree, the administrator then takes it up with the board of regents.

“Excellence at an institution requires that the faculty be given a voice and often a decisive voice,” Criley said.

On Thursday, several professors who came to testify pointed out that SB 37 allows only tenured professors to serve on faculty senates and make recommendations on curriculum. They said this would disenfranchise non-tenured faculty members who also contribute to the success of their institutions and have valuable expertise to offer.

Another bill discussed Thursday, authored by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, would require regents to attend 75% of their meetings annually in person. Those who fail to do so would have to pay a $1,000 fine to the general scholarship fund of the institution. A second violation would make that regent ineligible to be reappointed.

In her bill’s statement of intent, the Brenham Republican wrote that some university system regents have missed more meetings since the COVID-19 pandemic began. She did not say which regents she was referring to.

The committee on Thursday also discussed prohibiting colleges and universities from accepting gifts, grants, donations or investments from certain foreign entities and measures to prevent those foreign entities from stealing universities’ intellectual property.

This year, Texas became the state with the most top-tier research universities.

Professors on Thursday reminded lawmakers that they’re the ones who made that happen, winning billions of dollars in competitive research grants. They cautioned that the restrictions legislators are considering might lead faculty to flee for job opportunities elsewhere.

The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.

Disclosure: Texas A&M University, Texas Public Policy Foundation, University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas System, University of Houston and West Texas A&M University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

It's Spring Break—Time to Advocate (March 17, 10 AM-4 PM) for Faculty Tenure and Academic Freedom!

Friends,

It's Spring break right now and members of the legislature always take advantage of this knowing that faculty are likely out of pocket. Accordingly, Please read this message from Texas AAUP President Brian Evans.

Of great concern to us in higher education is Senator Creighton's anti-tenure bill for university faculty Senate Bill 37 and Rep. Shaheen's companion bill HB 4499 that folks need to take time to read.

Rep. Donna Howard's House Bill 4277, in contrast, is a great proposal as it protects academic freedom by exempting scholarly research, creative works, and grant applications from restrictions, ensuring faculty, students, and researchers can freely conduct and share their work. It also preserves faculty support for career guidance and grants, public or private, fostering an open, innovative academic environment. Basically, it's a carve-out for academic freedom from within Senate Bill 17 that became law last session.

If you can make it to the capitol today for today's day of action with Texas AFT and Texas AAUP, please do so. We should be seriously alarmed by Creighton's persistent effort, continuing from the last legislative session, to undermine governance and tenure for Texas faculty and universities. Such measures risk transforming universities into a toxic mix of corporate entities and glorified secondary schools, causing the reputation and standing of Texas institutions of higher education to nosedive.

Texas AAUP and Texas AFT are wonderfully partnered such that today's Advocacy Day is for both organizations. Read below the various ways that you can be involved, in-person or virtually.

-Angela Valenzuela

Online and in-person activism
to oppose egregious bills


Dear Angela,

All bills have been filed for the Texas Legislative session, and hearings on higher ed bills will be on Tuesdays from March 18th to May 27th. Now is the time to ramp up online and in-person activism! The session ends June 2nd.


What’s at stake for higher ed? Everything. Several bills, if they become law, censor teaching, research, and expression; eliminate departments; and ban future offerings of tenure. SB 37/HB 4499, a high priority bill by the Lt. Gov., consolidates curriculum decisions in the governing board; excludes faculty in grievance and faculty disciplinary processes; and bans faculty senates or places them under administrative control. In the bill, courses in the core curriculum required for all degrees may not endorse specific public policies, ideologies, or legislation. Even so, there are encouraging bills to add exemptions for research grants to last session’s SB 17 and make college more affordable and accessible.

How to stay up to date? Daily updates are posted on X @TexasAaup and @aaup_utAustin and on Bluesky @texasaaup.bsky.social and @utaustinaaup.bsky.social. We also keep up-to-date the Texas AAUP-AFT Higher Ed Bill Tracker, which also includes our Legislative priorities, as well as the Texas AAUP-AFT web site. Also, please attend our monthly Legislative Updates and Testifier Trainings.

How do I advocate online? Fill out the Texas AAUP-AFT Questionnaire on SB 17 Impacts on Teaching and Research and sign the Texas AFT Educator’s Bill of Rights for K-12 and higher ed. Send posts to amplify to our social media coordinators Lauren Gutterman (ljg300@gmail.com) and Polly Strong (strongpolly@gmail.com). Call Legislative offices and talk with the staff member responsible for higher ed issues. Here’s who represents you. Talking with a staffer on the phone is generally more effective than sending email.

How do I advocate in person? Please join us in visiting Legislative offices on Thursdays at 9:30am and testifying on higher ed bills at hearings on Tuesdays. Contact Amanda Garcia (agarcia@texasaft.org) concerning testifying or visiting Legislative officers on days other than Thursdays. You can also visit the local offices for the Texas House member and Texas Senator who represent you. Here’s who represents you.

What else can I do? Invite others to join. Let them know why you joined. And It’s time to take action! Here’s the link to join Texas AAUP-AFT and several reasons to join. Here’s info about our member benefits.

Disclaimer: I am speaking for myself as a private individual, and not representing any group, institution, or organization, other than Texas AAUP-AFT.

Best

Brian

Brian L. Evans, PhD | He/His/Him | aaup.texas@gmail.com | 512-516-5991

President, Texas AAUP-AFT Conference, AFT Local 8041A

These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration, New York Times, March 7, 2025

Friends:

It's good to know the exact words that are disappearing so that they can come back once we have new leadership. It's a weird list, by the way—and very lengthy. Either Trump and DOGE are taking cues from Texas or the other way around, as an earlier published piece that I wrote titled "Monopoly Tycoons in a Game of Jenga: The Censorship of Bodies, Protest, and Speech at UT-Austin" suggests.

Whether UT-Austin or the U.S. government, no list like this should exist to begin with in the "free" world—or any other world, for that matter. And yes, we should be outraged by this since we can't transform reality unless we can name it. I love this appropriate quote by Nisargadatta Maharaj that links our very humanity to the ability to name:

"The mind craves for formulations and definitions, always eager to squeeze reality into a verbal shape."

I know that Trump's list is upsetting for a democratic (lowercase "d") mindset that respects free speech and decries censorship. It upsets me, too. However, the minute I feel my blood pressure rise, I readily take heart in the power of culture itself to overcome this trying moment.

According to cultural theorists like Gloria Anzaldúa, Emma Perez, and Homi Bhabha, culture is powerful. It can and will overcome censoriousness by emphasizing resistance, hybridity,  and the subversive potential of marginalized voices. To understand this, one must first know that, like race, ethnicity, or gender, cultures are neither fixed nor monolithic, no matter how hard one might wish this to be. Rather, they are continuously reshaped through interaction and negotiation, such as when we see this in the continual "re-mixing" of dance, music, food, and artistic expression.

This liminal, in-between space that the late Gloria Anzaldúa terms, "Nepantla," allows for new meanings and interpretations to emerge, challenging rigid, censorious policies and guidelines that seek to control discourse. 

A good example of Nepantla is the Mexican American experience that gave rise to "Spanglish," a fluid linguistic practice that blends Spanish and English. Speaking Spanglish has long been an actual skill that only Spanish-Engligh bilingual and bicultural individuals can speak. They acquired this by navigating multiple linguistic and cultural worlds simultaneously. Such adaptations exist for all languages across all contexts inevitably, historically. That's why not only there is no such thing as a "pure" language, by why those that seek it, die (e.g., Latin, Esperanto, Sanskrit, and Coptic).

Glad to see that "Chicana" and "Chicano" didn't make the list despite how progressive these terms are. The bad news is that this is so because they never made it on any website to begin with. The good news is that we never stopped being Chicana nor Chicano—or Chicanx. Not that we don't also have other identities and identifiers, but rather that we were correct in knowing from the very beginning that we Chicanas/os live entire existences in Nepantla—forever between worlds, entremundos.

Living in Nepantla gives us great skills that we should totally rely on in this current political moment. These have helped us to be better border crossers, traversing linguistic, geographical, socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and sociocultural borders—oftentimes all in the same day. And not always with ease, but criss-crossing nevertheless. 

We were made for this moment! 😁

Additionally, culture has an inherent transformative power that enables individuals and communities to reclaim their agency via storytelling, poetry, and multiple forms of artistic expression, and reinterpretation of dominant narratives. 

The larger point for U.S. society and the world is that instead of running away from culture—that is arguably moving at breakneck speed without anyone's permission—our task as the denizens and caretakers of future generations is to embrace ambiguity, irony, and an ongoing subversion of symbolic orders.

We must also be humble and willing to live with uncertainty. It's good for us all that culture resists simplification and censorship. Moreover, the power of culture, combined with the ease of technology we enjoy today is that alternative perspectives and suppressed histories will undoubtedly, if stubbornly, find a voice.

Separately, as researcher and teacher of teachers, future policymakers, and future school leaders, my main concern is that we not forget about decades of research that views teachers as the crucial link between culture and learning, especially for minoritized students. This basic understanding is ever the more important because our nation is only becoming more culturally and linguistically diverse while the teacher workforce is predominantly white.

Regardless of race, ethnicity, or color, the teacher workforce would do well to step back, reflect, and look at how racial and ethnic relations on the campus or school ground are always informed by cultural exchanges and power dynamics that shape not just student, but teacher, experiences, opportunities, and sense of belonging. This is something captured well in Vivian Paley's classic text White Teacher. Acknowledging these influences, educators can foster more diverse, inclusive, and equitable learning environments.

Do heed this core idea: Cultural exchange, reinterpretation, and hybridity weaken the grip of censorship by making it difficult for any single authority to fully control meaning. This dynamic nature of culture creates opportunities for resistance, dialogue, and the continual evolution of thought, which can and will erode the power of censorship over time.

Successful school leaders and teachers adapt their communication styles to align with students' cultural backgrounds. Theirs is ideally also, always, an ongoing project of building trust and community. 

For the rest of us, yes, let's challenge censorship and censorious policies and practices. However, let's all still live our best lives, everybody, no matter what.

Can't let any of this get us down. I know I don't have time for this and imagine you don't either. See you in Nepantla! 🩷

-Angela Valenzuela

References

Anzaldúa, G. (2004). Borderlands/la frontera. Aunt Lute Books.

Bhabha, H. K. (2012). The location of culture. Routledge.

Chávez, M. S. (2015). Let’s meet in Nepantla: The possibility of third space as a place “others” call home. Journal of Latinos and Education, 14(4), 336-344.

Paley, V. G. (2000). White teacher. Harvard University Press.

Pérez, E. (1999). The decolonial imaginary: Writing Chicanas into history. Indiana University Press.

***

These Words Are Disappearing in the New Trump Administration

By Karen Yourish, Annie Daniel, Saurabh Datar, Isaac White and Lazaro Gamio 

March 7, 2025

As President Trump seeks to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives, agencies have flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid, according to a compilation of government documents.

Reporting was contributed by Julian Barnes, Christopher Flavelle, Dylan Freedman, Apoorva Mandavilli, Katrina Miller and Nicholas Nehamas. See more on: U.S. Politics, Donald Trump



Notes: Some terms listed with a plus sign represent combinations of words that, when used together, acknowledge transgender people, which is not in keeping with the current federal government’s position that there are only two, immutable sexes. Any term collected above was included on at least one agency’s list, which does not necessarily imply that other agencies are also discouraged from using it.

The above terms appeared in government memos, in official and unofficial agency guidance and in other documents viewed by The New York Times. Some ordered the removal of these words from public-facing websites, or ordered the elimination of other materials (including school curricula) in which they might be included.

In other cases, federal agency managers advised caution in the terms’ usage without instituting an outright ban. Additionally, the presence of some terms was used to automatically flag for review some grant proposals and contracts that could conflict with Mr. Trump’s executive orders.

The list is most likely incomplete. More agency memos may exist than those seen by New York Times reporters, and some directives are vague or suggest what language might be impermissible without flatly stating it.

All presidential administrations change the language used in official communications to reflect their own policies. It is within their prerogative, as are amendments to or the removal of web pages, which The Times has found has already happened thousands of times in this administration.

Still, the words and phrases listed here represent a marked — and remarkable — shift in the corpus of language being used both in the federal government’s corridors of power and among its rank and file. They are an unmistakable reflection of this administration’s priorities.

For example, the Trump administration has frequently framed diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as being inherently at odds with what it has identified as “merit,” and it has argued that these initiatives have resulted in the elevation of unqualified or undeserving people. That rhetorical strategy — with its baked-in assumption of a lack of capacity in people of color, women, the disabled and other marginalized groups — has been criticized as discriminatory.

Indeed, in some cases, guidance against a term’s usage has arrived alongside directives intended to eliminate the concept itself. Federal diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are one example; the Gulf of Mexico is a very different one.

That shift is already apparent on hundreds of federal government websites. A New York Times analysis of pages on federal agency websites, before and after Mr. Trump took office, found that more than 250 contained evidence of deletions or amendments to words included in the above list.

Here are some notable examples. Words that have been removed are shown in red with strikethroughs, and words that have been added are in green with underlines.

Federal Aviation Administration’s job page

National Park Service’s Stonewall National Monument web page




2021 Head Start memo

Key topics page of State Department’s Office of Global Change



The total number of web pages identified by The Times as having changed is an undercount. The analysis involved searching for changes on more than 5,000 total pages, but it did not capture the entire universe of the federal government’s web presence. In addition, the pages were captured for comparison in early February, and more changes may have been made between then and now.

The president and some of his closest advisers, including Elon Musk, have frequently portrayed themselves as champions of free speech. One of the executive orders Mr. Trump signed on his first day back in office decried what it described as a pressure campaign by the Biden administration to stifle First Amendment rights “in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate,” by way of putting pressure on tech platforms. “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society,” it continued.

Indeed, the office of the presidency carries with it a tremendous power to drive the discourse. But the pattern of vanishing words established here suggests Mr. Trump and his administration may be more interested in chilling the national conversation — at least when it comes to their own disfavored topics — than in expanding it.

Are you a federal worker? We want to hear from you.

The Times would like to hear about your experience as a federal worker under the second Trump administration. We may reach out about your submission, but we will not publish any part of your response without contacting you first.


NOTE: PLEASE GO TO THIS ARTICLE TO TELL YOUR STORY TO THE NY TIMES 

The Trump Administration’s First 100 Days

---

• Speech at the Justice Department: President Trump repeated a number of well-trodden falsehoods in a grievance-fueled speech at the Justice Department. Here’s a fact-check.

• Attacks on Law Firms: Trump opened a third attack against a private law firm, restricting its business activities just days after a federal judge ruled such measures appeared to violate the Constitution.

• Aid Cuts Threaten Refugees’ Survival: The Trump administration’s freeze on aid has overwhelmed humanitarian response at a time when multiple conflicts rage, with aid agencies working feverishly to fill the void left by the U.S. government.

• Arlington National Cemetery: Materials on the cemetery's website highlighting the graves of Black and female service members have vanished as the Trump administration purges government websites of references to diversity and inclusion.

• Pentagon Office Focused on Future Wars: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the shuttering of the Office of Net Assessment, a small, often secretive and sometimes opaque office that for more than 50 years has helped the Pentagon’s most senior leaders think about the future of war.

• Leak Investigations: The Trump administration has opened its first known investigations into what it called “politically motivated leaks,” fulfilling promises to pursue the sources of stories involving national security revelations.

• Travel Ban: The Trump administration is considering targeting the citizens of as many as 43 countries as part of a new ban on travel to the United States that would be broader than the restrictions imposed during Trump’s first term, according to officials familiar with the matter.

---

How We Report on the Trump Administration

Hundreds of readers asked about our coverage of the president. Times editors and reporters responded to some of the most common questions.

Related Content